Thousands marching through London to protest against the decision to leave EU
176 replies, posted
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50635740]Of which, when they were in the EU, they agreed with 98% of them
so not sure how that even mattered as an argument in the first place as a reason to leave because it really isn't.
every major "Leave" campaign promise was a lie.[/QUOTE]
From what I understand the main catalyst for this was the Primacy of EU Law over National Law, and the EU having the ability to overrule National Courts in non-economic and domestic areas, with the main kicker being the Immigration crisis where after Merkel invited all the refugees to come to Germany, she realized there were too many and tried to use the EU to force the member states into a quota system to take the refugees off her hands after trying to get the EU to punish various member states for trying to secure their borders.
[QUOTE=Knurr;50635746]But the majority decided. In democratic country. These protests are meaningless. Thay may be lod but they are still MINORITY.[/QUOTE]
the referendum isn't legally binding so it can be still overturned
the hope is that the more protests and problems mount up, the more attempts to veto and block or delay it by the remain camp in the country, means a better chance of avoiding it entirely
i mean things aren't settled until article 50 is triggered.
[QUOTE=Knurr;50635746]But the majority decided. In democratic country. These protests are meaningless. Thay may be lod but they are still MINORITY.[/QUOTE]
Oh yes, the overwhelming majority of 1.9% (not counting undecided) of people who may or may not have [URL="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/im-full-of-regret---extraordinary-moment-brexit-voter-changes-he/"]changed their opinions[/URL] after realizing the shitshow that is the leave campaign
I believe that if the UK goes there will be trouble, but if they stay it will be double
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50635732]If by some miracle UKIP managed to be the majority in population and in whatever form of representation is best, I wouldn't support it but fuck it, it's their choice. I'm not saying they can't make the choices they want to make, as much as you and anyone else on your side of the argument would like to. I don't believe the people arguing against this are against democracy, as much as that is the argument many people on your side of this argument seem to be leading with.
It's trite.
I do not know how to make a better system. I'm not sure how one does that. I'm not sure how to make this any clearer though, but a [B]direct democracy via referendum is not a good form of democracy, and is clearly not representative of the populous[/B] so please stop twisting that to mean something else or leaving out the fact a direct democracy via a referendum is different than an election system.[/QUOTE]
I just fail to see how much superior pure representative democracy would be to adding in direct democracy through referendums when it's clear that both systems allow for a tyranny of the majority.
Switzerland constantly have a ton of referendums and they consistently rank as one of the best countries in the world with regards to democracy, human rights, economics and so on. Direct democracy does not seem to equal bad decisionmaking.
My general impression is that a part (obviously not everyone) on the remain side talk about a second referendum, ignoring the referendum and so on are people who are simply not happy that they did not get their way. This is not directed at you personally but rather a vocal part of the remain side.
[QUOTE=gokiyono;50635804]Oh yes, the large majority of 1.9% (not counting undecided) of people who may or may not have [URL="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/im-full-of-regret---extraordinary-moment-brexit-voter-changes-he/"]changed their opinions[/URL] after realizing the shitshow that is the leave campaign[/QUOTE]
It was 3.78%, that's 1,269,501 Million people, more than the population of Birmingham.
[QUOTE=Folstream;50635822]I just fail to see how much superior pure representative democracy would be to adding in direct democracy through referendums when it's clear that both systems allow for a tyranny of the majority.
Switzerland constantly have a ton of referendums and they consistently rank as one of the best countries in the world with regards to democracy, human rights, economics and so on. Direct democracy does not seem to equal bad decisionmaking.
My general impression is that a part (obviously not everyone) on the remain side talk about a second referendum, ignoring the referendum and so on are people who are simply not happy that they did not get their way. This is not directed at you personally but rather a vocal part of the remain side.[/QUOTE]
A lot of people don't want it because it gives nothing positive to anyone except the ultra rich.
It's literally JUST for them. Everyone else is harmed, even the pro leavers aren't getting anything out of it. It's hard to justify a referendum that was based on misinformation and lies and backpeddled the MINUTE they won.
[QUOTE=Broseph_;50635831]It was 3.78%, that's 1,269,501 Million people, more than the population of Birmingham.[/QUOTE]
Well fuck me then. That's still a pretty underwhelming overwhelming majority that may or may not have changed their minds after the shitshow etc etc
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50635832]A lot of people don't want it because it gives nothing positive to anyone except the ultra rich.
It's literally JUST for them. Everyone else is harmed, even the pro leavers aren't getting anything out of it. It's hard to justify a referendum that was based on misinformation and lies and backpeddled the MINUTE they won.[/QUOTE]
Frankly both sides spent a great deal of time scaremongering.
The most convincing arguments I have heard have not been with regards to economics and frankly I don't know what would long term be better for the British economy. I've kindof heard people arguing for both sides.
What is most convincing for me is the principles of national sovereignty and self-determination. The EU is moving in the direction of becoming a federal state and I think it's very much a valid argument if one would not want to be a part of that. Obviously you can't magically escape all EU legislation and trade rules just by leaving but at the very least you retain a much greater deal of national sovereignty compared to becoming a state in the European Federation.
[QUOTE=Folstream;50635863]Frankly both sides spent a great deal of time scaremongering.
The most convincing arguments I have heard have not been with regards to economics and frankly I don't know what would long term be better for the British economy. I've kindof heard people arguing for both sides.
What is most convincing for me is the principles of national sovereignty and self-determination. The EU is moving in the direction of becoming a federal state and I think it's very much a valid argument if one would not want to be a part of that. Obviously you can't magically escape all EU legislation and trade rules just by leaving but at the very least you retain a much greater deal of national sovereignty compared to becoming a state in the European Federation.[/QUOTE]
except they don't get any of that by leaving in any sense that they didn't have before.
The UK agreed to 98% of the laws the EU proposed.
The economics of it are purely bad on the leave side. The UK is not in a position to go it alone as an island. They rely on the financial industry, which has said "Fuck this" to the referendum.
The EU is not becoming a federalist state. Not even close.
I find it really ironic that the UK keeps clamoring about more sovereignty and such when they were the ones who were getting special treatment every time they felt what the other members got wasn't advantageous enough. You guys want to eat your cake and have it too, guess this time you'll just have none.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50635879]except they don't get any of that by leaving in any sense that they didn't have before.
The UK agreed to 98% of the laws the EU proposed.
The economics of it are purely bad on the leave side. The UK is not in a position to go it alone as an island. They rely on the financial industry, which has said "Fuck this" to the referendum.
The EU is not becoming a federalist state. Not even close.[/QUOTE]
Maybe not tomorrow, but that's the direction that they are moving in and it's pretty clear that it's the long term ambition of the EU leadership when you listen to the way they talk about the EU-project. Just alone the step to have a single currency is a pretty big step in that direction.
It's not like Brussels have been losing power to the individual nation states for every year that is passing by, rather, more power is being moved from national parliaments to Brussels.
I love Europe but I don't want to move decisionmaking so far away from myself, especially when it's not clear if I can even vote to remove those who are in power.
[QUOTE=Folstream;50635930]Maybe not tomorrow, but that's the direction that they are moving in and it's pretty clear that it's the long term ambition of the EU leadership when you listen to the way they talk about the EU-project. Just alone the step to have a single currency is a pretty big step in that direction.
It's not like Brussels have been losing power to the individual nation states for every year that is passing by, rather, more power is being moved from national parliaments to Brussels.
I love Europe but I don't want to move decisionmaking so far away from myself, especially when it's not clear if I can even vote to remove those who are in power.[/QUOTE]
Countries and nationalism are dying concepts even if there's a surge in nationalism right now. They're useless in our future unless we want to repeat out past. Unless we want to keep having decades of pointless wars and conflicts, larger governments are going to be a thing. I get that's scary, but I don't think it means we as citizens are losing out on democracy by definition.
The EU curbed the wars of the one of the most war torn areas of human geography through trade and politics and now we're watching modern politicians trying to throw it away. What for? To go back to old concepts based on pride and little more than pride or similar concepts? To go back to war? As far as I can tell, that's what it seems you're after. Diplomacy is a lot harder to have without common ground and if you're for dismantling the EU, then I can't see how you can want more diplomacy
[QUOTE=Kyle902;50635678]Accepting the result of a referendum without a 60%+ majority is on a completely different level.[/QUOTE]
That would be an argument if the referendum had those rules set, which they weren't. If they had set the majority rules needed for each side, then this wouldn't of been a problem, but they didn't.
[QUOTE=Broseph_;50634592]And guess what? The UK voted to leave the EU.
You can't vote to remain in a Union then complain about that Union when it doesn't go your way.
If it's so bad, have a new referendum on Independence since apparently the Union isn't working out for you guys, and there's nothing to lose now since Scotland is getting kicked out of the E.U. independent or not.[/QUOTE]
Yes you can when the UK promised that an independent Scotland would never have a spot in the EU and by leaving the UK they were effectively leaving the EU, now the UK has flipped and is leaving the EU. You can say the stay campaign was very much pro EU
I cant believe people believe representation has a stand on a dichotomy....
I really don't understand this attitude that another vote or change of tactics due to an election is somehow "undemocratic". It's more democracy. Rather than placing the referendum electorate's decision on a pedestal as some kind of sacred promise, where any decision that opposes it is anti-democracy in it's purest form and an ideological travesty, we should be listening to the will of the people who are still disenfranchised and unrepresented.
It's not bloody football, where whomever wins wins and who cares what the other team thinks, it's the government and future of a nation.
I just don't see the use in sticking to one god awful idea when it's clear that even if economically viable (which every expert has told us it won't be), even if this isn't the thing that splinters the UK forever (when at the very least Scotland is leaving for sure), even if everything works out okay, 48% of the electorate are completely ignored, and everything the leave voters were promised doesn't happen anyway.
[QUOTE=Menien Goneld;50637501]I really don't understand this attitude that another vote or change of tactics due to an election is somehow "undemocratic". It's more democracy. Rather than placing the referendum electorate's decision on a pedestal as some kind of sacred promise, where any decision that opposes it is anti-democracy in it's purest form and an ideological travesty, we should be listening to the will of the people who are still disenfranchised and unrepresented.
[/QUOTE]
Not sure how having another democratic vote to override the previous democratic vote would be considered democratic, if so, we could have another democratic vote to determine the outcome of that democratic vote and so on and so forth.
The thing is, we are listening to them, but they are asking to stay in the EU, when the vote was to Remain or Leave the European Union. If they were protesting for continuing to allow immigrants/open borders, then ok. But the issue is Remain or Leave are very solid decisions thus its hard to listen to the "will of the people who are still disenfranchised and unrepresented." if the will of the people voted out, some of them, because they felt disenfranchised and unrepresented by Brussels.
[QUOTE=Menien Goneld;50637501]
It's not bloody football, where whomever wins wins and who cares what the other team thinks, it's the government and future of a nation.
I just don't see the use in sticking to one god awful idea when it's clear that even if economically viable (which every expert has told us it won't be), even if this isn't the thing that splinters the UK forever (when at the very least Scotland is leaving for sure), even if everything works out okay, 48% of the electorate are completely ignored, and everything the leave voters were promised doesn't happen anyway.[/QUOTE]
The government has been given the task, the will of the people to move ahead with Article 50, I'm not sure how we would represent the 48% in a situation like this unless we override the 52%.
[QUOTE=Boilrig;50637849]Not sure how having another democratic vote to override the previous democratic vote would be considered democratic, if so, we could have another democratic vote to determine the outcome of that democratic vote and so on and so forth.
The thing is, we are listening to them, but they are asking to stay in the EU, when the vote was to Remain or Leave the European Union. If they were protesting for continuing to allow immigrants/open borders, then ok. But the issue is Remain or Leave are very solid decisions thus its hard to listen to the "will of the people who are still disenfranchised and unrepresented." if the will of the people voted out, some of them, because they felt disenfranchised and unrepresented by Brussels.[/QUOTE]
Because the Leave campaign was exposed for the sham it was, all the promises they made were exposed as lies, and even the campaign leaders didn't want their side to win the vote. Most leave voters with brain cells left have probably changed their mind by now, so a new referendum or elections would probably be in favor of remain.
The point is to have a result that's representative of the people [I]now[/I] rather than before they were actually informed about the choice they're making.
[IMG]http://imgur.com/qDu7EUl[/IMG]
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Reaction image / why reply?" - Bradyns))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Boilrig;50637849]Not sure how having another democratic vote to override the previous democratic vote would be considered democratic, if so, we could have another democratic vote to determine the outcome of that democratic vote and so on and so forth.
The thing is, we are listening to them, but they are asking to stay in the EU, when the vote was to Remain or Leave the European Union. If they were protesting for continuing to allow immigrants/open borders, then ok. But the issue is Remain or Leave are very solid decisions thus its hard to listen to the "will of the people who are still disenfranchised and unrepresented." if the will of the people voted out, some of them, because they felt disenfranchised and unrepresented by Brussels.[/QUOTE]
Don't look upon further democratic action purely as a means to override previous democratic action. It's true that it does seem disingenuous to have a 'do-over' referendum, but there has to be a better solution because at the minute there is widespread public unrest, and in regards to Scotland, a vote to leave the UK seems inevitable. I think that enough has changed for there to be a change in the will of the people. Non-voters who felt that a remain win was inevitable will get another chance to vote, Leave voters swayed by false promises will see those for what they are, and may reconsider. You also have all the people who felt they didn't know enough, and as such didn't vote. Maybe they thought things wouldn't change so it wouldn't matter, but this result will spur them into action.
It's not an ideal situation, and personally I think a minimum majority should have been set. 52% is barely a majority for such a major decision, and I think that we should be looking for a way to remedy that mistake. I don't think we should hold votes until we get the answer we want, but I do think in this particular mess, a 'confirmation' or 'are you sure' referendum wouldn't be out of place.
[quote]
The government has been given the task, the will of the people to move ahead with Article 50, I'm not sure how we would represent the 48% in a situation like this unless we override the 52%.[/quote]
The government is at the mercy of its people. It's all well and good to say, "well I just don't see a compromise so GG better luck next time", but if we ignore 48% of the electorate, it won't be forgotten. No good can come from such inaction, and while I'm not saying 'we gotta revolt, all hail the King in the North!', striding into such uncertain times without the proper support of the populace is a recipe for disaster.
[QUOTE=_Axel;50637866]Because the Leave campaign was exposed for the sham it was, all the promises they made were exposed as lies, and even the campaign leaders didn't want their side to win the vote. Most leave voters with brain cells left have probably changed their mind by now, so a new referendum or elections would probably be in favor of remain.
The point is to have a result that's representative of the people [I]now[/I] rather than before they were actually informed about the choice they're making.[/QUOTE]
I too wish I could go back in time and choose do something different. If only I could ask for a redo of my lottery ticket.
[QUOTE=Menien Goneld;50637990]Don't look upon further democratic action purely as a means to override previous democratic action. It's true that it does seem disingenuous to have a 'do-over' referendum, but there has to be a better solution because at the minute there is widespread public unrest, and in regards to Scotland, a vote to leave the UK seems inevitable. I think that enough has changed for there to be a change in the will of the people. Non-voters who felt that a remain win was inevitable will get another chance to vote, Leave voters swayed by false promises will see those for what they are, and may reconsider. You also have all the people who felt they didn't know enough, and as such didn't vote. Maybe they thought things wouldn't change so it wouldn't matter, but this result will spur them into action.
It's not an ideal situation, and personally I think a minimum majority should have been set. 52% is barely a majority for such a major decision, and I think that we should be looking for a way to remedy that mistake. I don't think we should hold votes until we get the answer we want, but I do think in this particular mess, a 'confirmation' or 'are you sure' referendum wouldn't be out of place.
[/QUOTE]
I agree, a minimum majority should have been set, I personally believe that was an oversight by Cameron who didn't think they could possibly lose. But once again, you are suggesting a 'do-over' referendum. What the 42% should be doing, is voting that government out and clear out the entire lot of them. That won't stop Article 50, but atleast it will be a new government.
[QUOTE=Menien Goneld;50637990]
The government is at the mercy of its people. It's all well and good to say, "well I just don't see a compromise so GG better luck next time", but if we ignore 48% of the electorate, it won't be forgotten. No good can come from such inaction, and while I'm not saying 'we gotta revolt, all hail the King in the North!', striding into such uncertain times without the proper support of the populace is a recipe for disaster.[/QUOTE]
The government is at the mercy of its people, and those people voted Leave. Of course it won't be forgotten, but neither would ignoring the 52%. Ignoring a referendum result would bring more damage than those on the streets asking to stay in the EU realize. The population needs to pull together as it has in hard times before and work through this, this is the hand you have been dealt, work with it for the benefit of your country or don't and stand silently.
Even though I think it's a bad idea for them to leave the EU, Brexit did win the democratic way fair and square.
[QUOTE=Boilrig;50638063]
I agree, a minimum majority should have been set, I personally believe that was an oversight by Cameron who didn't think they could possibly lose. But once again, you are suggesting a 'do-over' referendum. What the 42% should be doing, is voting that government out and clear out the entire lot of them. That won't stop Article 50, but atleast it will be a new government[/quote]
Well actually, a new government, if brought into power via general election, would be perfectly capable of 'stopping', or more accurately not invoking Article 50. If no Brexit was part of their running platform, then it's the will of the people to stay in the EU. A more recent vote has greater staying power than an older one, as people change their minds and the facts of the situation also change (or in some cases, become more apparent).
[quote]The government is at the mercy of its people, and those people voted Leave. Of course it won't be forgotten, but neither would ignoring the 52%. Ignoring a referendum result would bring more damage than those on the streets asking to stay in the EU realize. The population needs to pull together as it has in hard times before and work through this, this is the hand you have been dealt, work with it for the benefit of your country or don't and stand silently.[/QUOTE]
Not all of those people voted to leave, and if you agree with 52% not being a true majority, I don't see how you can represent the result otherwise. What we need to do is discover what's best for everyone, as this binary decision only seems to benefit the status quo or the right wing elite. That was my problem with the vote then and it's still a glaring issue. You can't ignore either side, what we need now is fresh political movement to address the real reasons for and against the EU. It's not likely to happen, but a vote between those parties with proper policies would lead to a far more favourable result for everyone over a yes/no decision. This is especially relevant considering that the "take back control!" argument falls down as soon as we need to actually negotiate, and it's the same self interested government doing the negotiating.
Also I can't help but find your comments about 'pulling together' and 'these are the cards you've been dealt' as nothing more than facile remarks. The situation is much more complicated than just getting up and dusting ourselves off, or whatever purely emotional phrases spring to mind.
[QUOTE=Boilrig;50638063]I too wish I could go back in time and choose do something different. If only I could ask for a redo of my lottery ticket.
I agree, a minimum majority should have been set, I personally believe that was an oversight by Cameron who didn't think they could possibly lose. But once again, you are suggesting a 'do-over' referendum. What the 42% should be doing, is voting that government out and clear out the entire lot of them. That won't stop Article 50, but atleast it will be a new government.
The government is at the mercy of its people, and those people voted Leave. Of course it won't be forgotten, but neither would ignoring the 52%. Ignoring a referendum result would bring more damage than those on the streets asking to stay in the EU realize. The population needs to pull together as it has in hard times before and work through this, this is the hand you have been dealt, work with it for the benefit of your country or don't and stand silently.[/QUOTE]
A referendum is a way of gauging public opinion on an issue. It's not voting on a specific piece of legislation. Comparing it to a lottery ticket is fucking stupid. Leaving or remaining in the EU is a major issue that divides people and you are going to have a lot of pissed off people if you just go one way or the other without any other changes. It will undoubtedly lead to the breakup of the UK.
If we leave the EU and stay in the EEA then what is the point of even leaving? We gain rather little over staying in and don't deal with many of the major issues of the leave side. If you leave both and abolish freedom of movement then half the population is still pissed off as you are breaking up families, denying the younger generations of many opportunities, and sending the economy down the shitter.
If we discarded the referendum and remained in and did nothing then you have a good chunk of the population pissed off as well. There's no black and white option here and even trying to suggest that "lol tough luck your side lost" as a reasonable option (regardless of which side had won) is outright dumb.
[QUOTE=Boilrig;50638063]I too wish I could go back in time and choose do something different. If only I could ask for a redo of my lottery ticket.[/QUOTE]
It's not about going back in time, it's about measuring the will of the people now that they are informed about the situation. Currently, contrary to what you keep claiming, the majority of the UK is probably against leaving the EU and a new referendum would be [I]more[/I] democratic considering it would be more accurate representation of the people's current opinion.
But it's not like I expected an intelligent response from you anyway. Keep comparing referendums with lottery, it's not like this bullshit is going to affect you, being on the other side of the world and all.
[QUOTE=Menien Goneld;50638109]Well actually, a new government, if brought into power via general election, would be perfectly capable of 'stopping', or more accurately not invoking Article 50. If no Brexit was part of their running platform, then it's the will of the people to stay in the EU. A more recent vote has greater staying power than an older one, as people change their minds and the facts of the situation also change (or in some cases, become more apparent). [/QUOTE]
If a new government came in on the promise of not invoking Article 50, yeah, that isn't going to go well at all. This is a done deal, other countries are already lined up and are probably in talks and the market has already been damaged enough. Even as much as people hate it, not doing it is even worse.
If a government came in, reversed the decision, I actually shudder at the thought of that happening for the future of the UK more than leaving the EU in that scenario. A political and democratic suicide at the same moment, how great that would be.
[QUOTE=Menien Goneld;50638109]
Not all of those people voted to leave, and if you agree with 52% not being a true majority, I don't see how you can represent the result otherwise. What we need to do is discover what's best for everyone, as this binary decision only seems to benefit the status quo or the right wing elite. That was my problem with the vote then and it's still a glaring issue. You can't ignore either side, what we need now is fresh political movement to address the real reasons for and against the EU. It's not likely to happen, but a vote between those parties with proper policies would lead to a far more favourable result for everyone over a yes/no decision. This is especially relevant considering that the "take back control!" argument falls down as soon as we need to actually negotiate, and it's the same self interested government doing the negotiating.
[/QUOTE]
I agree 52% is not a true majority, but unless those rules were written into the referendum, then it still goes ahead. While not binding, is basically binding. I believe if you could of negotiated with the EU, then it probably would of been fine, but we see how that went with Cameron, they aren't willing to move and it came to this.
A new political movement is great and all, but theres nothing to actually stop.
[QUOTE=Menien Goneld;50638109]
Also I can't help but find your comments about 'pulling together' and 'these are the cards you've been dealt' as nothing more than facile remarks. The situation is much more complicated than just getting up and dusting ourselves off, or whatever purely emotional phrases spring to mind.[/QUOTE]
But it is that simple in the long run, if everything had a chance of going to absolute shit, it would have, the fact that the FTSE in both 100 and 250 are stable show that there is interest in where the UK is going with this. But yes, these are the cards you have been dealt, is true. The UK can survive on its own fine, as well as provide a good life for its citizens.
[QUOTE=Morgen;50638117]A referendum is a way of gauging public opinion on an issue. It's not voting on a specific piece of legislation. Comparing it to a lottery ticket is fucking stupid. Leaving or remaining in the EU is a major issue that divides people and you are going to have a lot of pissed off people if you just go one way or the other without any other changes. It will undoubtedly lead to the breakup of the UK.[/QUOTE]
Comparing it to a lottery ticket is fine, you can't go back and change your mind in this situation. The public opinion has voted to Leave, the government has accepted that, and set it for the next government and the rest of the world is prepared for that as well as the EU. Even the EU states would be in an uproar if they found out Article 50 was ignored.
[QUOTE=Morgen;50638117]
If we leave the EU and stay in the EEA then what is the point of even leaving? We gain rather little over staying in and don't deal with many of the major issues of the leave side. If you leave both and abolish freedom of movement then half the population is still pissed off as you are breaking up families, denying the younger generations of many opportunities, and sending the economy down the shitter.[/QUOTE]
I can't comment on the outcome, as well know the French internal discussions are interesting and Germany manufacturing has appeared to support ensuring the market access is free. I most likely predict that the freedom of movement will get picked up by Commonwealth countries in the future to replace the lost EU ones. I feel sad for those families I do, and to those I suggest moving to be with them or otherwise.
[QUOTE=Morgen;50638117]
If we discarded the referendum and remained in and did nothing then you have a good chunk of the population pissed off as well. There's no black and white option here and even trying to suggest that "lol tough luck your side lost" as a reasonable option (regardless of which side had won) is outright dumb.[/QUOTE]
If you discarded the referendum, you would hurt UK democracy for ever more, as well as get hit in the markets as people suddenly find out the UK is a non-functioning democracy and that public trust will be run into the ground worse than anything before. This is black and white. Attempting to circumvent this will bring global outrage and things will be much worse.
[QUOTE=_Axel;50638130]It's not about going back in time, it's about measuring the will of the people now that they are informed about the situation. Currently, contrary to what you keep claiming, the majority of the UK is probably against leaving the EU and a new referendum would be [I]more[/I] democratic considering it would be more accurate representation of the people's current opinion.
But it's not like I expected an intelligent response from you anyway. Keep comparing referendums with lottery, it's not like this bullshit is going to affect you, being on the other side of the world and all.[/QUOTE]
"majority of the UK is probably against leaving the EU", "probably".
If not a lottery ticket, maybe a general election every time the public opinion turns against the current government. Sounds like a great top notch system.
To whether this will affect me? It will most likely in a positive way. When the UK disconnected itself from the rest of the world and joined the 'Common Market', my country had done a massive amount of trading with your country, we were basically thrown into the dirt by the UK and fell into massive debt. Yet here we are, sending over our own trade negotiators, not to help us negotiate with you, but for you to use them to help you negotiate with the rest of the countries lining up.
Honestly, its like my country has more faith in your country than you guys do. Comeon.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50636054][b]Countries and nationalism are dying concepts even if there's a surge in nationalism right now.[/b] They're useless in our future unless we want to repeat out past. Unless we want to keep having decades of pointless wars and conflicts, larger governments are going to be a thing. I get that's scary, but I don't think it means we as citizens are losing out on democracy by definition.
The EU curbed the wars of the one of the most war torn areas of human geography through trade and politics and now we're watching modern politicians trying to throw it away. What for? To go back to old concepts based on pride and little more than pride or similar concepts? To go back to war? As far as I can tell, that's what it seems you're after. Diplomacy is a lot harder to have without common ground and if you're for dismantling the EU, then I can't see how you can want more diplomacy[/QUOTE]
I was for the most part at least understanding your arguments in this thread and at some points almost even agreed with them, but this is where it got ridiculous. I don't know why FP seems to be filled with so many globalists but the idea that countries are dying concepts and that nationalism is a bad thing is just absurd. I don't know why people get the idea that you can't value your country more than others and still get along and cooperate with nations on the world stage.
[QUOTE=wystan;50638232]I was for the most part at least understanding your arguments in this thread and at some points almost even agreed with them, but this is where it got ridiculous. I don't know why FP seems to be filled with so many globalists but the idea that countries are dying concepts and that nationalism is a bad thing is just absurd. I don't know why people get the idea that you can't value your country more than others and still get along and cooperate with nations on the world stage.[/QUOTE]
Nationalism is a dangerous and outdated set of ideas that only lead to conflict, there is no benefit to making decisions based on such an idea. It also goes beyond "valuing your country," into a space where the expression of that idea becomes a problem. The wave of xenophobic abuse following the vote is an example of this.
Countries are almost a necessity, a collection of people with a common language, cultural standards and political opinions that might not be properly represented anywhere else, but to argue that nationalism is a good thing after all of the problems it has caused is where I draw the line.
[QUOTE=Boilrig;50638207]If a new government came in on the promise of not invoking Article 50, yeah, that isn't going to go well at all. This is a done deal, other countries are already lined up and are probably in talks and the market has already been damaged enough. Even as much as people hate it, not doing it is even worse.
If a government came in, reversed the decision, I actually shudder at the thought of that happening for the future of the UK more than leaving the EU in that scenario. A political and democratic suicide at the same moment, how great that would be.
I agree 52% is not a true majority, but unless those rules were written into the referendum, then it still goes ahead. While not binding, is basically binding. I believe if you could of negotiated with the EU, then it probably would of been fine, but we see how that went with Cameron, they aren't willing to move and it came to this.
A new political movement is great and all, but theres nothing to actually stop.
But it is that simple in the long run, if everything had a chance of going to absolute shit, it would have, the fact that the FTSE in both 100 and 250 are stable show that there is interest in where the UK is going with this. But yes, these are the cards you have been dealt, is true. The UK can survive on its own fine, as well as provide a good life for its citizens.
Comparing it to a lottery ticket is fine, you can't go back and change your mind in this situation. The public opinion has voted to Leave, the government has accepted that, and set it for the next government and the rest of the world is prepared for that as well as the EU. Even the EU states would be in an uproar if they found out Article 50 was ignored.
I can't comment on the outcome, as well know the French internal discussions are interesting and Germany manufacturing has appeared to support ensuring the market access is free. I most likely predict that the freedom of movement will get picked up by Commonwealth countries in the future to replace the lost EU ones. I feel sad for those families I do, and to those I suggest moving to be with them or otherwise.
If you discarded the referendum, you would hurt UK democracy for ever more, as well as get hit in the markets as people suddenly find out the UK is a non-functioning democracy and that public trust will be run into the ground worse than anything before. This is black and white. Attempting to circumvent this will bring global outrage and things will be much worse.
"majority of the UK is probably against leaving the EU", "probably".
If not a lottery ticket, maybe a general election every time the public opinion turns against the current government. Sounds like a great top notch system.
To whether this will affect me? It will most likely in a positive way. When the UK disconnected itself from the rest of the world and joined the 'Common Market', my country had done a massive amount of trading with your country, we were basically thrown into the dirt by the UK and fell into massive debt. Yet here we are, sending over our own trade negotiators, not to help us negotiate with you, but for you to use them to help you negotiate with the rest of the countries lining up.
Honestly, its like my country has more faith in your country than you guys do. Comeon.[/QUOTE]
I didn't even say we should disregard the referendum. Since it's so close the government has to decide what to do with it, and whatever they do must be done delicately. One wrong misstep and they become responsible for the breakup of the UK. Ultimately the referendum wasn't a yes or no to a piece of legislation, it is to guide the government on public opinion on the issue.
Freedom of movement with the commonwealth to replace that what we had with the EU... really? You have to be trolling. The commonwealth:
[thumb]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/Commonwealth_of_Nations.svg/2000px-Commonwealth_of_Nations.svg.png[/thumb]
The EU:
[thumb]http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/660/media/images/70233000/gif/_70233868_eunames.gif[/thumb]
I'm not an expert at geography but I'm pretty sure there's a massive difference in distance here that might make that a bit problematic and pointless to the UK. There's also a pretty big economic and political rift between many of those nations.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.