UK voters should make final Brexit decision if talks with EU collapse: poll

[Sir Dude]

The referendum in 2016 was one about being for in or out....nothing about trade deals or soft brexit etc. which is just what the remoaners are trying to attach it all to in desperation. Many current politicians (from all parties) are traitors and a couple of generations ago would have been arrested for treason due to denying the will of the people.

 

[tebee]

26 minutes ago, rixalex said:

But you're not respecting their right to govern, you are trying to go back and get their GE win overturned because you don't like their policy. That's not how it works.

Bottom line is, you either support the enactment of a democratic vote as was clearly promised, regardless of whether you agree with it or not - in which case you're a democrat - or you don't support the enactment of a democratic vote and wish for it to be somehow subverted, ignored or swept under the carpet, because you think you know best - in which case you're not.

Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

no - again you don't understand how democracy works.

 

It means I can oppose any government, any policy I want, even if more people voted for it than the side I support. This is why we have representative democracy in the UK and things are never decided by referendum.  

 

You seem to be saying that once a vote as been had we can never change - so why do we have elections every 5 years ?

[Grouse]

35 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

Grouse, are you on the juice aready ? puns about onions and unions don't cut the mustard, bit cheesy actually ?

 

 

  1 hour ago, Grouse said:

We already won an opt out against "ever closer union"

48 minutes ago My Thai Life said

 

The "ever closer union" is not defined, so honestly I'd be surprised if we had in advance opted out of everything it might bring; I don't see how we could have done, even if we had wanted to. 

 

As you yourself have pointed out, different UK governments have taken diametrically opposite views of our relationship to the EU;  and there have been many positions taken in between those diametrical opposites.

 

Even if one UK government had come to that sort of agreement, I'm sure it would have been possible for the ensuing government to consider it as merely an interim agreement.

 

However, you seem to be making that point quite emphatically, so please let me know the how, who and when (don't worry about the why or where).

 

•  
•  
• Quote

I believe Cameron negotiated that on his European tour prior to the referendum. Just as we have opt outs from EVER joining the Euro or Schengen, we have or had the option to stay outside of any closer union. 

 

The onion was not not a pun but a metaphor. I can see the EU being reorganised in multiple layers. Orbits have been mentioned but an onion is better. We should remain inside the skin with most benefits but fewer disadvantages. ?

[tebee]

6 minutes ago, Sir Dude said:

The referendum in 2016 was one about being for in or out....nothing about trade deals or soft brexit etc. which is just what the remoaners are trying to attach it all to in desperation. Many current politicians (from all parties) are traitors and a couple of generations ago would have been arrested for treason due to denying the will of the people.

 

Calling people traitors for opposing your views is very dangerous grounds - you risk destroying the very democratic traditions you profess to uphold. 

 

So it was in or out - so would you accept the EEA solution? we are out of the EU then.

[Grouse]

8 minutes ago, Sir Dude said:

The referendum in 2016 was one about being for in or out....nothing about trade deals or soft brexit etc. which is just what the remoaners are trying to attach it all to in desperation. Many current politicians (from all parties) are traitors and a couple of generations ago would have been arrested for treason due to denying the will of the people.

 

Denying the will of the people? What are you? A Roundhead?

[tebee]

3 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I believe Cameron negotiated that on his European tour prior to the referendum. Just as we have opt outs from EVER joining the Euro or Schengen, we have or had the option to stay outside of any closer union. 

 

The onion was not not a pun but a metaphor. I can see the EU being reorganised in multiple layers. Orbits have been mentioned but an onion is better. We should remain inside the skin with most benefits but fewer disadvantages. ?

The onion is used as a description for a proposed EU future structure !

 

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228158997_The_European_Onion_How_Differentiated_Integration_is_Reshaping_the_EU

[Sir Dude]

6 minutes ago, tebee said:

So it was in or out - so would you accept the EEA solution? we are out of the EU then.

Try looking back into history to what we actually did sign up for...it was a free trade area, not the Borg collective...<deleted>. 

[Sir Dude]

20 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Denying the will of the people? What are you? A Roundhead?

Ah, the rabid remoaner that can't accept a democratic decision. No need for further comment...guess we are done here then.

Edited August 22, 2018 by Sir Dude
Typos

[The manic]

1 hour ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

I’m just sharing my personal experience. And don’t pretend to be surprised. Basically every poll analysis shows that those voting for Brexit, Le Pen, Wilders, AfD, Pis, Trump, etc. tend to share those similarities. 

The same people who in 2 world wars fought and died for their country. The same.people who pay taxes, who are an integral part of society.  Many people have not benefited from the EU. They have seen their wages driven down. They have seen their communities destroyed.  Whole swathes of the UK have seen no tangible benefit from EU membership.

[welovesundaysatspace]

18 minutes ago, The manic said:

Many people have not benefited from the EU. They have seen their wages driven down. They have seen their communities destroyed.  Whole swathes of the UK have seen no tangible benefit from EU membership.

The problem is that a good share of those people believe that is the EU’s fault and/or that leaving the EU will change their situation or that their situation would have been better without the EU. 

 

And at this point lower levels of education and intellectual capability in fact become relevant, because those people tend to be easier to manipulate by simple propaganda that is abusing their poor situation for a political goal. A reasonably smart person understands that just because there is A and there is B doesn’t mean that B was caused by A, and that there are not C and D that might have caused B. 

Edited August 22, 2018 by welovesundaysatspace

[sinbin]

12 minutes ago, The manic said:

They have seen their communities destroyed.  Whole swathes of the UK have seen no tangible benefit from EU membership.

Hence why after 40+ years of the EU we told them to stuff it. 

[sinbin]

2 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

The problem is that a good share of those people believe that is the EU’s fault and/or that leaving the EU will change their situation.

We only had a choice of two. Stay or leave. We decided to leave. Now stop the bleating and let democracy be seen to be done. 

[rixalex]

no - again you don't understand how democracy works.
 
It means I can oppose any government, any policy I want, even if more people voted for it than the side I support. This is why we have representative democracy in the UK and things are never decided by referendum.  
 
You seem to be saying that once a vote as been had we can never change - so why do we have elections every 5 years ?

No I'm not saying that once a vote has been had we can never change, I'm saying that a vote one way or the other, be it electing in a government as happens in a General Election, or be it voting on an issue of great national importance that parliament has itself voted in favour of being turned over to the people for them to decide, has to be implemented first, and then, if you don't like the government that was voted in or you don't like the result of the referendum, it's totally your prerogative to argue for another vote to be held.

Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[aright]

2 hours ago, Grouse said:

We should be driving change from within instead of messing around like this. We should be at the top in the EU instead of sulking off

I will ask the question again then. What electable political party should I vote for to effect reform of the EU?

[Stupooey]

33 minutes ago, Sir Dude said:

The referendum in 2016 was one about being for in or out....nothing about trade deals or soft brexit etc. which is just what the remoaners are trying to attach it all to in desperation. Many current politicians (from all parties) are traitors and a couple of generations ago would have been arrested for treason due to denying the will of the people.

 

 

15 minutes ago, Sir Dude said:

Ah, the rabid remoaner that can't accept a democratic decision. No need for further comment...guess we are done here then.

Remoaners? Have some pity, we're new to this moaning lark, we haven't got 40 years experience like you euroseptics (sic).

Will of the people? 37% of the electorate? Some will!

Decision? Is 52-48 decisive? Why, it's as near as you can get to 50-50 (apart from 51-49, that is).

 

[welovesundaysatspace]

1 minute ago, sinbin said:

Now stop the bleating

I’m afraid that’s my decision alone. Oh, and I’m not bleating. I fortunately won’t be affected by the UK’s idiocy. I’ll either be glad that the U.K. will stay or leave with a good deal, or enjoy Schadenfreude seeing Brexiteers reap what they sowed. 

 

1 minute ago, sinbin said:

and let democracy be seen to be done. 

I still hope democracy will intervene and stop this nonsense. 

[melvinmelvin]

14 minutes ago, Stupooey said:

 

Remoaners? Have some pity, we're new to this moaning lark, we haven't got 40 years experience like you euroseptics (sic).

Will of the people? 37% of the electorate? Some will!

Decision? Is 52-48 decisive? Why, it's as near as you can get to 50-50 (apart from 51-49, that is).

 

 

I would call 52 48 pretty decisive.

 

[whatsupdoc]

I will ask the question again then. What electable political party should I vote for to effect reform of the EU?

Assuming you are British, the answer is none. This is because you are leaving and will no longer be able to vote for the EU parliament.
And if you are eligible to vote you might want to take the effort yourself to find out what the different parties stand for. Why do you need ThaiVisa members to do that for you?

[sinbin]

15 minutes ago, welovesundaysatspace said:

I still hope democracy will intervene and stop this nonsense. 

That is not democracy. The only thing that can happen is for us to leave and let the remoaners have their wish of another referendum in 40+ years time. Similar to what I've had to suffer since voting NO in the 70's referendum.

[tebee]

24 minutes ago, rixalex said:

...., has to be implemented first,....

It doesn't - all referendums are advisory in the UK .

 

I may be politically expedient to implement though, but if it's going to be a disaster it may be equally politically expedient not  to implement 

[Stupooey]

22 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

I would call 52 48 pretty decisive.

 

On a show of hands in a room of 100 people, if 52 voted one way and 48 another, you would be hard pushed to know which side had prevailed without counting. In a decisive vote, there would be doubt at all.

Edited August 22, 2018 by Stupooey
Words omitted

[bristolboy]

25 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

I would call 52 48 pretty decisive.

 

Nigel Farage would disagree. At least once upon a time he would have disagreed.

[adammike]

12 minutes ago, tebee said:

It doesn't - all referendums are advisory in the UK .

 

I may be politically expedient to implement though, but if it's going to be a disaster it may be equally politically expedient not  to implement 

It was advisory untill the house of commons voted by a big majority to pass a law that made the  "leaving the EU bill" the law.

[adammike]

20 minutes ago, sinbin said:

That is not democracy. The only thing that can happen is for us to leave and let the remoaners have their wish of another referendum in 40+ years time. Similar to what I've had to suffer since voting NO in the 70's referendum.

Aah poor Snowflake.

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, adammike said:

It was advisory untill the house of commons voted by a big majority to pass a law that made the  "leaving the EU bill" the law.

No, It will always and forever be advisory. What isn't advisory and never has been advisory is legislation enacted by Parliament.

[My Thai Life]

How the remainers love this "advisory" angle. I doubt if any of them knew the legal status of referenda prior to the vote. And if they had won they wouldn't be shouting so loud about it being "advisory" of course. But it's not quite that simple. Take a look at the government's promise to "implement" the  "decision" of the electorate. This particular topic seems to be pretty much a non-issue except for the remainers on the forum clutching at straws. This angle isn't going to give you any traction I'm afraid.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited August 22, 2018 by My Thai Life

[bristolboy]

6 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

How the remainers love this "advisory" angle. I doubt if any of them knew the legal status of referenda prior to the vote.

Projecting much?

And Brexiters accuse the remainers of being snotty.

[mommysboy]

55 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

 

I would call 52 48 pretty decisive.

 

Not many would; it is decisive.

[tebee]

12 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

How the remainers love this "advisory" angle. I doubt if any of them knew the legal status of referenda prior to the vote. And if they had won they wouldn't be shouting so loud about it being "advisory" of course. But it's not quite that simple. Take a look at the government's promise to "implement" the  "decision" of the electorate. This particular topic seems to be pretty much a non-issue except for the remainers on the forum clutching at straws. This angle isn't going to give you any traction I'm afraid.

 

Anyone who knows how British democracy works  would know referendums have to be advisory, as parliament is supreme under our constitution.

 

And if you think we can change that constitution by sending out a leaflet then I don't think our democracy is worth fighting for.    

[welovesundaysatspace]

1 hour ago, sinbin said:

That is not democracy.

It would be as much democracy as the first referendum. Pretty stupid in my opinion, but if the UK wants democracy by referendum then be it. Just be consistent and don’t limit it to thr one decision/time that pleases you. That’s pretty anti-democratic. 

 

Quote

The only thing that can happen is for us to leave and let the remoaners have their wish of another referendum in 40+ years time.

Im sure there other possible outcomes, albeit less likely. 

 

Quote

Similar to what I've had to suffer since voting NO in the 70's referendum.

“suffer”. Lol.