Brexit: High Court judges to give legal verdict

[Donutz]

8 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

Really. Why don't then all elections get void every time a winner emerges. Lets go even further take it to by- elections. The whole point of the referendum was a simple in or out and the government respect the will (majority) of the people. It has been said countless times. If people can't accept such a basic principle then they should stop all voting, political parties, freedom of speech and just let the EU commission tell the UK and all the other European countries in it, what to do.

Why then bother with elections and simply have some referendums about topics such as 'shall we pay taxes' ,'shall we keep/lower the retirement age?','shall we strip muslims and women from the right to vote?', 'shall we re-introduce capital punishment?' etc. Or what if a referendum would be heald 'shall we remove Westminister and ler Brussels decide everything?"  and it won? Would be rather giant cluster f***s if you ask me to leave such imortant, draatic and long lasting effects to a glorified opinion poll, especially with the numbers this referendum had (very narrow decision to leave).

 

If the public really wants to leave confirming this via general elections should be nothing to worry about. I'm fine with the UK leaving if that is what they want, the majority decides afterall (though in a proper democracy the minorities on a certain subject win't be entirely screwed over to prevent dictatorship by majority). I do consider the Britons as close friends but if they leave it could actually make running the EU more easy and smoothly. So it's all fine with me but I'd simply wish to confirm that the British truely are doing what they think is best for them by having general elections to rule out that the referendum result was just a single day temperarure measurement and not actually representing what the public wants. 

 

Edit: thinking of it, introduce Shareira (however you may spell that) law if 30% of the electorat voted in favour of doing so by 51% ? Really don't even bother with having parlaiment having a say if that is truely what the public wants and does  not do the cpuntey unacceptable harm?

Edited November 9, 2016 by Donutz

[jpinx]

15 minutes ago, Donutz said:

Why then bother with elections and simply have some referendums about topics such as 'shall we pay taxes' ,'shall we keep/lower the retirement age?','shall we strip muslims and women from the right to vote?', 'shall we re-introduce capital punishment?' etc. Or what if a referendum would be heald 'shall we remove Westminister and ler Brussels decide everything?"  and it won? Would be rather giant cluster f***s if you ask me to leave such imortant, draatic and long lasting effects to a glorified opinion poll, especially with the numbers this referendum had (very narrow decision to leave).

 

If the public really wants to leave confirming this via general elections should be nothing to worry about. I'm fine with the UK leaving if that is what they want, the majority decides afterall (though in a proper democracy the minorities on a certain subject win't be entirely screwed over to prevent dictatorship by majority). I do consider the Britons as close friends but if they leave it could actually make running the EU more easy and smoothly. So it's all fine with me but I'd simply wish to confirm that the British truely are doing what they think is best for them by having general elections to rule out that the referendum result was just a single day temperarure measurement and not actually representing what the public wants. 

You can see the confirmation in the many official polls taken which have been quoted in these threads.  A majority of people have consistently said that they think the referendum result was correct.  Creating more and more requirement to "confirm" the result will cause voter-fatigue and fewer people will vote, leaving only the fanatics in charge  : (

[Laughing Gravy]

23 minutes ago, Donutz said:

Why then bother with elections and simply have some referendums about topics such as 'shall we pay taxes' ,'shall we keep/lower the retirement age?','shall we strip muslims and women from the right to vote?', 'shall we re-introduce capital punishment?' etc. Or what if a referendum would be heald 'shall we remove Westminister and ler Brussels decide everything?"  and it won? Would be rather giant cluster f***s if you ask me to leave such imortant, draatic and long lasting effects to a glorified opinion poll, especially with the numbers this referendum had (very narrow decision to leave).

 

If the public really wants to leave confirming this via general elections should be nothing to worry about. I'm fine with the UK leaving if that is what they want, the majority decides afterall (though in a proper democracy the minorities on a certain subject win't be entirely screwed over to prevent dictatorship by majority). I do consider the Britons as close friends but if they leave it could actually make running the EU more easy and smoothly. So it's all fine with me but I'd simply wish to confirm that the British truely are doing what they think is best for them by having general elections to rule out that the referendum result was just a single day temperarure measurement and not actually representing what the public wants. 

It was once again a simple question . In or out. Please respect the majority of peoples wishes. It didn't say if people vote remain or leave we should have a general election. It clearly said that the government will respect the result. if the referendum question was more difficult I might agree with you and have an election but it wasn't. Even if there was an election which I don't believe should happen, the majority would still want out.

 

If you think that running the EU will be easier great. What I think you are underestimating the impact it will have on the rest of the EU members. they want their vote. Basically ending the EU as it is.

[stevenl]

8 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

It was once again a simple question . In or out. Please respect the majority of peoples wishes. It didn't say if people vote remain or leave we should have a general election. It clearly said that the government will respect the result. if the referendum question was more difficult I might agree with you and have an election but it wasn't. Even if there was an election which I don't believe should happen, the majority would still want out.

 

If you think that running the EU will be easier great. What I think you are underestimating the impact it will have on the rest of the EU members. they want their vote. Basically ending the EU as it is.

But there you're completely wrong: "if the referendum question was more difficult I might agree with you ".

Nobody, absolutely nobody, knew what the result of a 'no' vote would be. It was therefor an impossible question, and should never have been asked in the first place.

[Laughing Gravy]

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

But there you're completely wrong: "if the referendum question was more difficult I might agree with you ".

Nobody, absolutely nobody, knew what the result of a 'no' vote would be. It was therefor an impossible question, and should never have been asked in the first place.

The question was shall we leave the EU or stay. Not about the result of it either way. It was asked and people voted in the referendum. please accept it, most other people are.

[nontabury]

8 minutes ago, stevenl said:

But there you're completely wrong: "if the referendum question was more difficult I might agree with you ".

Nobody, absolutely nobody, knew what the result of a 'no' vote would be. It was therefor an impossible question, and should never have been asked in the first place.

 

  You can say that about any election. What the politicians say on the doorstep,is not always the same as the policies they carry out.

   I keep asking myself what would have been the attitude of the Remoaners if the result had been the other way round.

[stevenl]

6 minutes ago, nontabury said:

 

  You can say that about any election. What the politicians say on the doorstep,is not always the same as the policies they carry out.

   I keep asking myself what would have been the attitude of the Remoaners if the result had been the other way round.

That is not the issue that I'm raising and that has been raised before.

 

This was simply an issue that should not have been asked in a 'referendum'.

[stevenl]

20 minutes ago, Laughing Gravy said:

The question was shall we leave the EU or stay. Not about the result of it either way. It was asked and people voted in the referendum. please accept it, most other people are.

Exactly. Asking a question without having any idea about the consequences of the answers should not be done.

Edited November 9, 2016 by stevenl

[Laughing Gravy]

1 minute ago, stevenl said:

Exactly. Asking a question without having any idea about the consequences should not be done.

If you say so. You will go far in politics.

[jpinx]

12 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Exactly. Asking a question without having any idea about the consequences of the answers should not be done.

UK electorate have the privilege of a vote.  With Privileges come responsibilities, in this case - to be sure you understand what you are voting for.  Since 72% of the electorate voted willingly, and since the result has been confirmed time and again subsequently - as referenced earlier in this and other threads, and since the government has accepted the result, any further doubts are more about a personal stance, not about the facts.

[stevenl]

15 minutes ago, jpinx said:

UK electorate have the privilege of a vote.  With Privileges come responsibilities, in this case - to be sure you understand what you are voting for.  Since 72% of the electorate voted willingly, and since the result has been confirmed time and again subsequently - as referenced earlier in this and other threads, and since the government has accepted the result, any further doubts are more about a personal stance, not about the facts.

Nonsense. Nobody knew the consequences of a 'no', so nobody knew what they were voting for. I have no doubts about the result at all, I just very much disagree with the principle.

[jpinx]

20 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Nonsense. Nobody knew the consequences of a 'no', so nobody knew what they were voting for. I have no doubts about the result at all, I just very much disagree with the principle.

You might not like the principle of a vote on a simple question, but does that not say more about your confidence in other people's ability to decide on what they want? 

Edited November 9, 2016 by jpinx

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, jpinx said:

You might not like the principle of a vote on a simple question, but does that not say more about your confidence in other people's ability to decide on what they want? 

It says more about me.

 

I should have known better than to have a discussion about principles here on TV.

[jpinx]

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

It says more about me.

 

I should have known better than to have a discussion about principles here on TV.

What principle has been violated, or mis-applied?

[stevenl]

13 minutes ago, jpinx said:

What principle has been violated, or mis-applied?

That's what I mean, thanks for underlining my point.

[jpinx]

3 hours ago, stevenl said:

That's what I mean, thanks for underlining my point.

A lack of dialogue means that things never get resolved, so I'm reaching out here......

[Donutz]

7 hours ago, Laughing Gravy said:

It was once again a simple question . In or out. Please respect the majority of peoples wishes. It didn't say if people vote remain or leave we should have a general election. It clearly said that the government will respect the result. if the referendum question was more difficult I might agree with you and have an election but it wasn't. Even if there was an election which I don't believe should happen, the majority would still want out.

 

If you think that running the EU will be easier great. What I think you are underestimating the impact it will have on the rest of the EU members. they want their vote. Basically ending the EU as it is.

But both the effects and the answers are not simple. Anything can be reduced to a simple yes/no question but that says nothing about what path to take or where you might end up. I'd also think it would be important to the Brexit voters to find a concensus on what other path to take now the public (which may or may not be an actual majority which want out the EU) wamt to to take. So I'd either have new elections, which shouldn't be anything to fear if the UK people indeed by majority wish to leave the EU. Or if that is not an option for some bizare reason, have a new referendum on what kind of deal the negotiators should agree on with the EU. All this is much more complex than a simple 'no'.

 

 

[jpinx]

29 minutes ago, Donutz said:

But both the effects and the answers are not simple. Anything can be reduced to a simple yes/no question but that says nothing about what path to take or where you might end up. I'd also think it would be important to the Brexit voters to find a concensus on what other path to take now the public (which may or may not be an actual majority which want out the EU) wamt to to take. So I'd either have new elections, which shouldn't be anything to fear if the UK people indeed by majority wish to leave the EU. Or if that is not an option for some bizare reason, have a new referendum on what kind of deal the negotiators should agree on with the EU. All this is much more complex than a simple 'no'.

 

 

Brexit was never going to be a "simple" process - everyone knows that. Considerably more people turned out to vote in the referendum than in the previous General Election --  indicating that people had considered the options and made a choice. The referendum was always going to be a Yes/No choice, as had the Scottish referendum. 

 

No-one was expecting a multiple choice ballot, it would have been impossible to put all the options on there and anything that was missed would have been pounced on by the naysayers as "invalidating" the process. As has been discussed in here many times - MP's are elected to represent the people in their constituency.  If an MP finds it intolerable to represent a stance he is not committed to, he should resign, or be sacked by his constituents, and a by-election run.  Cameron was the only one who resigned.  Presumably all the rest think they can accommodate the wishes of their constituents.  Their job depends on it, if they want to be able to stand again at the next GE.  

 

Prior to the referendum there had been numerous polls on Brexit giving a slightly better then 50/50 vote in favour of remaining, so the small swing on the actual polling day was not a huge change, indicating that people had been thinking pretty much the same way for some time and were not really influenced by the hype of the campaigns on either side.

 

In any situation where confrontational politics is involved there are always winners and losers, but it would be really cool if the winners were magnanimous enough to extend a helping hand to the losers and look for ways to help them where possible, and the losers were gracious enough to accept that olive branch.