Suspension of democracy ruled unlawful by Supreme Court | Parliament NOT prorogued | Election November?

gamerforever wrote:Bloody hope he doesn't get into power. He will screw over the middle classes.

As opposed to screwing over the whole country for decades (bar their super rich mates) like the Tories are currently trying to do?

How is a generic vote with an in/out question more democratic than a vote on the final terms of leaving?

I am no fan of Corbyn but that post is atrocious.

gamerforever wrote:Bloody hope he doesn't get into power. He will screw over the middle classes.

Because the lower and middle classes are doing so well out of a Tory government?

It might be better just coming out of europe and seeing what happens.

“Let’s point at gun at our heads and pull the trigger, I am sure there are no bullets in it!”

Surely it won't be as bad as people say?

Why? Because you don’t think it will or are you basing that on any evidence at all? The current government look like they want to take us to No Deal. And their own reports state just how bad it will be. There is no more “Project Fear” nonsense, these are the Brexiters OWN figures.

We have to leave even if a lot of people don't want to anymore.

We have to leave even if the public doesn’t want to anymore? Why?

Another vote would be good, but then is that democracy?

I would say voting is democracy yes. Do you think not voting is democracy? That doing something the majority do not want is democracy?

There should never have been a referendum

Agreed.

but we cannot go back now.

Yes we can.

gamerforever wrote:

Squinty wrote:Labour aren't going to win an election with Corbyn in charge. It ain't happening.

Bloody hope he doesn't get into power. He will screw over the middle classes.

It might be better just coming out of europe and seeing what happens. Surely it won't be as bad as people say? We have to leave even if a lot of people don't want to anymore. Another vote would be good, but then is that democracy? There should never have been a referendum, but we cannot go back now.

Corbyn will never be able to get his more radical 'tax the rich and business' policies through parliament. It just won't happen. If we are into mitigating risks, the risk of a no deal Tory Brexit would be far, far higher than the risk a Corbyn government would pose to the country.

I say this as a lapsed Corbyn supporter. Whilst I don't feel he is a leader in any shape or form, he presents a much lower risk to the country than a Tory Brexit.

Running another vote isn't democratic

One of the absolutely most frustrating things to come out of this nonsense... Purely as it stems from the whole "you lost get over it" bollocks...

Especially when the referendum itself was meant to be advisory but escalated into liars and buses...

If you have the same vote then sure it’s not entirely democratic, but were you to present no deal vs Chequers vs Remain, that’s democratic.

And if the referendum had been mandatory it would have been declared void due to illegal campaigning on the leave side. The only reason the courts didn't is because it was only advisory.

gamerforever wrote:It might be better just coming out of europe and seeing what happens. Surely it won't be as bad as people say?

What are you basing this optimism on?

We have to leave even if a lot of people don't want to anymore. Another vote would be good, but then is that democracy?

We don't have to do anything, and shouldn't do anything that would jeopardise the economy (including the middle classes). Nor should the decision be used to tear up constitutional norms for the benefit of a regressive, selfish core of hard right voters and politicians.

Nobody voted for what exiting the EU would look like and the idea that such an extreme, certainly negative change cannot be reversed via a confirmatory vote is nonsense.

Benzin wrote:Running another vote isn't democratic

One of the absolutely most frustrating things to come out of this nonsense... Purely as it stems from the whole "you lost get over it" bollocks...

Especially when the referendum itself was meant to be advisory but escalated into liars and buses...

It’s utterly insane that we now have a country where people think voting is undemocratic.

It’s terrifying just how easily manipulated people have become.

BTW Labour will likely not vote for an early election that's centred on No Deal now. Might force the government to try to amend electoral law, which needs to go through both houses, or amazingly call a vote of no confidence in itself.

gamerforever wrote:Bloody hope he doesn't get into power. He will screw over the middle classes.

Why do you think this? Based on his policies I think Corbyn is much more likely to inconvenience CEOs, landlords, and aristocrats than the working middle class. Even then his policies aren't like "seize the means of production", they're like "workers should have a right to stock options". The manifesto is basically Scandinavian style social democracy, nothing that should scare any normal working person.

gamerforever wrote:We have to leave even if a lot of people don't want to anymore. Another vote would be good, but then is that democracy? There should never have been a referendum, but we cannot go back now.

I think there's a lot of context wrapped up in the word "democracy". We have a representative democracy and we ran an advisory referendum (like a national opinion poll) which returned a 52-48 result. It had many regional majorities the other way (London and Cardiff; Bristol, Liverpool, Manchester, and so on; the whole of Scotland and Northern Ireland).

Is pandering to the most extreme members of "the 52%" democratic? It doesn't feel very democratic if you live in Scotland or Northern Ireland.

During the referendum it became clear that the way Leave gained momentum was by being all things to all people. If you wanted to be in the EEA, Leave offered that. If you wanted a customs union, Leave offered that. If you wanted a free trade agreement, Leave offered that ("it'll be easy!" they said). No Deal, well, that was Project Fear scaremongering. The Leave campaign told wild, outrageous lies about what a Leave vote represented. That kind of campaigning tactic is illegal, but British politics isn't built to handle politicians who are willing to just say anything and ignore the law, so even though it's been legally recognised that Leave cheated in the campaign nothing much came of it.

Is any of that democratic? I don't think so, I think democracy needs to be based on facts and truth, not marketing and lies.

The result came in that advised our representatives (at least the honest ones) is that the country was very split on the EU but leant slightly towards some form of not being an EU member any more. Those representatives went away for a few years and worked on a deal, and it turned out (as Remain were saying from the start!) that the EU were already giving us a sweet deal and our exit deal is shaping up a lot worse. Now our representatives in Parliament feel they can't pass it, because they know it's bad for the country, and that it's a very unpopular deal. Meanwhile, over the last few years, demographic changes (old folks dying, young folks turning 18) as well as changes in the discourse (people have seen our government are incompetent) mean that there might even be a majority for Remain now.

So many people in politics think it might be time to hold a second referendum, not a re-run of the first when no-one knew what Leave would look like, but based on the facts of the situation: do you want this bad deal, which is the best we can do, or should we just cancel the whole thing? Is that undemocratic? Leading Leave figures didn't use to think so. Before the result Farage said he would fight for a second referendum if Leave lost; Rees-Mogg said that even if Leave won we should have a second referendum on the terms of the deal. They've changed their minds because they think they will lose. I think a second referendum (hopefully) based on everyone getting their facts straight would be far more democratic than the first one was, because no-one would be tricked or lied to.

Moggy wrote:It’s utterly insane that we now have a country where people think voting is undemocratic.

It’s terrifying just how easily manipulated people have become.

Stop bein such a reMOANer pmsl y cant peeople jus aksept dat dey lost n we one its democrasy leave means brexit ffs boris is gonna get us out othe eussR that;ll learn em brusell sprouts lmao

Karl_ wrote: I think a second referendum (hopefully) based on everyone getting their facts straight would be far more democratic than the first one was, because no-one would be tricked or lied to.

And you were doing so well right up until the end. Pandora's box is now open, there is literally no chance on earth that we'll get back to any kind of honesty in politics for a very long time. Lying gets you to the top, that's been proven in recent years and so they'll keep on doing it.

Rex Kramer wrote:

Karl_ wrote: I think a second referendum (hopefully) based on everyone getting their facts straight would be far more democratic than the first one was, because no-one would be tricked or lied to.

And you were doing so well right up until the end. Pandora's box is now open, there is literally no chance on earth that we'll get back to any kind of honesty in politics for a very long time. Lying gets you to the top, that's been proven in recent years and so they'll keep on doing it.

I totally agree with that, I don't think we will actually get a second referendum that is very honest. The Leave campaign will try to lie again, it's what they do. But in theory it's more democratic to have a referendum based on a choice of actual well-defined policy proposals that are down in writing somewhere. The first one was entirely about selling magic beans from the start.

You are right though, if I had my way we wouldn't have a state or politicians at all, but I start getting funny looks and called "extreme" when I say that, so I try to keep it inside.

Karl_ wrote:During the referendum it became clear that the way Leave gained momentum was by being all things to all people. If you wanted to be in the EEA, Leave offered that. If you wanted a customs union, Leave offered that. If you wanted a free trade agreement, Leave offered that ("it'll be easy!" they said). No Deal, well, that was Project Fear scaremongering. The Leave campaign told wild, outrageous lies about what a Leave vote represented. That kind of campaigning tactic is illegal, but British politics isn't built to handle politicians who are willing to just say anything and ignore the law, so even though it's been legally recognised that Leave cheated in the campaign nothing much came of it.

This is the really important part.

Leave had it easy when it came to campaigning. Neither Leave campaign were bothered about the law or telling the truth and they had a massive advantage as they could then say anything they wanted. Leave as a concept isn’t just one thing, it’s many many different things and the campaigns could then make all sorts of promises while also telling outrageous lies about the other side.

It is not democracy if the electorate has been lied to and/or mislead. Democracy depends on there being some semblance of truth in the promises made.

Imagine GRcade organised a forumite meet up and we had a vote on what food to have. I claim to know the greatest Italian restaurant in the world. I claim that it is cheap but also has the tastiest food, friendly staff, is clean etc etc. Somebody says they don’t like Italian food and so I tell them the restaurant will be happy to cook any other type of food that they like.

And after winning the vote it turns out that the food is actually a 3 week old pizza that I found out of my sofa.

Is eating mouldy pizza the democratic thing to do, or should you all tell me to strawberry float off and hold another vote on going to an actual restaurant?

Karl_ wrote:During the referendum it became clear that the way Leave gained momentum was by being all things to all people. If you wanted to be in the EEA, Leave offered that. If you wanted a customs union, Leave offered that. If you wanted a free trade agreement, Leave offered that ("it'll be easy!" they said). No Deal, well, that was Project Fear scaremongering. The Leave campaign told wild, outrageous lies about what a Leave vote represented. That kind of campaigning tactic is illegal, but British politics isn't built to handle politicians who are willing to just say anything and ignore the law, so even though it's been legally recognised that Leave cheated in the campaign nothing much came of it.

Is any of that democratic? I don't think so, I think democracy needs to be based on facts and truth, not marketing and lies.

The result came in that advised our representatives (at least the honest ones) is that the country was very split on the EU but leant slightly towards some form of not being an EU member any more. Those representatives went away for a few years and worked on a deal, and it turned out (as Remain were saying from the start!) that the EU were already giving us a sweet deal and our exit deal is shaping up a lot worse. Now our representatives in Parliament feel they can't pass it, because they know it's bad for the country, and that it's a very unpopular deal. Meanwhile, over the last few years, demographic changes (old folks dying, young folks turning 18) as well as changes in the discourse (people have seen our government are incompetent) mean that there might even be a majority for Remain now.

So many people in politics think it might be time to hold a second referendum, not a re-run of the first when no-one knew what Leave would look like, but based on the facts of the situation: do you want this bad deal, which is the best we can do, or should we just cancel the whole thing? Is that undemocratic? Leading Leave figures didn't use to think so. Before the result Farage said he would fight for a second referendum if Leave lost; Rees-Mogg said that even if Leave won we should have a second referendum on the terms of the deal. They've changed their minds because they think they will lose. I think a second referendum (hopefully) based on everyone getting their facts straight would be far more democratic than the first one was, because no-one would be tricked or lied to.

+++

Preezy wrote:

Moggy wrote:It’s utterly insane that we now have a country where people think voting is undemocratic.

It’s terrifying just how easily manipulated people have become.

Stop bein such a reMOANer pmsl y cant peeople jus aksept dat dey lost n we one its democrasy leave means brexit ffs boris is gonna get us out othe eussR that;ll learn em brusell sprouts lmao

You did well there but you didn’t mention “we survived WW2!!” and so I don’t believe you are actually a Leaver.

It's great trying to follow this topic across 3 different threads.

And another election. I think people are so sick and tired of everything to do with Brexit, elections, and politics in general, that turn out could be really low for this.

We (the people) voted to leave the European Union. Our elected representatives refused to carry out the will of the people.
Democracy went a long time ago.

Moggy wrote:

Preezy wrote:

Moggy wrote:It’s utterly insane that we now have a country where people think voting is undemocratic.

It’s terrifying just how easily manipulated people have become.

Stop bein such a reMOANer pmsl y cant peeople jus aksept dat dey lost n we one its democrasy leave means brexit ffs boris is gonna get us out othe eussR that;ll learn em brusell sprouts lmao

You did well there but you didn’t mention “we survived WW2!!” and so I don’t believe you are actually a Leaver.

for ffs an i woz typin dat from my anderson shelter n all, cant beleave i missed it pmsl wot am i like hun oh well we still one xoxo