1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

General Election every two years

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by bulldog147, Nov 1, 2019.

  1. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 44,079

    ???? Of course it is, fundamentally it is about trying to reverse the result... otherwise why even campaign to hold it? Just accept that you lost the first one and stop trying to undermine the result.

    The nonsense about how it is supposedly just trying to check we still want it is pure BS as they're not going to try the same thing with a 3rd and a 4th and so on every 3 years on an ongoing basis if remain win a second. Not to mention the second might well be undermined as already described earlier.
     
  2. JRS

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jun 6, 2004

    Posts: 14,461

    Location: Burton-on-Trent

    [​IMG]

    But hey, you keep telling yourself that it's all about those dastardly Remoaners trying to overturn the Will Of The People™ and thwart your glorious Brexit. Whatever helps you sleep at night bud. Just know that when it inevitably blows up and y'all finally run out of people to blame except the ones who voted for this **** in the face of all the evidence of it being a bad idea, I'll be along to quietly point out that you were indeed warned that it was a bad idea :cool:
     
  3. Safetytrousers

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Mar 31, 2016

    Posts: 1,310

    Location: Moonbase Alpha

    Only 37% of eligible voters voted to leave (29% abstained). I don't think of that as a mandate.
     
  4. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 44,079

    I'm totally cool with that.... but that isn't really what remainers are actually doing , they're not just happy to remind people they said it was a bad idea if project fear actually turns into reality they're actively trying to undermine the process too as per the surrender act etc.. pretending Boris isn't trying to get a deal when he actually got one despite all the nay sayers etc.. and in spite of the surrender act tying his hands.

    Why not be honest - remainers are trying to both undermine and reverse Brexit, the latter point is literally the focus of the Lib Dem's current campaign, they're not even bothered about a second referendum now and plenty of remainers support them for that reason. Labour are going with a second referendum at the moment though with the plan of negotiating a different deal first then campaigning against it... what a farce that would be and an easy thing for Farage, Boris etc.. to attack and criticise as not a legitimate choice etc..

    So stop trying to pretend it is anything other than that - one main remain supporting party isn't even proposing a referendum and the other is proposing a referendum (because the party is split on the issue) but is proposing one that plenty of brexiters will see as flawed and with some deal that Labour will negotiate but not want.
     
  5. pingu666

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Mar 6, 2008

    Posts: 1,837

    mp's voted against the deals as they are ****.

    so yes we can have fish, but the one they found is covered in actual poo.

    and nigel fartarge can bang on about brexit however he choses, because he doesnt have to come up with solutions. and thats where brexiters fail so hard for 3 years. actual solutions that arent fantasy or poo.
     
  6. JeditOjanen

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 7, 2011

    Posts: 4,646

    They will never run out of people to blame. They will blame the EU for challenging our resistance, and they will blame Remainers for talking the country down and not letting our noble leaders negotiate with a free hand. To them Brexit cannot fail; it can only be failed.
     
  7. JRS

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jun 6, 2004

    Posts: 14,461

    Location: Burton-on-Trent

    No, they're trying to prevent the country from making what they see as a huge mistake. And if that means calling a halt to Brexit while the leavers get together and decide a) what's achievable and b) if they actually want that then so be it.
     
  8. LOAM

    Capodecina

    Joined: Oct 20, 2004

    Posts: 11,428

    Location: Nottingham

    Well given that several big conservative backers are Russian oligarch that are named in this suppressed intelligence report, we probably are getting Putin.
     
  9. Jono8

    Caporegime

    Joined: May 20, 2007

    Posts: 29,408

    Location: Surrey


    Do you find the Lib Dem's proposal to revoke article 50/reverse brexit abhorrent and totally undemocratic?
     
  10. pingu666

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Mar 6, 2008

    Posts: 1,837

    i look at it as there isnt a brexit thats worth doing, so why do it?

    or 2nd referendum
    hey this looks really costly and/or pointless, are you sure we should do this?

    because if leaving was such a amazing thing todo, surely by now it would look like a good idea (it doesnt, even more than during referndum)
     
  11. JRS

    Capodecina

    Joined: Jun 6, 2004

    Posts: 14,461

    Location: Burton-on-Trent

    Well, quite. And at a certain point, even the most ardent fans of the idea might have to accept that the whole thing has been one giant mis-selling. Which of course is why they're terribly afraid of a confirmatory vote, because the one thing that they still cling to is "nurr it's the will of the people nurr"...and if it turns out that this is no longer the case, then their little Brexit Bubble™ is shattered and they have to start living in the real world again.
     
  12. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 44,079

    Still in denial about just blatantly trying to have a re-run after losing the first vote. I think the only bubble to be shattered is when Brexit happens and life goes on, the sky doesn't fall in and all you have left is the most ardent remainers rattling on about this year's GDP figures and how they might have been 0.5% higher if we'd remained according to some article they've regurgitated from the Guardian, economist... when the rest of the population won't care too much and will have moved on.

    Once we've locked in some more trade deals then the argument shifts somewhat - the onus is then on the remainers - why should we undo these various trade deals we've not got etc.. our trade with X, Y and Z nation has increased substantially and that with the EU is decreasing relatively.... that is why there is the need to get your second referendum in as soon as possible - while a few hardcore remainers who are too far gone think it is all doom and gloom, the more pragmatic realise that this is your best shot - if you don't undo Brexit now then you might not get the chance again in the foreseeable future.
     
  13. JeditOjanen

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 7, 2011

    Posts: 4,646

    I don't know about abhorrent, but it is undemocratic and it's also folly. The first referendum was allowed to be made illegitimate for a variety of reasons, not least Cameron's complacency. A second referendum needs to be legally binding, it needs to be specific in defining what Brexit is, and it needs to be held to the highest scrutiny. In such circumstances I would hope Remain would win. But if you don't hold the second referendum and just reverse the decision, nobody will ever believe that Leave would not have won the first referendum even under those conditions. It has to be proven to them, and that means putting it back to the people.
     
  14. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 22,480

    It is not undemocratic, it literally states if you vote for them they will revoke, if they were voted in the majority, it would be in fact be more democratic than a referendum result that was vague for 3 years. To say otherwise is to simply denounce the way our democracy works and there may as well be no point.

    If it is undemocratic for them to what they stated they would if they were to be government then it is equally undemocratic for the Tories to say that their deal is something the people want off the back of a vote for them.
     
  15. JeditOjanen

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 7, 2011

    Posts: 4,646

    Yes, it would be, because no government since 1931 has been elected with a majority of the vote. What is your point?
     
  16. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 22,480

    But they don't need a majority of the vote, we agree to to this fact when we cast our vote, if Boris can use a plurality to say his deal was what people wanted, then so can the Lib Dems use a plurality to say revoking is what people want.

    I don't like it, but it's there for the time being.
     
  17. JeditOjanen

    Mobster

    Joined: Feb 7, 2011

    Posts: 4,646

    Everyone knows the election will be won with a plurality because there are more than two parties and we run on FPTP. Referenda are different because there are only two choices, so a majority vote will always win if the system is fair. For an example of an unfair binary system, see US politics: Trump lost the popular vote but won the election due to constitutional gerrymandering.
     
  18. StriderX

    Capodecina

    Joined: Mar 18, 2008

    Posts: 22,480

    So in your mind a referendum 100 years ago would still override an election manifesto pledge to overturn it? (Yes i'm purposefully using an extreme length of time, because it's arbitrary)

    The fact is that we are a parliamentary democracy that has the leading tenet that no parliament can have unique hold over future ones and that only parliament is sovereign.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_sovereignty_in_the_United_Kingdom (there are caveats, but generally nothing is sacred, but the rule)

    Had the referendum been a binding resolution, rather than to tell parliament what the country desired, even then an act of parliament can override it and it would be entirely democratic because we agreed to it in the social contract when voting for the government that provided the referendum and voting for another government to overturn it would be equally so.

    This is our system, you can disagree all you wish as a matter of opinion, but parliament is sovereign. There is no legal mechanism here for the public beyond voting in their preferred option, plurality or not.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2019
  19. FoxEye

    Capodecina

    Joined: Feb 17, 2006

    Posts: 21,868

    Location: Cornwall

    How so? People can change their minds, just as they can vote for a different party from one GE to the next.

    Let's take the rather extreme example that all Brexit supporters now wish to remain. I.e. nobody wants to leave anymore.

    Should we still plough ahead with Brexit to honour the historical 2016 vote?

    If it's 75/25 in favour of Remain, should we leave anyhow?

    If it's 52/48 in favour of Remain, does that mean the 2016 vote is the more important?

    The idea that we vote once and that's it you don't get another chance... I fail to see how that's better democracy than having multiple votes.

    Or would you like a Tory govt for the next 100 years based on the 2017 GE result?
     
  20. dowie

    Caporegime

    Joined: Jan 29, 2008

    Posts: 44,079

    Why would I want a Tory government for 100 years based on a single election?

    You realise you're replying to a post from a couple of moths back and I did post further replies in this thread?