Off Topic The Politics Thread

And if...

 

You had an opportunity to explain EXACTLY why we should re-vote and failed to grasp that chance. Rather than deride my decision to vote out, try and change my decision. I AM willing to debate, as the tenet of my post suggested. It is YOU who failed to debate. I can see why you have lowered yourself to attacking my views. People like you are not worthy of my interest.

 

Yes, it's a global world that stretches way beyond a failing EU. And this country has for centuries shown that it is incredibly resourceful and successful, and is still doing so. As presently constituted, the EU is not the future. Perhaps when it fails, if it is replaced by a looser group of trading nations, it might be. But not until then.

 

What a churlish response.

 

Not at all. You really don't get it, do you? The point of a re-vote (either in parliament or publically) would be to give the public a clear understanding of what 'Leave' and 'Remain' actually mean - something that for Leave was completely unclear, s no discussions on any point had even been considered. And then - once the terms of the Exit were fully known, a decision could be made.

Are you really saying that you don't care about the terms of the departure, you just want out? That's very foolhardy.

And if you want to discuss without personal insults, then please continue, otherwise there's no point. Argue against my view by all means, but saying things like "People like you are not worthy of my interest" ought to be beneath you.

 

Not at all. Goldie mentioned the last 1000 years. I can only assume that's what he was talking about. As I pointed out - it's a very different world, and you cannot use 'empire-days' logic when discussing 21st Century politics or economics.

 

You still have not answered my question. I suggest that you read it again. I also suggest that you re read YOUR comment re: the way I voted.I can do personal insults, but only when I have been attacked myself.

 

You know exactly what he was referring to, or do you really need it spelling out to you? You are not doing yourself any favours.

 

Strongly disagree with your second paragraph. The aspect of democracy in the referendum is crucial.

You're right Parliament would not be so rash as to fail to implement what the 52% voted for.

The referendum was not legally binding on Parliament. The Queen has the power to sack the entire Australian Government. Both are true. Neither will be enforced.

 

Sure, assume I'm advocating the return of slavery, military invasion of other lands and spreading the Plague. That's all entirely reasonable in Chazworld.

 

I've answered your question, you just don't want to acknowledge it. And if you'd like to point out where I personally attacked you, and not your opinion, then please do so.

 

Are you telling me the world hasn't changed? And that the same socio-economic and political environment of the past 1000 years still exists? Or are you going to accept that the world has moved on, and we as a nation cannot go back to what appear to some to be 'the good old days' of rickets and smog?

 

Well, you haven't and I can't be arsed to repeat it ad nauseum.

 

As you SHOULD well know, he was referring to the fact that we survived as a stand alone nation for millennia. No reference was made to slavery, smog, imperialism etc. You brought these to the table, no one else. That says more about you than a million words ever could. You are doing all this to provoke a reaction. I will react with pity.

 

Can't you two just get a room?

 

Agree he is on planet Corbyn. Watch out for WWIII Chaz!

 

We both believe that Article 50 will be invoked, even though you & I didn't vote the same way at referendum time. We both agree the stated purpose behind the referendum was to advise Parliament, not to instruct it. That was the "democratic decision" - the delivery of advice. That job is complete.

Some people continue to use the word "democracy" to mean "direct democracy", which we both know is not the case in the UK, which is a "representative democracy". They say that to ignore the advice given would be "undemocratic". Well, if we were a direct democracy, they'd be correct. We aren't.

Our representative democratic requirements have been satisfied.

Maybe if we want to change the way our country operates so it does become a direct democracy we could have a referendum?

(I'll get my coat...)

 

Bloody hell!
The vote has been and gone.
Armageddon never materialised.
The economy is doing much better than all the so called experts and many on here were predicting and they are now having to back-track.
I can't quite believe that there are people on here still churning out the same old garbage.
We voted to leave.
We will leave.

Get over yourselves and move on.

Britain is great and will prosper.

 

This all day long.

 

"Direct democracy" and "representative democracy" are constitutional terms of art, so technically I'm sure you're quite correct.

But what people are talking about is a spirit of democracy - and that spirit would be broken, and trust in Parliament irretrievably undermined, if the electorate was asked to vote on a critical course of action, and this vote was ignored for no other reason than members of Parliament including the unelected House of Lords felt they knew better.

We're agreed this won't happen.

...and no more referendums for a while....!