People make a great deal about the result of the 2016 referendum being respected before there can be another vote. The problem with that argument is that it relies on an assumption that Johnson’s deal is what people believed was ‘Brexit’ when they voted in 2016. The reality is that the Johnson deal has no mandate and for most people is not what they thought was ‘Brexit’. In fact, it seems to me that Brexit isn’t Brexit and Leave is not Leave.
People I talk to are pretty certain that neither May’s deal nor Johnson’s deal are the Brexit they thought was on offer. So they don’t believe it has any form of democratic mandate.
I suspect if Johnson’s deal is implemented without a public vote it will never be accepted as a democratic outcome by a very large part of the U.K. population.
Sadly or happily it doesn't matter what people think is or isn't Brexit. They told the politicians to leave. Nor more nor less. Any flavour is legitimate and has a mandate.
Doesn't of course mean that certain ways of leaving aren't absolutely mad and destructive.
Yes you are guilty of Godwin and you should be ashamed.
If you hold a vote and then do not abide by its result that is not democracy. It is the action of a nascent dictatorshop.
At what point do you think I have the right to have a differing opinion? I think leaving the EU is wrong and I will use my vote to stop it, given any chance. At what point does this "nascent dictatorshop[sic]" become a valid democratic opinion?
After the result of the vote has been implemented. A democracy is where you count all the votes and all the votes count.
Ok, so to be clear, you're saying that under your vision of democracy, my opinion is illegitimate. Is that right?
I don't think your opinion is illegitimate. I think you support an illegitimate position. Just as I think someone that wants to bring back absolutist monarchh supports an undemocratic, illegitimate position.
It's so nice to meet the arbiter of what legitimate positions are. Suppose I said to you that Brexit was an illegitimate, undemocratic position. Is that different because, well, I'm not you, the Chosen One?
You are entitled to argue your case just as I am. Others can judge how compelling our cases are. That is the beauty of free speech and debate.
Hungary ready to veto further extension making the Benn Act redundant, then put the Boris Deal to Parliament as the only alternative to No Deal? Cummings would be a genius if that happened
Looks like Hungary are being wooed to veto to me.
Or, at least, heavily flirted with to play mind games with the EU.
Be careful what you wish for - faced with No Deal the HoC could be forced to Revoke A50.
If they did that, Boris could resign in disgust and demand a General Election. It is hard to see what other government could be formed afterwards so he would get it.
But we would still have revoked!
So Boris stands on a platform of repealing the European Communities Act. Brexit vote goes to the Tory on a big turnout.
Yep - and then we spend another few years trying to get out of the European Union.
With a massive Tory majority and all its Remainers deselected.
Wouldn't be "Tory" then. Something else. Good luck to them.
Poor wee Leo - fucked his tin pot country for a decade.
You're an asset to this site IMO because you say out aloud what Johnson and his coterie clearly think. An attitude that the Irish must be all too conscious of.
You add insight. Thank you.
On a serious note getting caught between a UK focused on low tax/regulation post Brexit and an EU focused on the opposite would see Eire up shit creek, to put it mildly...
High stakes for all concerned.
Sure. Ireland is up a shit creek. Not clear why it would owe a favour to those that put it there and seem to be happy for it to be in that shit.
And I suppose a country with a 5% growth rate has more of a cushion for bad economic things happening than one with typically 1% growth.
Yes you are guilty of Godwin and you should be ashamed.
If you hold a vote and then do not abide by its result that is not democracy. It is the action of a nascent dictatorshop.
At what point do you think I have the right to have a differing opinion? I think leaving the EU is wrong and I will use my vote to stop it, given any chance. At what point does this "nascent dictatorshop[sic]" become a valid democratic opinion?
After the result of the vote has been implemented. A democracy is where you count all the votes and all the votes count.
Ok, so to be clear, you're saying that under your vision of democracy, my opinion is illegitimate. Is that right?
I don't think your opinion is illegitimate. I think you support an illegitimate position. Just as I think someone that wants to bring back absolutist monarchh supports an undemocratic, illegitimate position.
It's so nice to meet the arbiter of what legitimate positions are. Suppose I said to you that Brexit was an illegitimate, undemocratic position. Is that different because, well, I'm not you, the Chosen One?
You are entitled to argue your case just as I am. Others can judge how compelling our cases are. That is the beauty of free speech and debate.
Cool! That's wonderful to know. I choose revoke.
Good for you. I argue that is an undemocratic position that is openly contemptuous of a democratic vote. It makes clear you only support democracy when you get the results you want.
Yes you are guilty of Godwin and you should be ashamed.
If you hold a vote and then do not abide by its result that is not democracy. It is the action of a nascent dictatorshop.
At what point do you think I have the right to have a differing opinion? I think leaving the EU is wrong and I will use my vote to stop it, given any chance. At what point does this "nascent dictatorshop[sic]" become a valid democratic opinion?
After the result of the vote has been implemented. A democracy is where you count all the votes and all the votes count.
Ok, so to be clear, you're saying that under your vision of democracy, my opinion is illegitimate. Is that right?
I don't think your opinion is illegitimate. I think you support an illegitimate position. Just as I think someone that wants to bring back absolutist monarchh supports an undemocratic, illegitimate position.
It's so nice to meet the arbiter of what legitimate positions are. Suppose I said to you that Brexit was an illegitimate, undemocratic position. Is that different because, well, I'm not you, the Chosen One?
You are entitled to argue your case just as I am. Others can judge how compelling our cases are. That is the beauty of free speech and debate.
Cool! That's wonderful to know. I choose revoke.
Good for you. I argue that is an undemocratic position that is openly contemptuous of a democratic vote. It makes clear you only support democracy when you get the results you want.
Do you think events in the HoC these past few years have been undemocratic?
Yes you are guilty of Godwin and you should be ashamed.
If you hold a vote and then do not abide by its result that is not democracy. It is the action of a nascent dictatorshop.
At what point do you think I have the right to have a differing opinion? I think leaving the EU is wrong and I will use my vote to stop it, given any chance. At what point does this "nascent dictatorshop[sic]" become a valid democratic opinion?
After the result of the vote has been implemented. A democracy is where you count all the votes and all the votes count.
Ok, so to be clear, you're saying that under your vision of democracy, my opinion is illegitimate. Is that right?
I don't think your opinion is illegitimate. I think you support an illegitimate position. Just as I think someone that wants to bring back absolutist monarchh supports an undemocratic, illegitimate position.
It's so nice to meet the arbiter of what legitimate positions are. Suppose I said to you that Brexit was an illegitimate, undemocratic position. Is that different because, well, I'm not you, the Chosen One?
You are entitled to argue your case just as I am. Others can judge how compelling our cases are. That is the beauty of free speech and debate.
Cool! That's wonderful to know. I choose revoke.
Good for you. I argue that is an undemocratic position that is openly contemptuous of a democratic vote. It makes clear you only support democracy when you get the results you want.
Do you think events in the HoC these past few years have been undemocratic?
Yes you are guilty of Godwin and you should be ashamed.
If you hold a vote and then do not abide by its result that is not democracy. It is the action of a nascent dictatorshop.
At what point do you think I have the right to have a differing opinion? I think leaving the EU is wrong and I will use my vote to stop it, given any chance. At what point does this "nascent dictatorshop[sic]" become a valid democratic opinion?
After the result of the vote has been implemented. A democracy is where you count all the votes and all the votes count.
Ok, so to be clear, you're saying that under your vision of democracy, my opinion is illegitimate. Is that right?
I don't think your opinion is illegitimate. I think you support an illegitimate position. Just as I think someone that wants to bring back absolutist monarchh supports an undemocratic, illegitimate position.
It's so nice to meet the arbiter of what legitimate positions are. Suppose I said to you that Brexit was an illegitimate, undemocratic position. Is that different because, well, I'm not you, the Chosen One?
You are entitled to argue your case just as I am. Others can judge how compelling our cases are. That is the beauty of free speech and debate.
Cool! That's wonderful to know. I choose revoke.
Good for you. I argue that is an undemocratic position that is openly contemptuous of a democratic vote. It makes clear you only support democracy when you get the results you want.
Do you think events in the HoC these past few years have been undemocratic?
Yes you are guilty of Godwin and you should be ashamed.
If you hold a vote and then do not abide by its result that is not democracy. It is the action of a nascent dictatorshop.
At what point do you think I have the right to have a differing opinion? I think leaving the EU is wrong and I will use my vote to stop it, given any chance. At what point does this "nascent dictatorshop[sic]" become a valid democratic opinion?
After the result of the vote has been implemented. A democracy is where you count all the votes and all the votes count.
Ok, so to be clear, you're saying that under your vision of democracy, my opinion is illegitimate. Is that right?
I don't think your opinion is illegitimate. I think you support an illegitimate position. Just as I think someone that wants to bring back absolutist monarchh supports an undemocratic, illegitimate position.
It's so nice to meet the arbiter of what legitimate positions are. Suppose I said to you that Brexit was an illegitimate, undemocratic position. Is that different because, well, I'm not you, the Chosen One?
You are entitled to argue your case just as I am. Others can judge how compelling our cases are. That is the beauty of free speech and debate.
Cool! That's wonderful to know. I choose revoke.
Good for you. I argue that is an undemocratic position that is openly contemptuous of a democratic vote. It makes clear you only support democracy when you get the results you want.
Do you think events in the HoC these past few years have been undemocratic?
Some of them.
Such as?
The votes against every form of Brexit, the overturning of Erskine May, the long prorogation, the blocking of another GE.
On topic: this is another another poll that weights Leavers and Remainers back to the 52/48 split of three years ago.
What's the logic of that when we know more Leavers than Remainers will have passed away and the new under-22 voters are more Remain oriented?
How do you recalibrate though even my kids won’t answer a landline call, not every body is a silver surfer. I do think though that the attempt to pull the polls back to 52/48 is distorting the result
Poor wee Leo - fucked his tin pot country for a decade.
You're an asset to this site IMO because you say out aloud what Johnson and his coterie clearly think. An attitude that the Irish must be all too conscious of.
You add insight. Thank you.
On a serious note getting caught between a UK focused on low tax/regulation post Brexit and an EU focused on the opposite would see Eire up shit creek, to put it mildly...
High stakes for all concerned.
Sure. Ireland is up a shit creek. Not clear why it would owe a favour to those that put it there and seem to be happy for it to be in that shit.
And I suppose a country with a 5% growth rate has more of a cushion for bad economic things happening than one with typically 1% growth.
I don’t think Ireland owes us a thing. I think that feeling will be mutual in future given where we are at now.
I think self-interest over the long term might have warranted a slightly different tack to the one Varadkar is taking, but the same applies to the UK’s negotiation position(s) too.
These negotiations will go down in history as a brilliant case study in hands being overplayed again and again on all sides.
Yes you are guilty of Godwin and you should be ashamed.
If you hold a vote and then do not abide by its result that is not democracy. It is the action of a nascent dictatorshop.
At what point do you think I have the right to have a differing opinion? I think leaving the EU is wrong and I will use my vote to stop it, given any chance. At what point does this "nascent dictatorshop[sic]" become a valid democratic opinion?
After the result of the vote has been implemented. A democracy is where you count all the votes and all the votes count.
Ok, so to be clear, you're saying that under your vision of democracy, my opinion is illegitimate. Is that right?
I don't think your opinion is illegitimate. I think you support an illegitimate position. Just as I think someone that wants to bring back absolutist monarchh supports an undemocratic, illegitimate position.
It's so nice to meet the arbiter of what legitimate positions are. Suppose I said to you that Brexit was an illegitimate, undemocratic position. Is that different because, well, I'm not you, the Chosen One?
You are entitled to argue your case just as I am. Others can judge how compelling our cases are. That is the beauty of free speech and debate.
Cool! That's wonderful to know. I choose revoke.
Good for you. I argue that is an undemocratic position that is openly contemptuous of a democratic vote. It makes clear you only support democracy when you get the results you want.
MPs have a fresher mandate. They are elected to legislate and decide on issues through votes. A referundum, which is only advisory has no technical enforceability. Furthermore the current PM said in early 2016, that the advisory referendum could be used to get a better deal. If that fails we continue in the EU....
Hungary ready to veto further extension making the Benn Act redundant, then put the Boris Deal to Parliament as the only alternative to No Deal? Cummings would be a genius if that happened
Looks like Hungary are being wooed to veto to me.
Or, at least, heavily flirted with to play mind games with the EU.
Be careful what you wish for - faced with No Deal the HoC could be forced to Revoke A50.
If they did that, Boris could resign in disgust and demand a General Election. It is hard to see what other government could be formed afterwards so he would get it.
But we would still have revoked!
So Boris stands on a platform of repealing the European Communities Act. Brexit vote goes to the Tory on a big turnout.
Yep - and then we spend another few years trying to get out of the European Union.
With a massive Tory majority and all its Remainers deselected.
I thought you were a princpaled person of Jewish faith who was unhappy about the prospect of corbyn being PM but you’re just another Tory troll
Brexit is leaving the EU, nothing more, nothing less. The act of leaving, under any deal or no deal, has a mandate. The act of remaning is undenocratic. It is up to parliament whether they want to accompany the act of leaving with a deal.
I am sorry but I think that is bunkum. The leavers have spent the last three years shouting that this or that isn’t a ‘true’ Brexit. To now try to change that and say anything is Brexit as long as we leave is just not credible. People are not that stupid, and to treat them as such will probably cause civil unrest.
The problem is that the leavers have singularly failed to deliver the Brexit they said they would but now want the right to deliver a part Brexit of their choosing. Personally I am not sure the people of the U.K. will accept that outcome.
Yes you are guilty of Godwin and you should be ashamed.
If you hold a vote and then do not abide by its result that is not democracy. It is the action of a nascent dictatorshop.
At what point do you think I have the right to have a differing opinion? I think leaving the EU is wrong and I will use my vote to stop it, given any chance. At what point does this "nascent dictatorshop[sic]" become a valid democratic opinion?
After the result of the vote has been implemented. A democracy is where you count all the votes and all the votes count.
Ok, so to be clear, you're saying that under your vision of democracy, my opinion is illegitimate. Is that right?
I don't think your opinion is illegitimate. I think you support an illegitimate position. Just as I think someone that wants to bring back absolutist monarchh supports an undemocratic, illegitimate position.
It's so nice to meet the arbiter of what legitimate positions are. Suppose I said to you that Brexit was an illegitimate, undemocratic position. Is that different because, well, I'm not you, the Chosen One?
You are entitled to argue your case just as I am. Others can judge how compelling our cases are. That is the beauty of free speech and debate.
Cool! That's wonderful to know. I choose revoke.
Good for you. I argue that is an undemocratic position that is openly contemptuous of a democratic vote. It makes clear you only support democracy when you get the results you want.
Do you think events in the HoC these past few years have been undemocratic?
Some of them.
Such as?
The votes against every form of Brexit, the overturning of Erskine May, the long prorogation, the blocking of another GE.
Well of course I am no constitutional lawyer but I'm going out on a limb to say all of that was frustrating but part and parcel of our democratic process.
Or the leave side's Dominic Grieve would have challenged it in the courts.
Poor wee Leo - fucked his tin pot country for a decade.
You're an asset to this site IMO because you say out aloud what Johnson and his coterie clearly think. An attitude that the Irish must be all too conscious of.
You add insight. Thank you.
On a serious note getting caught between a UK focused on low tax/regulation post Brexit and an EU focused on the opposite would see Eire up shit creek, to put it mildly...
High stakes for all concerned.
“Eire”??
Another new account with an ultra-antiquated view of the world.
Good for you. I argue that is an undemocratic position that is openly contemptuous of a democratic vote. It makes clear you only support democracy when you get the results you want.
Perhaps you've misunderstood what democracy is. Democracy is a method, not a result. Undemocratic is where *I* decide unilaterally what happens. Or where you alone decide. Democracy is about having a system that determines which of our diverging opinions holds sway. Note the use of the word "system". The system we normally use is elections to parliament, whereupon the members elected take decisions as they see fit. If you don't like that system, we can have a conversation about that, and you may find that I agree. Nevertheless, that's our system. If you want that system to no longer apply, I'll hear arguments for what should replace it, and we -- democratically -- can decide whether your proposal should be implemented. Until then, we have a parliamentary democracy, and I will use my vote in the democratic process to democratically vote for whomever the fuck I like. And if you don't like that process because you think the certain status quo ante should remain in law, then it is you, my friend, who is not the democrat.
To repeat. Democracy is not about any one opinion set in stone even for a day. Democracy is not about policing other people's thoughts. Democracy is a method. And I'm so very very sorry to have to explain this to you, but even if someone is in a minority of one, they never have to set aside their own opinion.
Hungary ready to veto further extension making the Benn Act redundant, then put the Boris Deal to Parliament as the only alternative to No Deal? Cummings would be a genius if that happened
Looks like Hungary are being wooed to veto to me.
Or, at least, heavily flirted with to play mind games with the EU.
Well then, if the Benn Act kills No Deal and the Hungarians play silly-buggers with the extension and the only Deal is unworkable, that only leaves one option
VoNC followed by Revoke. I am sure Ms Swinson would write the letter
Yes you are guilty of Godwin and you should be ashamed.
If you hold a vote and then do not abide by its result that is not democracy. It is the action of a nascent dictatorshop.
In 1897 the democratically elected Indiana General Assembly voted to fix the value of pi at 3.2. That was of course impossible so it was not respected. In 2016 the British public voted on a manifesto that turned out to be so inherently contradictory they may as well have been voting to re-establish the Raj. I don’t advocate overturning the result without a supervening democratic vote, be it another referendum or an LD majority after a GE, but there is nothing undemocratic about that position.
I know you disagree. It’s been done to death. We differ. I’m a cretin and a moron etc etc etc. Save your breath.
Hungary ready to veto further extension making the Benn Act redundant, then put the Boris Deal to Parliament as the only alternative to No Deal? Cummings would be a genius if that happened
Looks like Hungary are being wooed to veto to me.
Or, at least, heavily flirted with to play mind games with the EU.
Well then, if the Benn Act kills No Deal and the Hungarians play silly-buggers with the extension and the only Deal is unworkable, that only leaves one option
VoNC followed by Revoke. I am sure Ms Swinson would write the letter
Snap!
Good luck with that
Brexit really has driven some people mad.
I agree - madness certainly explains the behaviour of the ERG and current govt. No one sane would act as they do...
Poor wee Leo - fucked his tin pot country for a decade.
You're an asset to this site IMO because you say out aloud what Johnson and his coterie clearly think. An attitude that the Irish must be all too conscious of.
You add insight. Thank you.
On a serious note getting caught between a UK focused on low tax/regulation post Brexit and an EU focused on the opposite would see Eire up shit creek, to put it mildly...
High stakes for all concerned.
Sure. Ireland is up a shit creek. Not clear why it would owe a favour to those that put it there and seem to be happy for it to be in that shit.
And I suppose a country with a 5% growth rate has more of a cushion for bad economic things happening than one with typically 1% growth.
I don’t think Ireland owes us a thing. I think that feeling will be mutual in future given where we are at now.
I think self-interest over the long term might have warranted a slightly different tack to the one Varadkar is taking, but the same applies to the UK’s negotiation position(s) too.
These negotiations will go down in history as a brilliant case study in hands being overplayed again and again on all sides.
Ireland can't afford a hard border either as part of concession towards a deal or because there's no deal. The logic is with them not conceding because No Deal is the absence of an arrangement which may include a soft border later on. A agreed hard border means they are stuck with it.
Actually Northern Ireland can afford a hard border much less again, but no-one cares about THEM. And certainly not Johnson with his dogs breakfast of a deal.
Yes you are guilty of Godwin and you should be ashamed.
If you hold a vote and then do not abide by its result that is not democracy. It is the action of a nascent dictatorshop.
At what point do you think I have the right to have a differing opinion? I think leaving the EU is wrong and I will use my vote to stop it, given any chance. At what point does this "nascent dictatorshop[sic]" become a valid democratic opinion?
After the result of the vote has been implemented. A democracy is where you count all the votes and all the votes count.
Ok, so to be clear, you're saying that under your vision of democracy, my opinion is illegitimate. Is that right?
I don't think your opinion is illegitimate. I think you support an illegitimate position. Just as I think someone that wants to bring back absolutist monarchh supports an undemocratic, illegitimate position.
It's so nice to meet the arbiter of what legitimate positions are. Suppose I said to you that Brexit was an illegitimate, undemocratic position. Is that different because, well, I'm not you, the Chosen One?
You are entitled to argue your case just as I am. Others can judge how compelling our cases are. That is the beauty of free speech and debate.
Cool! That's wonderful to know. I choose revoke.
Good for you. I argue that is an undemocratic position that is openly contemptuous of a democratic vote. It makes clear you only support democracy when you get the results you want.
MPs have a fresher mandate. They are elected to legislate and decide on issues through votes. A referundum, which is only advisory has no technical enforceability. Furthermore the current PM said in early 2016, that the advisory referendum could be used to get a better deal. If that fails we continue in the EU....
The (Remain supporting) government that implemented the referendum made clear to every household in the country that the result would be implemented. MPs elected on a combination of issues do not have a stronger mandate on a specific question than a referendum that asked the specific question.
All of the excuses for ignoring democracy have been dreamt up after the referendum, which shows how illegtimate they are. Democracy depends on both sides abiding by a set of pre-agreed rules, not changing them after the fact.
We lost. We need to make the most of it within that context.
If that fascist Orban has anything to do with the extension that just Pass GO and straight to REVOKE !
That's no way to talk about EU members. Some decorum please.
Hungary is an authoritarian and illiberal country. Orban has actively worked against the separation of powers needed to underpin a well-functioning democracy. It's too far to call it fascist, but Orban is clearly a scumbag of the highest order. Anybody who games the system to preserve the power of a certain group of people deserves our unmitigated contempt, whatever his policy platform.
Yes you are guilty of Godwin and you should be ashamed.
If you hold a vote and then do not abide by its result that is not democracy. It is the action of a nascent dictatorshop.
At what point do you think I have the right to have a differing opinion? I think leaving the EU is wrong and I will use my vote to stop it, given any chance. At what point does this "nascent dictatorshop[sic]" become a valid democratic opinion?
After the result of the vote has been implemented. A democracy is where you count all the votes and all the votes count.
Ok, so to be clear, you're saying that under your vision of democracy, my opinion is illegitimate. Is that right?
I don't think your opinion is illegitimate. I think you support an illegitimate position. Just as I think someone that wants to bring back absolutist monarchh supports an undemocratic, illegitimate position.
It's so nice to meet the arbiter of what legitimate positions are. Suppose I said to you that Brexit was an illegitimate, undemocratic position. Is that different because, well, I'm not you, the Chosen One?
You are entitled to argue your case just as I am. Others can judge how compelling our cases are. That is the beauty of free speech and debate.
Cool! That's wonderful to know. I choose revoke.
Good for you. I argue that is an undemocratic position that is openly contemptuous of a democratic vote. It makes clear you only support democracy when you get the results you want.
Do you think events in the HoC these past few years have been undemocratic?
Some of them.
Such as?
The votes against every form of Brexit, the overturning of Erskine May, the long prorogation, the blocking of another GE.
Well of course I am no constitutional lawyer but I'm going out on a limb to say all of that was frustrating but part and parcel of our democratic process.
Or the leave side's Dominic Grieve would have challenged it in the courts.
There is a difference between something being legal and something being democratic. Especially in an uncodified constitution.
Poor wee Leo - fucked his tin pot country for a decade.
You're an asset to this site IMO because you say out aloud what Johnson and his coterie clearly think. An attitude that the Irish must be all too conscious of.
You add insight. Thank you.
On a serious note getting caught between a UK focused on low tax/regulation post Brexit and an EU focused on the opposite would see Eire up shit creek, to put it mildly...
High stakes for all concerned.
Sure. Ireland is up a shit creek. Not clear why it would owe a favour to those that put it there and seem to be happy for it to be in that shit.
And I suppose a country with a 5% growth rate has more of a cushion for bad economic things happening than one with typically 1% growth.
I don’t think Ireland owes us a thing. I think that feeling will be mutual in future given where we are at now.
I think self-interest over the long term might have warranted a slightly different tack to the one Varadkar is taking, but the same applies to the UK’s negotiation position(s) too.
These negotiations will go down in history as a brilliant case study in hands being overplayed again and again on all sides.
Ireland can't afford a hard border either as part of concession towards a deal or because there's no deal. The logic is with them not conceding because No Deal is the absence of an arrangement which may include a soft border later on. A agreed hard border means they are stuck with it.
Actually Northern Ireland can afford a hard border much less again, but no-one cares about THEM. And certainly not Johnson with his dogs breakfast of a deal.
That may be their logic. Seems to me though that the choice is between some variant of the Johnson deal (a softish border now that may get softer under a future FTA), no deal (a hard border now that may get softer under a future FTA), and their preferred option which is Ref2/Revoke etc.
Good for you. I argue that is an undemocratic position that is openly contemptuous of a democratic vote. It makes clear you only support democracy when you get the results you want.
Perhaps you've misunderstood what democracy is. Democracy is a method, not a result. Undemocratic is where *I* decide unilaterally what happens. Or where you alone decide.
Undemocratic is also where an oligarchic elite also decides, such as parliamemt rigging the rules to stop a democratic vote being implemented. Democracy is about free and fair elections where both sides agree by the same set of rules, which are applied to both sides. Not implementing the result if one side wins while foot-draghing and sabotaging until you can overturn it if the other side wins.
I strongly supported Remain and felt completely deflated the day after the vote. But democracy is more important than continuous EU membership. It has shocked me to my core how many of my fellow Europhiles clearly feel the opposite.
Yes you are guilty of Godwin and you should be ashamed.
If you hold a vote and then do not abide by its result that is not democracy. It is the action of a nascent dictatorshop.
In 1897 the democratically elected Indiana General Assembly voted to fix the value of pi at 3.2. That was of course impossible so it was not respected. In 2016 the British public voted on a manifesto that turned out to be so inherently contradictory they may as well have been voting to re-establish the Raj. I don’t advocate overturning the result without a supervening democratic vote, be it another referendum or an LD majority after a GE, but there is nothing undemocratic about that position.
I know you disagree. It’s been done to death. We differ. I’m a cretin and a moron etc etc etc. Save your breath.
If that fascist Orban has anything to do with the extension that just Pass GO and straight to REVOKE !
That's no way to talk about EU members. Some decorum please.
Hungary is an authoritarian and illiberal country. Orban has actively worked against the separation of powers needed to underpin a well-functioning democracy. It's too far to call it fascist, but Orban is clearly a scumbag of the highest order. Anybody who games the system to preserve the power of a certain group of people deserves our unmitigated contempt, whatever his policy platform.
Your piousness lives in another era....now all we have is cynical populism.....
Yes you are guilty of Godwin and you should be ashamed.
If you hold a vote and then do not abide by its result that is not democracy. It is the action of a nascent dictatorshop.
At what point do you think I have the right to have a differing opinion? I think leaving the EU is wrong and I will use my vote to stop it, given any chance. At what point does this "nascent dictatorshop[sic]" become a valid democratic opinion?
After the result of the vote has been implemented. A democracy is where you count all the votes and all the votes count.
Ok, so to be clear, you're saying that under your vision of democracy, my opinion is illegitimate. Is that right?
I don't think your opinion is illegitimate. I think you support an illegitimate position. Just as I think someone that wants to bring back absolutist monarchh supports an undemocratic, illegitimate position.
You are entitled to argue your case just as I am. Others can judge how compelling our cases are. That is the beauty of free speech and debate.
Cool! That's wonderful to know. I choose revoke.
Good for you. I argue that is an undemocratic position that is openly contemptuous of a democratic vote. It makes clear you only support democracy when you get the results you want.
MPs have a fresher mandate. They are el.
The (Remain supporting) government that implemented the referendum made clear to every household in the country that the result would be implemented. MPs elected on a combination of issues do not have a stronger mandate on a specific question than a referendum that asked the specific question.
All of the excuses for ignoring democracy have been dreamt up after the referendum, which shows how illegtimate they are. Democracy depends on both sides abiding by a set of pre-agreed rules, not changing them after the fact.
We lost. We need to make the most of it within that context.
No, it was an advisory referundum. MPs have a personal mandate. They were elected in 2017, which is after your precious 2016 opinion poll. I cannot understand why having failed to get a better deal the UK is obliged to Leave. Its dumb. A bit like the deals where we have no say, which is really undemocratic...
Poor wee Leo - fucked his tin pot country for a decade.
You're an asset to this site IMO because you say out aloud what Johnson and his coterie clearly think. An attitude that the Irish must be all too conscious of.
You add insight. Thank you.
Unfortunately you have to be party to crass anti-Irish sectarian bigotry to gain this ‘insight’. I’d probably rather miss out, on balance.
Poor wee Leo - fucked his tin pot country for a decade.
You're an asset to this site IMO because you say out aloud what Johnson and his coterie clearly think. An attitude that the Irish must be all too conscious of.
You add insight. Thank you.
On a serious note getting caught between a UK focused on low tax/regulation post Brexit and an EU focused on the opposite would see Eire up shit creek, to put it mildly...
High stakes for all concerned.
Sure. Ireland is up a shit creek. Not clear why it would owe a favour to those that put it there and seem to be happy for it to be in that shit.
And I suppose a country with a 5% growth rate has more of a cushion for bad economic things happening than one with typically 1% growth.
I don’t think Ireland owes us a thing. I think that feeling will be mutual in future given where we are at now.
I think self-interest over the long term might have warranted a slightly different tack to the one Varadkar is taking, but the same applies to the UK’s negotiation position(s) too.
These negotiations will go down in history as a brilliant case study in hands being overplayed again and again on all sides.
Ireland can't afford a hard border either as part of concession towards a deal or because there's no deal. The logic is with them not conceding because No Deal is the absence of an arrangement which may include a soft border later on. A agreed hard border means they are stuck with it.
Actually Northern Ireland can afford a hard border much less again, but no-one cares about THEM. And certainly not Johnson with his dogs breakfast of a deal.
That may be their logic. Seems to me though that the choice is between some variant of the Johnson deal (a softish border now that may get softer under a future FTA), no deal (a hard border now that may get softer under a future FTA), and their preferred option which is Ref2/Revoke etc.
Johnson's deal doesn't offer a softish border, unlike May's Deal. The NI business forum said it was worse than No Deal in fact. I am not sure Johnson's proposition is even a deal beyond the short term, because the suggested FTA is unlikely to happen for many years if at all and there's no built in Plan B. On its current trajectory, the Boris Deal is a transition to No Deal later.
The Irish would also be happy with SM+CU+VAT area.
If that fascist Orban has anything to do with the extension that just Pass GO and straight to REVOKE !
That's no way to talk about EU members. Some decorum please.
Hungary is an authoritarian and illiberal country. Orban has actively worked against the separation of powers needed to underpin a well-functioning democracy. It's too far to call it fascist, but Orban is clearly a scumbag of the highest order. Anybody who games the system to preserve the power of a certain group of people deserves our unmitigated contempt, whatever his policy platform.
But you want Hungarian politicians to have a say over our politics within the EU and for Orban to hold veto powers on spending and other issues related to us?
Yes you are guilty of Godwin and you should be ashamed.
If you hold a vote and then do not abide by its result that is not democracy. It is the action of a nascent dictatorshop.
In 1897 the democratically elected Indiana General Assembly voted to fix the value of pi at 3.2. That was of course impossible so it was not respected. In 2016 the British public voted on a manifesto that turned out to be so inherently contradictory they may as well have been voting to re-establish the Raj. I don’t advocate overturning the result without a supervening democratic vote, be it another referendum or an LD majority after a GE, but there is nothing undemocratic about that position.
I know you disagree. It’s been done to death. We differ. I’m a cretin and a moron etc etc etc. Save your breath.
Yes you are guilty of Godwin and you should be ashamed.
If you hold a vote and then do not abide by its result that is not democracy. It is the action of a nascent dictatorshop.
At what point do you think I have the right to have a differing opinion? I think leaving the EU is wrong and I will use my vote to stop it, given any chance. At what point does this "nascent dictatorshop[sic]" become a valid democratic opinion?
After the result of the vote has been implemented. A democracy is where you count all the votes and all the votes count.
Ok, so to be clear, you're saying that under your vision of democracy, my opinion is illegitimate. Is that right?
I don't think your opinion is illegitimate. I think you support an illegitimate position. Just as I think someone that wants to bring back absolutist monarchh supports an undemocratic, illegitimate position.
It's so nice to meet the arbiter of what legitimate positions are. Suppose I said to you that Brexit was an illegitimate, undemocratic position. Is that different because, well, I'm not you, the Chosen One?
You are entitled to argue your case just as I am. Others can judge how compelling our cases are. That is the beauty of free speech and debate.
Cool! That's wonderful to know. I choose revoke.
Good for you. I argue that is an undemocratic position that is openly contemptuous of a democratic vote. It makes clear you only support democracy when you get the results you want.
Do you think events in the HoC these past few years have been undemocratic?
Some of them.
Such as?
The votes against every form of Brexit, the overturning of Erskine May, the long prorogation, the blocking of another GE.
Well of course I am no constitutional lawyer but I'm going out on a limb to say all of that was frustrating but part and parcel of our democratic process.
Or the leave side's Dominic Grieve would have challenged it in the courts.
There is a difference between something being legal and something being democratic. Especially in an uncodified constitution.
The actions were undertaken by the people who define and embody democracy. It doesn't get more democratic than that.
That may be their logic. Seems to me though that the choice is between some variant of the Johnson deal (a softish border now that may get softer under a future FTA), no deal (a hard border now that may get softer under a future FTA), and their preferred option which is Ref2/Revoke etc.
Johnson's deal doesn't offer a softish border, unlike May's Deal. The NI business forum said it was worse than No Deal in fact. I am not sure Johnson's proposition is even a deal beyond the short term, because the suggested FTA is unlikely to happen for many years if at all and there's no built in Plan B. On its current trajectory, the Boris Deal is a transition to No Deal later.
The Irish would also be happy with SM+CU+VAT area.
If the Irish wish to be in the SM+CU+VAT area then good luck to them, they should be in it.
We on the other hand get to control what we be in. They don't get to control that. Trying to force stuff on other countries is called imperialism.
In 1897 the democratically elected Indiana General Assembly voted to fix the value of pi at 3.2. That was of course impossible so it was not respected. In 2016 the British public voted on a manifesto that turned out to be so inherently contradictory they may as well have been voting to re-establish the Raj.
That is just a 2 per cent error in the value pi.
It is quite simply one of the most accurate calculations in the history of politics.
Most modern politicians struggle to get a numerical answer correct to within 200 per cent, let alone 2 per cent.
Yes you are guilty of Godwin and you should be ashamed.
If you hold a vote and then do not abide by its result that is not democracy. It is the action of a nascent dictatorshop.
In 1897 the democratically elected Indiana General Assembly voted to fix the value of pi at 3.2. That was of course impossible so it was not respected. In 2016 the British public voted on a manifesto that turned out to be so inherently contradictory they may as well have been voting to re-establish the Raj. I don’t advocate overturning the result without a supervening democratic vote, be it another referendum or an LD majority after a GE, but there is nothing undemocratic about that position.
I know you disagree. It’s been done to death. We differ. I’m a cretin and a moron etc etc etc. Save your breath.
Unfortunately you are neither a cretin or a moron. Both of those could be forgiven . Rather you are a dishonest authoritarian who only agrees with democracy when you are winning. This is not about disagreement, it is about basic principles. I have them you do not.
Indeed it is no surprise you invoke 1930s Germany so often in your arguments. I am sure you would have felt right at home there.
Yes you are guilty of Godwin and you should be ashamed.
If you hold a vote and then do not abide by its result that is not democracy. It is the action of a nascent dictatorshop.
At what point do you think I have the right to have a differing opinion? I think leaving the EU is wrong and I will use my vote to stop it, given any chance. At what point does this "nascent dictatorshop[sic]" become a valid democratic opinion?
After the result of the vote has been implemented. A democracy is where you count all the votes and all the votes count.
Ok, so to be clear, you're saying that under your vision of democracy, my opinion is illegitimate. Is that right?
.
It's so nice to meet the arbiter of what legitimate positions are. Suppose I said to you that Brexit was an illegitimate, undemocratic position. Is that different because, well, I'm not you, the Chosen One?
You are entitled to argue your case just as I am. Others can judge how compelling our cases are. That is the beauty of free speech and debate.
Cool! That's wonderful to know. I choose revoke.
Good for you. I argue that is an undemocratic position that is openly contemptuous of a democratic vote. It makes clear you only support democracy when you get the results you want.
Do you think events in the HoC these past few years have been undemocratic?
Some of them.
Such as?
The votes against every form of Brexit, the overturning of Erskine May, the long prorogation, the blocking of another GE.
Well of course I am no constitutional lawyer but I'm going out on a limb to say all of that was frustrating but part and parcel of our democratic process.
Or the leave side's Dominic Grieve would have challenged it in the courts.
There is a difference between something being legal and something being democratic. Especially in an uncodified constitution.
The actions were undertaken by the people who define and embody democracy. It doesn't get more democratic than that.
Yes, it does. Direct democracy is more democratic than representative democracy.
That may be their logic. Seems to me though that the choice is between some variant of the Johnson deal (a softish border now that may get softer under a future FTA), no deal (a hard border now that may get softer under a future FTA), and their preferred option which is Ref2/Revoke etc.
Johnson's deal doesn't offer a softish border, unlike May's Deal. The NI business forum said it was worse than No Deal in fact. I am not sure Johnson's proposition is even a deal beyond the short term, because the suggested FTA is unlikely to happen for many years if at all and there's no built in Plan B. On its current trajectory, the Boris Deal is a transition to No Deal later.
The Irish would also be happy with SM+CU+VAT area.
If the Irish wish to be in the SM+CU+VAT area then good luck to them, they should be in it.
We on the other hand get to control what we be in. They don't get to control that. Trying to force stuff on other countries is called imperialism.
That’s beyond parody. The Irish are not trying to force us to do anything. The only imperialism round these parts is arguably that we are sitting in 6 of their 32 counties. If we had respected the democratic vote of the jurisdiction of Ireland in 1919 that ratified the all-Ireland republic declared in 1916 we would not be having this problem. It’s our own imperialism that has caused this mess. They are trying to find a solution that lets us keep NI. You should be thankful.
"Free" meaning all voters are allowed to vote in secret and for whomever they please. That means, people will be free to vote for things you don't like, that you think shouldn't happen. Seems to me if you believe in democracy, you believe in free and fair elections, which means you believe in my right to vote for a revoke party. There really is no fruitful discussion about this. I know my rights, and you cannot tell me what I'm allowed to believe or vote for. You might not like it, but that the toughest of tough shit. You know this because, as you are alluding to in your post, free and fair elections are a central pillar. They are the process by which we undertake democracy. Democracy is a process, not a particular outcome.
Yes you are guilty of Godwin and you should be ashamed.
If you hold a vote and then do not abide by its result that is not democracy. It is the action of a nascent dictatorshop.
In 1897 the democratically elected Indiana General Assembly voted to fix the value of pi at 3.2. That was of course impossible so it was not respected. In 2016 the British public voted on a manifesto that turned out to be so inherently contradictory they may as well have been voting to re-establish the Raj. I don’t advocate overturning the result without a supervening democratic vote, be it another referendum or an LD majority after a GE, but there is nothing undemocratic about that position.
I know you disagree. It’s been done to death. We differ. I’m a cretin and a moron etc etc etc. Save your breath.
Unfortunately you are neither a cretin or a moron. Both of those could be forgiven . Rather you are a dishonest authoritarian who only agrees with democracy when you are winning. This is not about disagreement, it is about basic principles. I have them you do not.
Indeed it is no surprise you invoke 1930s Germany so often in your arguments. I am sure you would have felt right at home there.
That may be their logic. Seems to me though that the choice is between some variant of the Johnson deal (a softish border now that may get softer under a future FTA), no deal (a hard border now that may get softer under a future FTA), and their preferred option which is Ref2/Revoke etc.
Johnson's deal doesn't offer a softish border, unlike May's Deal. The NI business forum said it was worse than No Deal in fact. I am not sure Johnson's proposition is even a deal beyond the short term, because the suggested FTA is unlikely to happen for many years if at all and there's no built in Plan B. On its current trajectory, the Boris Deal is a transition to No Deal later.
The Irish would also be happy with SM+CU+VAT area.
If the Irish wish to be in the SM+CU+VAT area then good luck to them, they should be in it.
We on the other hand get to control what we be in. They don't get to control that. Trying to force stuff on other countries is called imperialism.
It's not imperialism. It's Ireland promoting its interests. As you say we don't have to agree. Maybe the problem is Brexit which has put us in the position where we have no good choices.
Yes you are guilty of Godwin and you should be ashamed.
If you hold a vote and then do not abide by its result that is not democracy. It is the action of a nascent dictatorshop.
At what point do youp it, given any chance. At what point does this "nascent dictatorshop[sic]" become a valid democratic opinion?
After the result of the vote has been implemented. A democracy is where you count all the votes and all the votes count.
Ok, so to be clear, you're saying that under your vision of democracy, my opinion is illegitimate. Is that right?
.
It's so nice to meet the arbiter of what legitimate positions are. Suppose I said to you that Brexit was an illegitimate, undemocratic position. Is that different because, well, I'm not you, the Chosen One?
You are entitled to argue your case just as I am. Others can judge how compelling our cases are. That is the beauty of free speech and debate.
Cool! That's wonderful to know. I choose revoke.
Good for you. I argue that is an undemocratic position that is openly contemptuous of a democratic vote. It makes clear you only support democracy when you get the results you want.
Do you think events in the HoC these past few years have been undemocratic?
Some of them.
Such as?
The votes against every form of Brexit, the overturning of Erskine May, the long prorogation, the blocking of another GE.
Well of course I am no constitutional lawyer but I'm going out on a limb to say all of that was frustrating but part and parcel of our democratic process.
Or the leave side's Dominic Grieve would have challenged it in the courts.
There is a difference between something being legal and something being democratic. Especially in an uncodified constitution.
The actions were undertaken by the people who define and embody democracy. It doesn't get more democratic than that.
Yes, it does. Direct democracy is more democratic than representative democracy.
Ah. Sozza. I didn't realise. And where exactly is this particular law laid down?
Yes you are guilty of Godwin and you should be ashamed.
If you hold a vote and then do not abide by its result that is not democracy. It is the action of a nascent dictatorshop.
In 1897 the democratically elected Indiana General Assembly voted to fix the value of pi at 3.2. That was of course impossible so it was not respected. In 2016 the British public voted on a manifesto that turned out to be so inherently contradictory they may as well have been voting to re-establish the Raj. I don’t advocate overturning the result without a supervening democratic vote, be it another referendum or an LD majority after a GE, but there is nothing undemocratic about that position.
I know you disagree. It’s been done to death. We differ. I’m a cretin and a moron etc etc etc. Save your breath.
Unfortunately you are neither a cretin or a moron. Both of those could be forgiven . Rather you are a dishonest authoritarian who only agrees with democracy when you are winning. This is not about disagreement, it is about basic principles. I have them you do not.
Indeed it is no surprise you invoke 1930s Germany so often in your arguments. I am sure you would have felt right at home there.
You’ve changed your tune. Last month I was a moron. Now I’m a Nazi. You live and learn. Why don’t you call me a nonce as well? Save you time later, I have principles but they differ from yours. What you failed to learn is that people can hold different views without resorting to insults. That is the mark of the authoritarianism you claim to despise. You doth protest too much I fear.
The other thing your education missed out on was he ability to count. “So often” would suggest a frequency of such posts. There are none.
Oh, why I bother rising to your petulant childishness I have no idea..
If that fascist Orban has anything to do with the extension that just Pass GO and straight to REVOKE !
That's no way to talk about EU members. Some decorum please.
Hungary is an authoritarian and illiberal country. Orban has actively worked against the separation of powers needed to underpin a well-functioning democracy. It's too far to call it fascist, but Orban is clearly a scumbag of the highest order. Anybody who games the system to preserve the power of a certain group of people deserves our unmitigated contempt, whatever his policy platform.
But you want Hungarian politicians to have a say over our politics within the EU and for Orban to hold veto powers on spending and other issues related to us?
When Greece elected a far-left government, it didn't cause the EU to go far left. Ditto with the far-right Hungary. A bloc of 28 countries tends to even out temporary and localised extremes. At least, I hope the Hungarian extremism is temporary.
There's no problem in my view with the UK playing off foreign parties to further its interest. There is a big problem with Johnson co-opting foreign governments in an attempt to subvert a democratic vote.
Not quite on the treasonous scale of Richard Nixon alleged collusion with the Vietnamese in prolonging the war so he could win an election, I suppose.
Hungary ready to veto further extension making the Benn Act redundant, then put the Boris Deal to Parliament as the only alternative to No Deal? Cummings would be a genius if that happened
Looks like Hungary are being wooed to veto to me.
Or, at least, heavily flirted with to play mind games with the EU.
I think Hungary are the DUP of the EU. They know when to exert pressure to get bought off. By being the intransigent ones now, they can extract a price from the EU (to agree, last minute, to an extension) or the UK (to veto said extension).
Yes you are guilty of Godwin and you should be ashamed.
If you hold a vote and then do not abide by its result that is not democracy. It is the action of a nascent dictatorshop.
In 1897 the democratically elected Indiana General Assembly voted to fix the value of pi at 3.2. That was of course impossible so it was not respected. In 2016 the British public voted on a manifesto that turned out to be so inherently contradictory they may as well have been voting to re-establish the Raj. I don’t advocate overturning the result without a supervening democratic vote, be it another referendum or an LD majority after a GE, but there is nothing undemocratic about that position.
I know you disagree. It’s been done to death. We differ. I’m a cretin and a moron etc etc etc. Save your breath.
The Indiana Bill never became law, so your example is incorrect.
Yes, it does. Direct democracy is more democratic than representative democracy.
And so what? Does that make it better? Can you point us to any current or historical polities successfully run as direct democracies, and if not, can you think why that might be? Do you campaign ceaselessly, or at all, for the introduction of more direct democracy in general in our constitution? Are you happy that a referendum on the death penalty would certainly reintroduce it?
Yes, it does. Direct democracy is more democratic than representative democracy.
And so what? Does that make it better? Can you point us to any current or historical polities successfully run as direct democracies, and if not, can you think why that might be? Do you campaign ceaselessly, or at all, for the introduction of more direct democracy in general in our constitution? Are you happy that a referendum on the death penalty would certainly reintroduce it?
The goal is to fling a lot of shit, and hope that some of it sticks.
It's not a bad strategy.
In fact, it's an excellent strategy.
But it's also one that strikes at the heart of the democratic system. When you can spread falsehoods with impunity, everyone's trust in the system diminishes. And when trust in the system is gone, things rarely turn out well.
At least Gove didn't mention punishment beatings at Nazi prison camps, unlike a certain former foreign minister. So we can mark this up as a diplomatic triumph, I guess.
That may be their logic. Seems to me though that the choice is between some variant of the Johnson deal (a softish border now that may get softer under a future FTA), no deal (a hard border now that may get softer under a future FTA), and their preferred option which is Ref2/Revoke etc.
Johnson's deal doesn't offer a softish border, unlike May's Deal. The NI business forum said it was worse than No Deal in fact. I am not sure Johnson's proposition is even a deal beyond the short term, because the suggested FTA is unlikely to happen for many years if at all and there's no built in Plan B. On its current trajectory, the Boris Deal is a transition to No Deal later.
The Irish would also be happy with SM+CU+VAT area.
If the Irish wish to be in the SM+CU+VAT area then good luck to them, they should be in it.
We on the other hand get to control what we be in. They don't get to control that. Trying to force stuff on other countries is called imperialism.
That’s beyond parody. The Irish are not trying to force us to do anything. The only imperialism round these parts is arguably that we are sitting in 6 of their 32 counties. If we had respected the democratic vote of the jurisdiction of Ireland in 1919 that ratified the all-Ireland republic declared in 1916 we would not be having this problem. It’s our own imperialism that has caused this mess. They are trying to find a solution that lets us keep NI. You should be thankful.
On the one hand, it's a bit of a stretch to hold the current British Government responsible for what its predecessors, who are all long dead, got up to 100 years ago. We might just as well get the hump with Norway and demand reparations for the sack of Lindisfarne.
On the other hand, this whole situation would be a great deal easier to resolve if the British Government agreed simply to let Dublin have Northern Ireland, an imperial and sectarian relic of a territory in which London has no selfish strategic interest and which is, indeed, arguably a very expensive and completely useless burden.
Of course, it's possible that Mr Varadkar might not want to deal with several hundred thousand enraged Loyalists right now, in which case Northern Ireland could simply be floated off as an independent state and left to negotiate over its own border, which would represent just as effective a solution. Where there's a will there's a way.
That may be their logic. Seems to me though that the choice is between some variant of the Johnson deal (a softish border now that may get softer under a future FTA), no deal (a hard border now that may get softer under a future FTA), and their preferred option which is Ref2/Revoke etc.
Johnson's deal doesn't offer a softish border, unlike May's Deal. The NI business forum said it was worse than No Deal in fact. I am not sure Johnson's proposition is even a deal beyond the short term, because the suggested FTA is unlikely to happen for many years if at all and there's no built in Plan B. On its current trajectory, the Boris Deal is a transition to No Deal later.
The Irish would also be happy with SM+CU+VAT area.
If the Irish wish to be in the SM+CU+VAT area then good luck to them, they should be in it.
We on the other hand get to control what we be in. They don't get to control that. Trying to force stuff on other countries is called imperialism.
That’s beyond parody. The Irish are not trying to force us to do anything. The only imperialism round these parts is arguably that we are sitting in 6 of their 32 counties. If we had respected the democratic vote of the jurisdiction of Ireland in 1919 that ratified the all-Ireland republic declared in 1916 we would not be having this problem. It’s our own imperialism that has caused this mess. They are trying to find a solution that lets us keep NI. You should be thankful.
On the one hand, it's a bit of a stretch to hold the current British Government responsible for what its predecessors, who are all long dead, got up to 100 years ago. We might just as well get the hump with Norway and demand reparations for the sack of Lindisfarne.
On the other hand, this whole situation would be a great deal easier to resolve if the British Government agreed simply to let Dublin have Northern Ireland, an imperial and sectarian relic of a territory in which London has no selfish strategic interest and which is, indeed, arguably a very expensive and completely useless burden.
Of course, it's possible that Mr Varadkar might not want to deal with several hundred thousand enraged Loyalists right now, in which case Northern Ireland could simply be floated off as an independent state and left to negotiate over its own border, which would represent just as effective a solution. Where there's a will there's a way.
I always thought the best option was for Northern Ireland to become the Fifty First State.
At least Gove didn't mention punishment beatings at Nazi prison camps, unlike a certain former foreign minister. So we can mark this up as a diplomatic triumph, I guess.
I guess the only consolation at a time of yet more national humiliation is that he did not say what he might have said had he been on what he was on last week in Parliament.
Yes you are guilty of Godwin and you should be ashamed.
If you hold a vote and then do not abide by its result that is not democracy. It is the action of a nascent dictatorshop.
In 1897 the democratically elected Indiana General Assembly voted to fix the value of pi at 3.2. That was of course impossible so it was not respected. In 2016 the British public voted on a manifesto that turned out to be so inherently contradictory they may as well have been voting to re-establish the Raj. I don’t advocate overturning the result without a supervening democratic vote, be it another referendum or an LD majority after a GE, but there is nothing undemocratic about that position.
I know you disagree. It’s been done to death. We differ. I’m a cretin and a moron etc etc etc. Save your breath.
The Indiana Bill never became law, so your example is incorrect.
That’s the point. It was never implemented. Neither has Brexit yet. Nor has the Easter Act 1928. Switzerland reran a referendum this year because the voters in 2016 were not given the full facts. South Dakota legislators unilaterally decided to overturn a statewide ballot passed in 2016. None of these has destroyed democracy. Although I am a Lib Dem I am uneasy at the prospect of straight revoke and would prefer another referendum. Either way I think it is fair to say I am some way from being the Nazi described by Mr Tyndall.
Yes, it does. Direct democracy is more democratic than representative democracy.
And so what? Does that make it better? Can you point us to any current or historical polities successfully run as direct democracies, and if not, can you think why that might be? Do you campaign ceaselessly, or at all, for the introduction of more direct democracy in general in our constitution? Are you happy that a referendum on the death penalty would certainly reintroduce it?
Switzerland
Naah, the Swiss vote in about 5 referendums a year. Governing Switzerland requires >5 executive decisions a year. Plus they are such a weird nation that if it works there, that is actually evidence that it *doesn't* work in general.
Yes you are guilty of Godwin and you should be ashamed.
If you hold a vote and then do not abide by its result that is not democracy. It is the action of a nascent dictatorshop.
In 1897 the democratically elected Indiana General Assembly voted to fix the value of pi at 3.2. That was of course impossible so it was not respected. In 2016 the British public voted on a manifesto that turned out to be so inherently contradictory they may as well have been voting to re-establish the Raj. I don’t advocate overturning the result without a supervening democratic vote, be it another referendum or an LD majority after a GE, but there is nothing undemocratic about that position.
I know you disagree. It’s been done to death. We differ. I’m a cretin and a moron etc etc etc. Save your breath.
The Indiana Bill never became law, so your example is incorrect.
That’s the point. It was never implemented. Neither has Brexit yet. Nor has the Easter Act 1928. Switzerland reran a referendum this year because the voters in 2016 were not given the full facts. South Dakota legislators unilaterally decided to overturn a statewide ballot passed in 2016. None of these has destroyed democracy. Although I am a Lib Dem I am uneasy at the prospect of straight revoke and would prefer another referendum. Either way I think it is fair to say I am some way from being the Nazi described by Mr Tyndall.
Switzerland reran the referendum because they broke the previous question into two dependent ones:
(1) Would you like a Ferrari? (2) Would you like to hand over £200,000?
The point is that Pi did not become a law that was ignored.
That may be their logic. Seems to me though that the choice is between some variant of the Johnson deal (a softish border now that may get softer under a future FTA), no deal (a hard border now that may get softer under a future FTA), and their preferred option which is Ref2/Revoke etc.
Johnson's deal doesn't offer a softish border, unlike May's Deal. The NI business forum said it was worse than No Deal in fact. I am not sure Johnson's proposition is even a deal beyond the short term, because the suggested FTA is unlikely to happen for many years if at all and there's no built in Plan B. On its current trajectory, the Boris Deal is a transition to No Deal later.
The Irish would also be happy with SM+CU+VAT area.
If the Irish wish to be in the SM+CU+VAT area then good luck to them, they should be in it.
We on the other hand get to control what we be in. They don't get to control that. Trying to force stuff on other countries is called imperialism.
That’s beyond parody. The Irish are not trying to force us to do anything. The only imperialism round these parts is arguably that we are sitting in 6 of their 32 counties. If we had respected the democratic vote of the jurisdiction of Ireland in 1919 that ratified the all-Ireland republic declared in 1916 we would not be having this problem. It’s our own imperialism that has caused this mess. They are trying to find a solution that lets us keep NI. You should be thankful.
On the one hand, it's a bit of a stretch to hold the current British Government responsible for what its predecessors, who are all long dead, got up to 100 years ago. We might just as well get the hump with Norway and demand reparations for the sack of Lindisfarne.
On the other hand, this whole situation would be a great deal easier to resolve if the British Government agreed simply to let Dublin have Northern Ireland, an imperial and sectarian relic of a territory in which London has no selfish strategic interest and which is, indeed, arguably a very expensive and completely useless burden.
Of course, it's possible that Mr Varadkar might not want to deal with several hundred thousand enraged Loyalists right now, in which case Northern Ireland could simply be floated off as an independent state and left to negotiate over its own border, which would represent just as effective a solution. Where there's a will there's a way.
There are Orange Order marches in County Donegal every year that pass off without a hitch - indeed are quite friendly affairs. The difference with their counterparts over the border is the absence of British rule.
Yes, it does. Direct democracy is more democratic than representative democracy.
And so what? Does that make it better? Can you point us to any current or historical polities successfully run as direct democracies, and if not, can you think why that might be? Do you campaign ceaselessly, or at all, for the introduction of more direct democracy in general in our constitution? Are you happy that a referendum on the death penalty would certainly reintroduce it?
Switzerland
Naah, the Swiss vote in about 5 referendums a year. Governing Switzerland requires >5 executive decisions a year. Plus they are such a weird nation that if it works there, that is actually evidence that it *doesn't* work in general.
There may only be five *federal* refendums a year, but aren't there a reasonable number of *canton* level ones too?
Comments
Doesn't of course mean that certain ways of leaving aren't absolutely mad and destructive.
I choose revoke.
And I suppose a country with a 5% growth rate has more of a cushion for bad economic things happening than one with typically 1% growth.
I think self-interest over the long term might have warranted a slightly different tack to the one Varadkar is taking, but the same applies to the UK’s negotiation position(s) too.
These negotiations will go down in history as a brilliant case study in hands being overplayed again and again on all sides.
Brexit is leaving the EU, nothing more, nothing less. The act of leaving, under any deal or no deal, has a mandate. The act of remaning is undenocratic. It is up to parliament whether they want to accompany the act of leaving with a deal.
I am sorry but I think that is bunkum. The leavers have spent the last three years shouting that this or that isn’t a ‘true’ Brexit. To now try to change that and say anything is Brexit as long as we leave is just not credible. People are not that stupid, and to treat them as such will probably cause civil unrest.
The problem is that the leavers have singularly failed to deliver the Brexit they said they would but now want the right to deliver a part Brexit of their choosing. Personally I am not sure the people of the U.K. will accept that outcome.
Or the leave side's Dominic Grieve would have challenged it in the courts.
Another new account with an ultra-antiquated view of the world.
Democracy is about having a system that determines which of our diverging opinions holds sway. Note the use of the word "system".
The system we normally use is elections to parliament, whereupon the members elected take decisions as they see fit. If you don't like that system, we can have a conversation about that, and you may find that I agree. Nevertheless, that's our system.
If you want that system to no longer apply, I'll hear arguments for what should replace it, and we -- democratically -- can decide whether your proposal should be implemented. Until then, we have a parliamentary democracy, and I will use my vote in the democratic process to democratically vote for whomever the fuck I like. And if you don't like that process because you think the certain status quo ante should remain in law, then it is you, my friend, who is not the democrat.
To repeat. Democracy is not about any one opinion set in stone even for a day. Democracy is not about policing other people's thoughts. Democracy is a method. And I'm so very very sorry to have to explain this to you, but even if someone is in a minority of one, they never have to set aside their own opinion.
I know you disagree. It’s been done to death. We differ. I’m a cretin and a moron etc etc etc. Save your breath.
Actually Northern Ireland can afford a hard border much less again, but no-one cares about THEM. And certainly not Johnson with his dogs breakfast of a deal.
All of the excuses for ignoring democracy have been dreamt up after the referendum, which shows how illegtimate they are. Democracy depends on both sides abiding by a set of pre-agreed rules, not changing them after the fact.
We lost. We need to make the most of it within that context.
I strongly supported Remain and felt completely deflated the day after the vote. But democracy is more important than continuous EU membership. It has shocked me to my core how many of my fellow Europhiles clearly feel the opposite.
Seriously
http://www.adonisforvauxhall.com/
The Irish would also be happy with SM+CU+VAT area.
We on the other hand get to control what we be in. They don't get to control that. Trying to force stuff on other countries is called imperialism.
It is quite simply one of the most accurate calculations in the history of politics.
Most modern politicians struggle to get a numerical answer correct to within 200 per cent, let alone 2 per cent.
Indeed it is no surprise you invoke 1930s Germany so often in your arguments. I am sure you would have felt right at home there.
There really is no fruitful discussion about this. I know my rights, and you cannot tell me what I'm allowed to believe or vote for. You might not like it, but that the toughest of tough shit. You know this because, as you are alluding to in your post, free and fair elections are a central pillar. They are the process by which we undertake democracy. Democracy is a process, not a particular outcome.
The other thing your education missed out on was he ability to count. “So often” would suggest a frequency of such posts. There are none.
Oh, why I bother rising to your petulant childishness I have no idea..
Not quite on the treasonous scale of Richard Nixon alleged collusion with the Vietnamese in prolonging the war so he could win an election, I suppose.
https://twitter.com/PeterRNeumann/status/1179824942021566468
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/10/03/trump-drug-industry-impeachment-026123
President Donald Trump charged Thursday without evidence that the pharmaceutical industry was behind House Democrats' impeachment proceedings, suggesting it was payback for his administration's effort to lower drug costs....
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indiana_Pi_Bill
Ukraine is not going to lead to his downfall.
Taxes might.
The question is whether the avalanche would reach as far as these shores. There is a BoZo whistleblower story out tonight as well.
How many more are waiting in the wings?
It's not a bad strategy.
In fact, it's an excellent strategy.
But it's also one that strikes at the heart of the democratic system. When you can spread falsehoods with impunity, everyone's trust in the system diminishes. And when trust in the system is gone, things rarely turn out well.
(Which, I would note, is true of the UK as well.)
https://twitter.com/PeterRNeumann/status/1179824942021566468
On the other hand, this whole situation would be a great deal easier to resolve if the British Government agreed simply to let Dublin have Northern Ireland, an imperial and sectarian relic of a territory in which London has no selfish strategic interest and which is, indeed, arguably a very expensive and completely useless burden.
Of course, it's possible that Mr Varadkar might not want to deal with several hundred thousand enraged Loyalists right now, in which case Northern Ireland could simply be floated off as an independent state and left to negotiate over its own border, which would represent just as effective a solution. Where there's a will there's a way.
Apart from enormous douche.
Wages are rising fast, employment is still near record levels, inflation has dived, interest rates are zero.
If we are entering recession (like many other countries) it will (at least so far) be relatively painless.
Not a game changer.
Mr Johnson would be wise to have his election now rather than next March.
(1) Would you like a Ferrari?
(2) Would you like to hand over £200,000?
The point is that Pi did not become a law that was ignored.
Pause
Pause
No, I got nothing.