Remember, democracy is about the processes that govern power and its transfer. It is not, and it has never been, a particular snapshot in time that pleases you; if you think it is, back to school for you.
So is a GE a political snapshot in time and do we implement the result even if we don't like it?
Remember, democracy is about the processes that govern power and its transfer. It is not, and it has never been, a particular snapshot in time that pleases you; if you think it is, back to school for you.
So is a GE a political snapshot in time and do we implement the result even if we don't like it?
Just a 'Yes' or 'No' will be fine, thanks.
We had an election in 2017 in which a large majority of voters voted for no brexit or a very soft brexit and you’re happy to ignore that.
Let's fast forward to July. The deal has passed by 3 votes thanks to lame duck Labour MPs. The Conservatives have a 60-seat majority and Labour are being devoured by infighting after Corbyn resigns. FTA negotiations are bogged down as it is increasingly clear that the EU will demand regulatory alignment if we are to have even a deal as good as Canada's. Investment remains sluggish. We have to decide whether to extend the transition arrangement for another two years or face a no deal crash out. Farage says the whole deal is a disaster and we must leave without an extension. The Conservatives see Leaver support leaking to the Brexit Party as voters are incredulous we are still negotiating with the EU - they thought it was all meant to be over already. The question is - does anyone think the Tories won't end up adopting the Brexit Party position for their own party political survival? After all, this is what they have done at every stage of the process. No deal in January 2021 is highly likely in my view.
Remember, democracy is about the processes that govern power and its transfer. It is not, and it has never been, a particular snapshot in time that pleases you; if you think it is, back to school for you.
So is a GE a political snapshot in time and do we implement the result even if we don't like it?
Just a 'Yes' or 'No' will be fine, thanks.
We had an election in 2017 in which a large majority of voters voted for no brexit or a very soft brexit and you’re happy to ignore that.
Corbyn’s 2017 position was no single market and no customs union...
Remember, democracy is about the processes that govern power and its transfer. It is not, and it has never been, a particular snapshot in time that pleases you; if you think it is, back to school for you.
So is a GE a political snapshot in time and do we implement the result even if we don't like it?
Just a 'Yes' or 'No' will be fine, thanks.
We had an election in 2017 in which a large majority of voters voted for no brexit or a very soft brexit and you’re happy to ignore that.
Corbyn’s 2017 position was no single market and no customs union...
Remember, democracy is about the processes that govern power and its transfer. It is not, and it has never been, a particular snapshot in time that pleases you; if you think it is, back to school for you.
So is a GE a political snapshot in time and do we implement the result even if we don't like it?
Just a 'Yes' or 'No' will be fine, thanks.
That's two questions, but the answer is yes in both cases. At no point is it illegitimate to start to want a new election, even the day after a general election has happened. We already know this is the case fro recent years. Political instability meant that we had a new election in 2017, even though we were only just 2 years into a five-year parliament. It was recognised by a broad section of the country that a new vote was a good idea.
Your fundamental misunderstanding is the nature of a referendum. A GE is a command for the transfer of power from one MP to another person (or the same person returning), in every constituency. A referendum is an expression of the will of the people. A GE carries with it constitutional weight. A referendum is in itself constitutionally weightless. It's part of the political process, but not part of the democratic process. Democracy is about the machinery of power and how it gets transferred from one person to another. Politics is what happens within that machinery.
Remember, democracy is about the processes that govern power and its transfer. It is not, and it has never been, a particular snapshot in time that pleases you; if you think it is, back to school for you.
So is a GE a political snapshot in time and do we implement the result even if we don't like it?
Just a 'Yes' or 'No' will be fine, thanks.
We had an election in 2017 in which a large majority of voters voted for no brexit or a very soft brexit and you’re happy to ignore that.
Corbyn’s 2017 position was no single market and no customs union...
From your link, Labour’s manifesto, which promised to retain the “benefits or the single market and the customs union” without being a member of either.
Remember, democracy is about the processes that govern power and its transfer. It is not, and it has never been, a particular snapshot in time that pleases you; if you think it is, back to school for you.
So is a GE a political snapshot in time and do we implement the result even if we don't like it?
Just a 'Yes' or 'No' will be fine, thanks.
We had an election in 2017 in which a large majority of voters voted for no brexit or a very soft brexit and you’re happy to ignore that.
No we had an election where 84% said voted for parties who said they would respect the result of the referendum. They had a chance to do that and have singularly failed to do so.
Rejoin is a forlorn hope. For those who want to Remain, the best option is, err, Remain.
To paraphrase...
Remainers best option is to try and overturn the referendum result rather than taking the democratically honest route of campaigning on a rejoin manifesto at a future GE.
Campaigning to stop Brexit is also democratic. I'm using my time to attend protests, writing to my MP and candidates for parliament, and telling them what I'd like to happen, and how it'll influence how I use my vote. They know my position, and they have the opportunity to weigh it up when deciding what policies they will support. And when there's an election, I will use my vote in the way that I've been promising.
So you don't like my opinion, that's fine, you can do exactly the same process with your MP and candidates. I mean, if you want a dictionary definition of the democratic process, look no further.
Remember, democracy is about the processes that govern power and its transfer. It is not, and it has never been, a particular snapshot in time that pleases you; if you think it is, back to school for you.
No, democracy is about asking the electorate questions and then acting on the answer they give, whether it is by the election of their choice of representative or by enacting the decision they make in a referendum. Asking the question and then refusing to act on the result is not democracy.
Remember, democracy is about the processes that govern power and its transfer. It is not, and it has never been, a particular snapshot in time that pleases you; if you think it is, back to school for you.
So is a GE a political snapshot in time and do we implement the result even if we don't like it?
Just a 'Yes' or 'No' will be fine, thanks.
We had an election in 2017 in which a large majority of voters voted for no brexit or a very soft brexit and you’re happy to ignore that.
No we had an election where 84% said voted for parties who said they would respect the result of the referendum. They had a chance to do that and have singularly failed to do so.
No need to implement something damaging by an arbitrary date. That would be a dereliction of duty.
Rejoin is a forlorn hope. For those who want to Remain, the best option is, err, Remain.
To paraphrase...
Remainers best option is to try and overturn the referendum result rather than taking the democratically honest route of campaigning on a rejoin manifesto at a future GE.
Campaigning to stop Brexit is also democratic. I'm using my time to attend protests, writing to my MP and candidates for parliament, and telling them what I'd like to happen, and how it'll influence how I use my vote. They know my position, and they have the opportunity to weigh it up when deciding what policies they will support. And when there's an election, I will use my vote in the way that I've been promising.
So you don't like my opinion, that's fine, you can do exactly the same process with your MP and candidates. I mean, if you want a dictionary definition of the democratic process, look no further.
Remember, democracy is about the processes that govern power and its transfer. It is not, and it has never been, a particular snapshot in time that pleases you; if you think it is, back to school for you.
No, democracy is about asking the electorate questions and then acting on the answer they give, whether it is by the election of their choice of representative or by enacting the decision they make in a referendum. Asking the question and then refusing to act on the result is not democracy.
We will take no lectures on democracy from you guys thank you. Lies to stoke fears and division is not democracy.
As for a second referendum the main reason why we shouldn't have one was displayed out there on the streets of London on Saturday. The serious threat to civil order is very real from extremists on both sides - next time friendly referendum stalls will be replaced by ugly brawls and worse in our streets and towns.
Yes, let's do away with divisive things like voting
Voting is very divisive when one side decides they will not respect the result.
Rejoin is a forlorn hope. For those who want to Remain, the best option is, err, Remain.
To paraphrase...
Remainers best option is to try and overturn the referendum result rather than taking the democratically honest route of campaigning on a rejoin manifesto at a future GE.
Campaigning to stop Brexit is also democratic. I'm using my time to attend protests, writing to my MP and candidates for parliament, and telling them what I'd like to happen, and how it'll influence how I use my vote. They know my position, and they have the opportunity to weigh it up when deciding what policies they will support. And when there's an election, I will use my vote in the way that I've been promising.
So you don't like my opinion, that's fine, you can do exactly the same process with your MP and candidates. I mean, if you want a dictionary definition of the democratic process, look no further.
Remember, democracy is about the processes that govern power and its transfer. It is not, and it has never been, a particular snapshot in time that pleases you; if you think it is, back to school for you.
No, democracy is about asking the electorate questions and then acting on the answer they give, whether it is by the election of their choice of representative or by enacting the decision they make in a referendum. Asking the question and then refusing to act on the result is not democracy.
We will take no lectures on democracy from you guys thank you. Lies to stoke fears and division is not democracy.
You can take no lessons from us because you are either too dumb or too blind to understand them.
Rejoin is a forlorn hope. For those who want to Remain, the best option is, err, Remain.
To paraphrase...
Remainers best option is to try and overturn the referendum result rather than taking the democratically honest route of campaigning on a rejoin manifesto at a future GE.
Campaigning to stop Brexit is also democratic. I'm using my time to attend protests, writing to my MP and candidates for parliament, and telling them what I'd like to happen, and how it'll influence how I use my vote. They know my position, and they have the opportunity to weigh it up when deciding what policies they will support. And when there's an election, I will use my vote in the way that I've been promising.
So you don't like my opinion, that's fine, you can do exactly the same process with your MP and candidates. I mean, if you want a dictionary definition of the democratic process, look no further.
Remember, democracy is about the processes that govern power and its transfer. It is not, and it has never been, a particular snapshot in time that pleases you; if you think it is, back to school for you.
No, democracy is about asking the electorate questions and then acting on the answer they give, whether it is by the election of their choice of representative or by enacting the decision they make in a referendum. Asking the question and then refusing to act on the result is not democracy.
We will take no lectures on democracy from you guys thank you. Lies to stoke fears and division is not democracy.
You can take no lessons from us because you are either too dumb or too blind to understand them.
What a bizarre spectacle yesterday was. I was sitting there wondering to myself, what on Earth was the point of this chicanery? Does anyone now really believe that Brexit can be put back in the box?
So think about this from the point of view of your future self in 2025 or 2030. The two delays are of virtually no consequence, but the deal is better, and the process of passing it much more sane, as a result of the checks and balances of a PM wanting one thing and various different factions of MPs wanting others, and them not be able to get the thing done until they agree.
I know it doesn't look pretty when they're making the sausage but it's a better sausage, no?
Remainers have probably twigged, with horror, that we are on the verge of ending up with a far worse deal for them than May’s deal (which they could have voted for). One that could mean no deal on WTO terms in eighteen months. One that will see the U.K. leaving the Customs Union making any future “rejoin” effort far more complicated (especially if new non EU deals are negotiated which preclude it)
Rejoin is a forlorn hope. For those who want to Remain, the best option is, err, Remain.
That is garbage. Any straight Remain without a Brexit in the middle will be tainted with illegitimacy and not accepted by half the British public. That is an unsustainable position for EU membership.
Rejoin on the other hand can make clear that we left after a referendum was implemented and it is right we rejoin when a referendum decides to. Brexiters will be left up the creek without a paddle.
No, democracy is about asking the electorate questions and then acting on the answer they give
I can refute you twice, because you were sloppy with what you were trying to say. Firstly, pedantically, "acting on the answer" could include saying "nahh". But that's not what you meant, so, let's take your real meaning: "asking the electorate questions and then obeying." There's a really good counterexample if you'll accept a reductio ad absurdum. Suppose a referendum were enacted stating "The United Kingdom should hereafter end all elections and hand full judicial, legislative and executive power to Mr Jeremy Corbyn for life, and thereafter to any successors he nominates." Suppose, bafflingly, 52% of the people accepted this.
Obeying that mandate would be undemocratic.
I won't spell out why, because I've done so in my previous post. The way you can rebut me now is by either accepting that enacting such a referendum result is democratic (I don't expect your instincts will allow you to do this) or by explaining why it is not without damaging your original definition. Best of luck.
What a bizarre spectacle yesterday was. I was sitting there wondering to myself, what on Earth was the point of this chicanery? Does anyone now really believe that Brexit can be put back in the box?
So think about this from the point of view of your future self in 2025 or 2030. The two delays are of virtually no consequence, but the deal is better, and the process of passing it much more sane, as a result of the checks and balances of a PM wanting one thing and various different factions of MPs wanting others, and them not be able to get the thing done until they agree.
I know it doesn't look pretty when they're making the sausage but it's a better sausage, no?
Remainers have probably twigged, with horror, that we are on the verge of ending up with a far worse deal for them than May’s deal (which they could have voted for). One that could mean no deal on WTO terms in eighteen months. One that will see the U.K. leaving the Customs Union making any future “rejoin” effort far more complicated (especially if new non EU deals are negotiated which preclude it)
Rejoin is a forlorn hope. For those who want to Remain, the best option is, err, Remain.
That is garbage. Any straight Remain without a Brexit in the middle will be tainted with illegitimacy and not accepted by half the British public. That is an unsustainable position for EU membership.
Rejoin on the other hand can make clear that we left after a referendum was implemented and it is right we rejoin when a referendum decides to. Brexiters will be left up the creek without a paddle.
The British public doesn’t care. The public is sick of Brexit.
The frothers will froth and everyone else will just get on with their lives.
Rejoin is a forlorn hope. For those who want to Remain, the best option is, err, Remain.
To paraphrase...
Remainers best option is to try and overturn the referendum result rather than taking the democratically honest route of campaigning on a rejoin manifesto at a future GE.
Campaigning to stop Brexit is also democratic. I'm using my time to attend protests, writing to my MP and candidates for parliament, and telling them what I'd like to happen, and how it'll influence how I use my vote. They know my position, and they have the opportunity to weigh it up when deciding what policies they will support. And when there's an election, I will use my vote in the way that I've been promising.
So you don't like my opinion, that's fine, you can do exactly the same process with your MP and candidates. I mean, if you want a dictionary definition of the democratic process, look no further.
Remember, democracy is about the processes that govern power and its transfer. It is not, and it has never been, a particular snapshot in time that pleases you; if you think it is, back to school for you.
No, democracy is about asking the electorate questions and then acting on the answer they give, whether it is by the election of their choice of representative or by enacting the decision they make in a referendum. Asking the question and then refusing to act on the result is not democracy.
We will take no lectures on democracy from you guys thank you. Lies to stoke fears and division is not democracy.
You can take no lessons from us because you are either too dumb or too blind to understand them.
Thanks for proving my point.
Your point is... pointless.
The basic fact is that you have no interest in democracy unless it goes your way. And you are happy to do anything necessary, no matter what the consequences, to ensure you get your way. I always used to wonder how civilised countries could turn into failed states. I realise now it is because of people like you who see democracy not as a basic principle but as a tool to achieve your ends and to be cast aside when you don't get your way.
Rejoin is a forlorn hope. For those who want to Remain, the best option is, err, Remain.
To paraphrase...
Remainers best option is to try and overturn the referendum result rather than taking the democratically honest route of campaigning on a rejoin manifesto at a future GE.
Campaigning to stop Brexit is also democratic. I'm using my time to attend protests, writing to my MP and candidates for parliament, and telling them what I'd like to happen, and how it'll influence how I use my vote. They know my position, and they have the opportunity to weigh it up when deciding what policies they will support. And when there's an election, I will use my vote in the way that I've been promising.
So you don't like my opinion, that's fine, you can do exactly the same process with your MP and candidates. I mean, if you want a dictionary definition of the democratic process, look no further.
Remember, democracy is about the processes that govern power and its transfer. It is not, and it has never been, a particular snapshot in time that pleases you; if you think it is, back to school for you.
No, democracy is about asking the electorate questions and then acting on the answer they give, whether it is by the election of their choice of representative or by enacting the decision they make in a referendum. Asking the question and then refusing to act on the result is not democracy.
We will take no lectures on democracy from you guys thank you. Lies to stoke fears and division is not democracy.
You can take no lessons from us because you are either too dumb or too blind to understand them.
Thanks for proving my point.
Your point is... pointless.
The basic fact is that you have no interest in democracy unless it goes your way. And you are happy to do anything necessary, no matter what the consequences, to ensure you get your way. I always used to wonder how civilised countries could turn into failed states. I realise now it is because of people like you who see democracy not as a basic principle but as a tool to achieve your ends and to be cast aside when you don't get your way.
You’re just describing yourself. You know the public no longer wants Brexit but you’re clinging onto the fact you squeaked over the line once as a way to justify your antidemocratic tendencies.
You know this is your only chance at this ridiculously stupid policy and that’s why you’re so angry.
As for a second referendum the main reason why we shouldn't have one was displayed out there on the streets of London on Saturday. The serious threat to civil order is very real from extremists on both sides - next time friendly referendum stalls will be replaced by ugly brawls and worse in our streets and towns.
Yes, let's do away with divisive things like voting
Voting is very divisive when one side decides they will not respect the result.
I honestly don't even know how I'm supposed to "respect" a result. I've noticed the result. I dislike it. I am seeking all peaceful and democratic means to reverse it. Does that mean I respect it or not? Actually, don't answer because I really don't think it's an important concept.
There's a really good counterexample if you'll accept a reductio ad absurdum. Suppose a referendum were enacted stating "The United Kingdom should hereafter end all elections and hand full judicial, legislative and executive power to Mr Jeremy Corbyn for life, and thereafter to any successors he nominates." Suppose, bafflingly, 52% of the people accepted this.
Obeying that mandate would be undemocratic.
I won't spell out why, because I've done so in my previous post. The way you can rebut me now is by either accepting that enacting such a referendum result is democratic (I don't expect your instincts will allow you to do this) or by explaining why it is not without damaging your original definition. Best of luck.
It's not often a post on here makes me laugh but this did.
I think you're a secret leaver trying to make remainers look like morons.
No, democracy is about asking the electorate questions and then acting on the answer they give
I can refute you twice, because you were sloppy with what you were trying to say. Firstly, pedantically, "acting on the answer" could include saying "nahh". But that's not what you meant, so, let's take your real meaning: "asking the electorate questions and then obeying." There's a really good counterexample if you'll accept a reductio ad absurdum. Suppose a referendum were enacted stating "The United Kingdom should hereafter end all elections and hand full judicial, legislative and executive power to Mr Jeremy Corbyn for life, and thereafter to any successors he nominates." Suppose, bafflingly, 52% of the people accepted this.
Obeying that mandate would be undemocratic.
I won't spell out why, because I've done so in my previous post. The way you can rebut me now is by either accepting that enacting such a referendum result is democratic (I don't expect your instincts will allow you to do this) or by explaining why it is not without damaging your original definition. Best of luck.
The point is that it is indeed reductio ad absurdum and as such is a logical fallacy. Such fallacies cannot be answered because they have no value.
No, democracy is about asking the electorate questions and then acting on the answer they give
I can refute you twice, because you were sloppy with what you were trying to say. Firstly, pedantically, "acting on the answer" could include saying "nahh". But that's not what you meant, so, let's take your real meaning: "asking the electorate questions and then obeying." There's a really good counterexample if you'll accept a reductio ad absurdum. Suppose a referendum were enacted stating "The United Kingdom should hereafter end all elections and hand full judicial, legislative and executive power to Mr Jeremy Corbyn for life, and thereafter to any successors he nominates." Suppose, bafflingly, 52% of the people accepted this.
Obeying that mandate would be undemocratic.
I won't spell out why, because I've done so in my previous post. The way you can rebut me now is by either accepting that enacting such a referendum result is democratic (I don't expect your instincts will allow you to do this) or by explaining why it is not without damaging your original definition. Best of luck.
The point is that it is indeed reductio ad absurdum and as such is a logical fallacy. Such fallacies cannot be answered because they have no value.
No, democracy is about asking the electorate questions and then acting on the answer they give
I can refute you twice, because you were sloppy with what you were trying to say. Firstly, pedantically, "acting on the answer" could include saying "nahh". But that's not what you meant, so, let's take your real meaning: "asking the electorate questions and then obeying." There's a really good counterexample if you'll accept a reductio ad absurdum. Suppose a referendum were enacted stating "The United Kingdom should hereafter end all elections and hand full judicial, legislative and executive power to Mr Jeremy Corbyn for life, and thereafter to any successors he nominates." Suppose, bafflingly, 52% of the people accepted this.
Obeying that mandate would be undemocratic.
I won't spell out why, because I've done so in my previous post. The way you can rebut me now is by either accepting that enacting such a referendum result is democratic (I don't expect your instincts will allow you to do this) or by explaining why it is not without damaging your original definition. Best of luck.
The point is that it is indeed reductio ad absurdum and as such is a logical fallacy. Such fallacies cannot be answered because they have no value.
Ummm, it seems that you also do not understand what reductio ad absurdum means. It is not a logical fallacy. It is a valuable, even essential, way of proving certain things.
No, democracy is about asking the electorate questions and then acting on the answer they give
I can refute you twice, because you were sloppy with what you were trying to say. Firstly, pedantically, "acting on the answer" could include saying "nahh". But that's not what you meant, so, let's take your real meaning: "asking the electorate questions and then obeying." There's a really good counterexample if you'll accept a reductio ad absurdum. Suppose a referendum were enacted stating "The United Kingdom should hereafter end all elections and hand full judicial, legislative and executive power to Mr Jeremy Corbyn for life, and thereafter to any successors he nominates." Suppose, bafflingly, 52% of the people accepted this.
Obeying that mandate would be undemocratic.
I won't spell out why, because I've done so in my previous post. The way you can rebut me now is by either accepting that enacting such a referendum result is democratic (I don't expect your instincts will allow you to do this) or by explaining why it is not without damaging your original definition. Best of luck.
The point is that it is indeed reductio ad absurdum and as such is a logical fallacy. Such fallacies cannot be answered because they have no value.
There's a really good counterexample if you'll accept a reductio ad absurdum. Suppose a referendum were enacted stating "The United Kingdom should hereafter end all elections and hand full judicial, legislative and executive power to Mr Jeremy Corbyn for life, and thereafter to any successors he nominates." Suppose, bafflingly, 52% of the people accepted this.
Obeying that mandate would be undemocratic.
I won't spell out why, because I've done so in my previous post. The way you can rebut me now is by either accepting that enacting such a referendum result is democratic (I don't expect your instincts will allow you to do this) or by explaining why it is not without damaging your original definition. Best of luck.
It's not often a post on here makes me laugh but this did.
I think you're a secret leaver trying to make remainers look like morons.
I realise that would have been a bit much for you to follow, sweetie, so why not leave this conversation to the grownups for now?
That is garbage. Any straight Remain without a Brexit in the middle will be tainted with illegitimacy and not accepted by half the British public. That is an unsustainable position for EU membership.
Rejoin on the other hand can make clear that we left after a referendum was implemented and it is right we rejoin when a referendum decides to. Brexiters will be left up the creek without a paddle.
Indeed and it would be completely acceptable for that course of action to take place.
I said repeatedly before the first referendum that if and when Leave lost as I expected them to do I would accept in full the result. I would enjoy sniping from the side-lines when it all went horribly wrong but I would take no further part in campaigning or arguing for the result to be overturned. It is a great shame that some Remainers are not willing to do the same thing.
But of course once we have left I would fully expect a campaign to re-join to be launched. Again I would argue against re-joining but certainly would not argue that the campaign itself should not take place. It is a matter of principles. You (as a Remainer if I understand correctly), have them. Some other Remainers on here (and no doubt some Leavers if the position were reversed) do not.
It is also the reason why we should be going for as soft a Brexit as possible based on the result of the referendum. Respecting the result should be about more than just saying 'we won'. It should be about finding a solution that satisfies as many people as possible from all sides of the argument.
90% of Remainers would have accepted a soft Brexit but you can thank T May for ruining that particular option. It wasn’t right for the Conservative Party so that was it.
Remember, democracy is about the processes that govern power and its transfer. It is not, and it has never been, a particular snapshot in time that pleases you; if you think it is, back to school for you.
So is a GE a political snapshot in time and do we implement the result even if we don't like it?
Just a 'Yes' or 'No' will be fine, thanks.
We had an election in 2017 in which a large majority of voters voted for no brexit or a very soft brexit and you’re happy to ignore that.
Corbyn’s 2017 position was no single market and no customs union...
The letter as set out in the schedule was sent - as required by law. I doubt Johnson licked the envelope and stuck the stamp on himself. But it was sent - almost certainly electronically (with a possible paper copy to follow) - and would not have been sent without the express instruction from the PM.
How is that not complying with the law?
I would expect better than this sort of pettiness from a former parliamentarian, I really would.
I’ve said it before - Boris makes sensible people lose reason.
Does the current process look like a coup? No Did Johnson ultimately want a deal? Yes Does he want to deliver that by 31st? Yes
Are any of these unreasonable? No
If you listen to lots of commenters on here and the left leaning media you would think Boris was worse than Trump. In reality he wlll be a PM closer to Cameron.
Remember, democracy is about the processes that govern power and its transfer. It is not, and it has never been, a particular snapshot in time that pleases you; if you think it is, back to school for you.
So is a GE a political snapshot in time and do we implement the result even if we don't like it?
Just a 'Yes' or 'No' will be fine, thanks.
We had an election in 2017 in which a large majority of voters voted for no brexit or a very soft brexit and you’re happy to ignore that.
Corbyn’s 2017 position was no single market and no customs union...
90% of Remainers would have accepted a soft Brexit but you can thank T May for ruining that particular option. It wasn’t right for the Conservative Party so that was it.
May's cretinous red lines weren't right for the Toerags either. They lost their majority, and then they lost even the working majority. The last 3 years have been hugely destructive for the Conservatives' reputation.
No, democracy is about asking the electorate questions and then acting on the answer they give
I can refute you twice, because you were sloppy with what you were trying to say. Firstly, pedantically, "acting on the answer" could include saying "nahh". But that's not what you meant, so, let's take your real meaning: "asking the electorate questions and then obeying." There's a really good counterexample if you'll accept a reductio ad absurdum. Suppose a referendum were enacted stating "The United Kingdom should hereafter end all elections and hand full judicial, legislative and executive power to Mr Jeremy Corbyn for life, and thereafter to any successors he nominates." Suppose, bafflingly, 52% of the people accepted this.
Obeying that mandate would be undemocratic.
I won't spell out why, because I've done so in my previous post. The way you can rebut me now is by either accepting that enacting such a referendum result is democratic (I don't expect your instincts will allow you to do this) or by explaining why it is not without damaging your original definition. Best of luck.
The point is that it is indeed reductio ad absurdum and as such is a logical fallacy. Such fallacies cannot be answered because they have no value.
Ummm, it seems that you also do not understand what reductio ad absurdum means. It is not a logical fallacy. It is a valuable, even essential, way of proving certain things.
Nope. I understand it very well. It is only a valid technique when it is based on logical building blocks. Under any other circumstances - including yours - it is considered a logical fallacy in itself.
I realise that would have been a bit much for you to follow, sweetie, so why not leave this conversation to the grownups for now?
Rattled.
Not really, sweetie. Hoping for a reply from Richard Tyndall because that's where the interesting conversation is happening. You don't really matter very much.
You’re just describing yourself. You know the public no longer wants Brexit but you’re clinging onto the fact you squeaked over the line once as a way to justify your antidemocratic tendencies.
You know this is your only chance at this ridiculously stupid policy and that’s why you’re so angry.
You keep ascribing emotions to other people when it appears you are simply looking in a mirror. It is why you effuse to engage in the actual basis of the arguments and instead simply repeat pointless comments.
As for the public no longer wanting Brexit, the massive polls done a few days ago by Comres (26,000 respondents) showed very clearly that the public preference is to Brexit rather than carry on delaying or to cancel.
Not really, sweetie. Hoping for a reply from Richard Tyndall because that's where the interesting conversation is happening. You don't really matter very much.
90% of Remainers would have accepted a soft Brexit but you can thank T May for ruining that particular option. It wasn’t right for the Conservative Party so that was it.
May's cretinous red lines weren't right for the Toerags either. They lost their majority, and then they lost even the working majority. The last 3 years have been hugely destructive for the Conservatives' reputation.
As an aside I don't actually consider that a bad thing. The fact it is happening to Labour as well is a Brucie bonus. Both parties needed a massive shakeup and hopefully this will lead to some of their power being drained away as MPs become more independent.
You’re just describing yourself. You know the public no longer wants Brexit but you’re clinging onto the fact you squeaked over the line once as a way to justify your antidemocratic tendencies.
You know this is your only chance at this ridiculously stupid policy and that’s why you’re so angry.
You keep ascribing emotions to other people when it appears you are simply looking in a mirror. It is why you effuse to engage in the actual basis of the arguments and instead simply repeat pointless comments.
As for the public no longer wanting Brexit, the massive polls done a few days ago by Comres (26,000 respondents) showed very clearly that the public preference is to Brexit rather than carry on delaying or to cancel.
I see you’re doing a HYFUD now and misrepresenting polls.
You’re just describing yourself. You know the public no longer wants Brexit but you’re clinging onto the fact you squeaked over the line once as a way to justify your antidemocratic tendencies.
You know this is your only chance at this ridiculously stupid policy and that’s why you’re so angry.
You keep ascribing emotions to other people when it appears you are simply looking in a mirror. It is why you effuse to engage in the actual basis of the arguments and instead simply repeat pointless comments.
As for the public no longer wanting Brexit, the massive polls done a few days ago by Comres (26,000 respondents) showed very clearly that the public preference is to Brexit rather than carry on delaying or to cancel.
I see you’re doing a HYFUD now and misrepresenting polls.
Not sure how I can since that is how it was reported in every paper out there including the Mirror - which is hardly renowned for being pro-Brexit.
No, democracy is about asking the electorate questions and then acting on the answer they give
I can refute you twice, because you were sloppy with what you were trying to say. Firstly, pedantically, "acting on the answer" could include saying "nahh". But that's not what you meant, so, let's take your real meaning: "asking the electorate questions and then obeying." There's a really good counterexample if you'll accept a reductio ad absurdum. Suppose a referendum were enacted stating "The United Kingdom should hereafter end all elections and hand full judicial, legislative and executive power to Mr Jeremy Corbyn for life, and thereafter to any successors he nominates." Suppose, bafflingly, 52% of the people accepted this.
Obeying that mandate would be undemocratic.
I won't spell out why, because I've done so in my previous post. The way you can rebut me now is by either accepting that enacting such a referendum result is democratic (I don't expect your instincts will allow you to do this) or by explaining why it is not without damaging your original definition. Best of luck.
The point is that it is indeed reductio ad absurdum and as such is a logical fallacy. Such fallacies cannot be answered because they have no value.
Ummm, it seems that you also do not understand what reductio ad absurdum means. It is not a logical fallacy. It is a valuable, even essential, way of proving certain things.
Nope. I understand it very well. It is only a valid technique when it is based on logical building blocks. Under any other circumstances - including yours - it is considered a logical fallacy in itself.
But even though you're wrong, tell me what's wrong with my understanding of your line of reasoning, if anything:
1. Democracy means -- inter alia -- all referendums must be obeyed 2. A referendum (the "Corbyn" one that I detailed) can result in the ending of democracy, therefore 3. Therefore, democracy sometimes requires the destruction of democracy.
You’re just describing yourself. You know the public no longer wants Brexit but you’re clinging onto the fact you squeaked over the line once as a way to justify your antidemocratic tendencies.
You know this is your only chance at this ridiculously stupid policy and that’s why you’re so angry.
You keep ascribing emotions to other people when it appears you are simply looking in a mirror. It is why you effuse to engage in the actual basis of the arguments and instead simply repeat pointless comments.
As for the public no longer wanting Brexit, the massive polls done a few days ago by Comres (26,000 respondents) showed very clearly that the public preference is to Brexit rather than carry on delaying or to cancel.
I see you’re doing a HYFUD now and misrepresenting polls.
Not sure how I can since that is how it was reported in every paper out there including the Mirror - which is hardly renowned for being pro-Brexit.
You’ll know then that Remain has been ahead of Leave in nearly every poll for the last 3 years.
You’re just describing yourself. You know the public no longer wants Brexit but you’re clinging onto the fact you squeaked over the line once as a way to justify your antidemocratic tendencies.
You know this is your only chance at this ridiculously stupid policy and that’s why you’re so angry.
You keep ascribing emotions to other people when it appears you are simply looking in a mirror. It is why you effuse to engage in the actual basis of the arguments and instead simply repeat pointless comments.
As for the public no longer wanting Brexit, the massive polls done a few days ago by Comres (26,000 respondents) showed very clearly that the public preference is to Brexit rather than carry on delaying or to cancel.
I see you’re doing a HYFUD now and misrepresenting polls.
Not sure how I can since that is how it was reported in every paper out there including the Mirror - which is hardly renowned for being pro-Brexit.
You’ll know then that Remain has been ahead of Leave in nearly every poll for the last 3 years.
I think you are confusing Remain/Leave and revoke/get on with it.
You’re just describing yourself. You know the public no longer wants Brexit but you’re clinging onto the fact you squeaked over the line once as a way to justify your antidemocratic tendencies.
You know this is your only chance at this ridiculously stupid policy and that’s why you’re so angry.
You keep ascribing emotions to other people when it appears you are simply looking in a mirror. It is why you effuse to engage in the actual basis of the arguments and instead simply repeat pointless comments.
As for the public no longer wanting Brexit, the massive polls done a few days ago by Comres (26,000 respondents) showed very clearly that the public preference is to Brexit rather than carry on delaying or to cancel.
I see you’re doing a HYFUD now and misrepresenting polls.
Not sure how I can since that is how it was reported in every paper out there including the Mirror - which is hardly renowned for being pro-Brexit.
You’ll know then that Remain has been ahead of Leave in nearly every poll for the last 3 years.
I think you are confusing Remain/Leave and revoke/get on with it.
You’re just describing yourself. You know the public no longer wants Brexit but you’re clinging onto the fact you squeaked over the line once as a way to justify your antidemocratic tendencies.
You know this is your only chance at this ridiculously stupid policy and that’s why you’re so angry.
You keep ascribing emotions to other people when it appears you are simply looking in a mirror. It is why you effuse to engage in the actual basis of the arguments and instead simply repeat pointless comments.
As for the public no longer wanting Brexit, the massive polls done a few days ago by Comres (26,000 respondents) showed very clearly that the public preference is to Brexit rather than carry on delaying or to cancel.
I see you’re doing a HYFUD now and misrepresenting polls.
Not sure how I can since that is how it was reported in every paper out there including the Mirror - which is hardly renowned for being pro-Brexit.
You’ll know then that Remain has been ahead of Leave in nearly every poll for the last 3 years.
I think you are confusing Remain/Leave and revoke/get on with it.
I’m not confusing them. I’m ignoring the latter.
But you were the one refuting Richard's point, which was regarding the latter?
You’re just describing yourself. You know the public no longer wants Brexit but you’re clinging onto the fact you squeaked over the line once as a way to justify your antidemocratic tendencies.
You know this is your only chance at this ridiculously stupid policy and that’s why you’re so angry.
You keep ascribing emotions to other people when it appears you are simply looking in a mirror. It is why you effuse to engage in the actual basis of the arguments and instead simply repeat pointless comments.
As for the public no longer wanting Brexit, the massive polls done a few days ago by Comres (26,000 respondents) showed very clearly that the public preference is to Brexit rather than carry on delaying or to cancel.
I see you’re doing a HYFUD now and misrepresenting polls.
Not sure how I can since that is how it was reported in every paper out there including the Mirror - which is hardly renowned for being pro-Brexit.
You’ll know then that Remain has been ahead of Leave in nearly every poll for the last 3 years.
I think you are confusing Remain/Leave and revoke/get on with it.
I’m not confusing them. I’m ignoring the latter.
But you were the one refuting Richard's point, which was regarding the latter?
Well he was ignoring the former. I was ignoring the latter.
You’re just describing yourself. You know the public no longer wants Brexit but you’re clinging onto the fact you squeaked over the line once as a way to justify your antidemocratic tendencies.
You know this is your only chance at this ridiculously stupid policy and that’s why you’re so angry.
You keep ascribing emotions to other people when it appears you are simply looking in a mirror. It is why you effuse to engage in the actual basis of the arguments and instead simply repeat pointless comments.
As for the public no longer wanting Brexit, the massive polls done a few days ago by Comres (26,000 respondents) showed very clearly that the public preference is to Brexit rather than carry on delaying or to cancel.
I see you’re doing a HYFUD now and misrepresenting polls.
Not sure how I can since that is how it was reported in every paper out there including the Mirror - which is hardly renowned for being pro-Brexit.
You’ll know then that Remain has been ahead of Leave in nearly every poll for the last 3 years.
I think you are confusing Remain/Leave and revoke/get on with it.
I’m not confusing them. I’m ignoring the latter.
But you were the one refuting Richard's point, which was regarding the latter?
Well he was ignoring the former. I was ignoring the latter.
A poll asking if it should be abandoned or if MPs should get on with it seems relevant. As it stands, people want it done. That is not the same as asking how people would vote in a hypothetical referendum.
You’re just describing yourself. You know the public no longer wants Brexit but you’re clinging onto the fact you squeaked over the line once as a way to justify your antidemocratic tendencies.
You know this is your only chance at this ridiculously stupid policy and that’s why you’re so angry.
You keep ascribing emotions to other people when it appears you are simply looking in a mirror. It is why you effuse to engage in the actual basis of the arguments and instead simply repeat pointless comments.
As for the public no longer wanting Brexit, the massive polls done a few days ago by Comres (26,000 respondents) showed very clearly that the public preference is to Brexit rather than carry on delaying or to cancel.
I see you’re doing a HYFUD now and misrepresenting polls.
Not sure how I can since that is how it was reported in every paper out there including the Mirror - which is hardly renowned for being pro-Brexit.
You’ll know then that Remain has been ahead of Leave in nearly every poll for the last 3 years.
I think you are confusing Remain/Leave and revoke/get on with it.
I’m not confusing them. I’m ignoring the latter.
But you were the one refuting Richard's point, which was regarding the latter?
Well he was ignoring the former. I was ignoring the latter.
A poll asking if it should be abandoned or if MPs should get on with it seems relevant. As it stands, people want it done. That is not the same as asking how people would vote in a hypothetical referendum.
I don’t think people actually want it done; they just want it to go away. That nuance is important.
You’re just describing yourself. You know the public no longer wants Brexit but you’re clinging onto the fact you squeaked over the line once as a way to justify your antidemocratic tendencies.
You know this is your only chance at this ridiculously stupid policy and that’s why you’re so angry.
You keep ascribing emotions to other people when it appears you are simply looking in a mirror. It is why you effuse to engage in the actual basis of the arguments and instead simply repeat pointless comments.
As for the public no longer wanting Brexit, the massive polls done a few days ago by Comres (26,000 respondents) showed very clearly that the public preference is to Brexit rather than carry on delaying or to cancel.
I see you’re doing a HYFUD now and misrepresenting polls.
Not sure how I can since that is how it was reported in every paper out there including the Mirror - which is hardly renowned for being pro-Brexit.
You’ll know then that Remain has been ahead of Leave in nearly every poll for the last 3 years.
Yes and it's not surprising, at least on a superficial level Boris clearly has charisma and is personable (not to mention Boris speaks French so probably helped him charm Macron, Juncker et al). Fair to say it's one of his big advantages over May.
Boris' French isn't very good and would not remotely impress a master of le français soutenu like Macron.
Remember, democracy is about the processes that govern power and its transfer. It is not, and it has never been, a particular snapshot in time that pleases you; if you think it is, back to school for you.
So is a GE a political snapshot in time and do we implement the result even if we don't like it?
Just a 'Yes' or 'No' will be fine, thanks.
We had an election in 2017 in which a large majority of voters voted for no brexit or a very soft brexit and you’re happy to ignore that.
No we had an election where 84% said voted for parties who said they would respect the result of the referendum. They had a chance to do that and have singularly failed to do so.
I didnt vote at GE 2017 based on BREXIT policy. Nor did anyone I know.
Hey I am a leaver but this "will of the people" is overblown.
Remember, democracy is about the processes that govern power and its transfer. It is not, and it has never been, a particular snapshot in time that pleases you; if you think it is, back to school for you.
So is a GE a political snapshot in time and do we implement the result even if we don't like it?
Just a 'Yes' or 'No' will be fine, thanks.
We had an election in 2017 in which a large majority of voters voted for no brexit or a very soft brexit and you’re happy to ignore that.
No we had an election where 84% said voted for parties who said they would respect the result of the referendum. They had a chance to do that and have singularly failed to do so.
I didnt vote at GE 2017 based on BREXIT policy. Nor did anyone I know.
Hey I am a leaver but this "will of the people" is overblown.
Well, maybe we should remember that the referendum was "advisory", which I suspect bows to the principle that Parliament is our legal arbiter.
Remember, democracy is about the processes that govern power and its transfer. It is not, and it has never been, a particular snapshot in time that pleases you; if you think it is, back to school for you.
So is a GE a political snapshot in time and do we implement the result even if we don't like it?
Just a 'Yes' or 'No' will be fine, thanks.
We had an election in 2017 in which a large majority of voters voted for no brexit or a very soft brexit and you’re happy to ignore that.
No they voted for representatives. Part of who’s mandate was to oversee the implementation of Brexit
Remember, democracy is about the processes that govern power and its transfer. It is not, and it has never been, a particular snapshot in time that pleases you; if you think it is, back to school for you.
So is a GE a political snapshot in time and do we implement the result even if we don't like it?
Just a 'Yes' or 'No' will be fine, thanks.
That's two questions, but the answer is yes in both cases. At no point is it illegitimate to start to want a new election, even the day after a general election has happened. We already know this is the case fro recent years. Political instability meant that we had a new election in 2017, even though we were only just 2 years into a five-year parliament. It was recognised by a broad section of the country that a new vote was a good idea.
Your fundamental misunderstanding is the nature of a referendum. A GE is a command for the transfer of power from one MP to another person (or the same person returning), in every constituency. A referendum is an expression of the will of the people. A GE carries with it constitutional weight. A referendum is in itself constitutionally weightless. It's part of the political process, but not part of the democratic process. Democracy is about the machinery of power and how it gets transferred from one person to another. Politics is what happens within that machinery.
I think that’s where you are mistaken
Sovereignty ultimately and always proceeds from the people.
In most cases they are content to appoint representatives to wield it on their behalf (Parliament has delegated sovereignty)
In the case of Brexit Parliament said “this is too hard. Tell* us what we should do”.
Hence the referendum drew on the same well of Sovereignty that Parliament has. As a result Parliament does not have the power to set aside the decision
No, democracy is about asking the electorate questions and then acting on the answer they give
I can refute you twice, because you were sloppy with what you were trying to say. Firstly, pedantically, "acting on the answer" could include saying "nahh". But that's not what you meant, so, let's take your real meaning: "asking the electorate questions and then obeying." There's a really good counterexample if you'll accept a reductio ad absurdum. Suppose a referendum were enacted stating "The United Kingdom should hereafter end all elections and hand full judicial, legislative and executive power to Mr Jeremy Corbyn for life, and thereafter to any successors he nominates." Suppose, bafflingly, 52% of the people accepted this.
Obeying that mandate would be undemocratic.
I won't spell out why, because I've done so in my previous post. The way you can rebut me now is by either accepting that enacting such a referendum result is democratic (I don't expect your instincts will allow you to do this) or by explaining why it is not without damaging your original definition. Best of luck.
The point is that it is indeed reductio ad absurdum and as such is a logical fallacy. Such fallacies cannot be answered because they have no value.
Actually if the people decided to cancel elections and hand all power to Corbyn in perpetuity that would be legitimate
It wouldn’t be democratic.
But democracy is only a means of exercising sovereignty. It’s not particularly elegant but (pace Churchill) its better than the alternatives
If sovereignty and democracy conflict then sovereignty wins
Remember, democracy is about the processes that govern power and its transfer. It is not, and it has never been, a particular snapshot in time that pleases you; if you think it is, back to school for you.
So is a GE a political snapshot in time and do we implement the result even if we don't like it?
Just a 'Yes' or 'No' will be fine, thanks.
We had an election in 2017 in which a large majority of voters voted for no brexit or a very soft brexit and you’re happy to ignore that.
No we had an election where 84% said voted for parties who said they would respect the result of the referendum. They had a chance to do that and have singularly failed to do so.
I didnt vote at GE 2017 based on BREXIT policy. Nor did anyone I know.
Hey I am a leaver but this "will of the people" is overblown.
Well, maybe we should remember that the referendum was "advisory", which I suspect bows to the principle that Parliament is our legal arbiter.
If Parliament should be where the buck stops, then a not entirely illogical sequence might be for them to say "It's a hard one folks---have another think"; dissolve themselves; have a general election to give people a chance to knock them about; and then to decide as a Parliament.
Remember, democracy is about the processes that govern power and its transfer. It is not, and it has never been, a particular snapshot in time that pleases you; if you think it is, back to school for you.
So is a GE a political snapshot in time and do we implement the result even if we don't like it?
Just a 'Yes' or 'No' will be fine, thanks.
That's two questions, but the answer is yes in both cases. At no point is it illegitimate to start to want a new election, even the day after a general election has happened. We already know this is the case fro recent years. Political instability meant that we had a new election in 2017, even though we were only just 2 years into a five-year parliament. It was recognised by a broad section of the country that a new vote was a good idea.
Your fundamental misunderstanding is the nature of a referendum. A GE is a command for the transfer of power from one MP to another person (or the same person returning), in every constituency. A referendum is an expression of the will of the people. A GE carries with it constitutional weight. A referendum is in itself constitutionally weightless. It's part of the political process, but not part of the democratic process. Democracy is about the machinery of power and how it gets transferred from one person to another. Politics is what happens within that machinery.
I think that’s where you are mistaken
Sovereignty ultimately and always proceeds from the people.
In most cases they are content to appoint representatives to wield it on their behalf (Parliament has delegated sovereignty)
In the case of Brexit Parliament said “this is too hard. Tell* us what we should do”.
Hence the referendum drew on the same well of Sovereignty that Parliament has. As a result Parliament does not have the power to set aside the decision
* sorry, “Advise us what we should do”
Ah, we're introducing a new concept to the discussion, which is not unwelcome but could accidentally serve to muddy the waters. The discussion hitherto had been about whether a referendum could be democratically reversed. Of course I maintain that it can. And for that reason I'm forced to agree with you. Sovereignty dwells in the people, and parliament is a slave to that. The people should be the ones who get get Brexit over the line or cancel Brexit. We should put one of these deals to the British public and offer them the chance to accept it, to accept revoke or to accept no deal.
Comments
Just a 'Yes' or 'No' will be fine, thanks.
Farage says the whole deal is a disaster and we must leave without an extension. The Conservatives see Leaver support leaking to the Brexit Party as voters are incredulous we are still negotiating with the EU - they thought it was all meant to be over already. The question is - does anyone think the Tories won't end up adopting the Brexit Party position for their own party political survival? After all, this is what they have done at every stage of the process. No deal in January 2021 is highly likely in my view.
https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/what-is-labour-policy-on-brexit
At no point is it illegitimate to start to want a new election, even the day after a general election has happened. We already know this is the case fro recent years. Political instability meant that we had a new election in 2017, even though we were only just 2 years into a five-year parliament. It was recognised by a broad section of the country that a new vote was a good idea.
Your fundamental misunderstanding is the nature of a referendum. A GE is a command for the transfer of power from one MP to another person (or the same person returning), in every constituency. A referendum is an expression of the will of the people. A GE carries with it constitutional weight. A referendum is in itself constitutionally weightless. It's part of the political process, but not part of the democratic process. Democracy is about the machinery of power and how it gets transferred from one person to another. Politics is what happens within that machinery.
The very definition of dereliction of duty.
Rejoin on the other hand can make clear that we left after a referendum was implemented and it is right we rejoin when a referendum decides to. Brexiters will be left up the creek without a paddle.
There's a really good counterexample if you'll accept a reductio ad absurdum. Suppose a referendum were enacted stating "The United Kingdom should hereafter end all elections and hand full judicial, legislative and executive power to Mr Jeremy Corbyn for life, and thereafter to any successors he nominates."
Suppose, bafflingly, 52% of the people accepted this.
Obeying that mandate would be undemocratic.
I won't spell out why, because I've done so in my previous post. The way you can rebut me now is by either accepting that enacting such a referendum result is democratic (I don't expect your instincts will allow you to do this) or by explaining why it is not without damaging your original definition. Best of luck.
The frothers will froth and everyone else will just get on with their lives.
The basic fact is that you have no interest in democracy unless it goes your way. And you are happy to do anything necessary, no matter what the consequences, to ensure you get your way. I always used to wonder how civilised countries could turn into failed states. I realise now it is because of people like you who see democracy not as a basic principle but as a tool to achieve your ends and to be cast aside when you don't get your way.
You know this is your only chance at this ridiculously stupid policy and that’s why you’re so angry.
I've noticed the result. I dislike it. I am seeking all peaceful and democratic means to reverse it. Does that mean I respect it or not? Actually, don't answer because I really don't think it's an important concept.
I think you're a secret leaver trying to make remainers look like morons.
I said repeatedly before the first referendum that if and when Leave lost as I expected them to do I would accept in full the result. I would enjoy sniping from the side-lines when it all went horribly wrong but I would take no further part in campaigning or arguing for the result to be overturned. It is a great shame that some Remainers are not willing to do the same thing.
But of course once we have left I would fully expect a campaign to re-join to be launched. Again I would argue against re-joining but certainly would not argue that the campaign itself should not take place. It is a matter of principles. You (as a Remainer if I understand correctly), have them. Some other Remainers on here (and no doubt some Leavers if the position were reversed) do not.
It is also the reason why we should be going for as soft a Brexit as possible based on the result of the referendum. Respecting the result should be about more than just saying 'we won'. It should be about finding a solution that satisfies as many people as possible from all sides of the argument.
Does the current process look like a coup? No
Did Johnson ultimately want a deal? Yes
Does he want to deliver that by 31st? Yes
Are any of these unreasonable? No
If you listen to lots of commenters on here and the left leaning media you would think Boris was worse than Trump. In reality he wlll be a PM closer to Cameron.
As for the public no longer wanting Brexit, the massive polls done a few days ago by Comres (26,000 respondents) showed very clearly that the public preference is to Brexit rather than carry on delaying or to cancel.
(be sure to read the text, and not just the title of the website)
https://www.thoughtco.com/reductio-ad-absurdum-argument-1691903
But even though you're wrong, tell me what's wrong with my understanding of your line of reasoning, if anything:
1. Democracy means -- inter alia -- all referendums must be obeyed
2. A referendum (the "Corbyn" one that I detailed) can result in the ending of democracy, therefore
3. Therefore, democracy sometimes requires the destruction of democracy.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1185735579327193093?s=20
https://www.economist.com/books-and-arts/2019/10/17/how-america-saved-old-fashioned-english-grammar
I guess Parliament will be sitting 12 hours a day for the next ten days, if they’re going to get the Withdrawal Bill passed.
Hey I am a leaver but this "will of the people" is overblown.
Sovereignty ultimately and always proceeds from the people.
In most cases they are content to appoint representatives to wield it on their behalf (Parliament has delegated sovereignty)
In the case of Brexit Parliament said “this is too hard. Tell* us what we should do”.
Hence the referendum drew on the same well of Sovereignty that Parliament has. As a result Parliament does not have the power to set aside the decision
* sorry, “Advise us what we should do”
It wouldn’t be democratic.
But democracy is only a means of exercising sovereignty. It’s not particularly elegant but (pace Churchill) its better than the alternatives
If sovereignty and democracy conflict then sovereignty wins
There's not the time to do all that I guess.
The people should be the ones who get get Brexit over the line or cancel Brexit. We should put one of these deals to the British public and offer them the chance to accept it, to accept revoke or to accept no deal.