Brexit - The continuing mission to explore strange new forms of silliness

[Mean Mr. Mustard]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

I realize cp is a leftist forum. Nothing new there.

However:

People who voted to leave the eu: 17,410,742
People who voted to stay in the eu: 16,141,241

This is the part where the left comes in and questions the results, the validity of the vote etc. Democracy be dam$&@.

So the politicians who were responsible for actually going through with the plan realized that if they did so it would destroy the UK economy, potentially lead to the collapse of the union itself and result in the return to the English economy of the 1960s/70s (do some reading, it wasn't good).

Going back to the public and saying - this is the full extent of what would happen is necessary to avoid ruin.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Party Elephant

Clearly stampsx2 doesn't read the Canadian politics thread.

He does, but he's placed himself so close to the alt-right that literally everything else is "leftist" in his mind.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

And let’s not forget the Russians meddled in the Brexit vote as well

[Locke]

Is there an over/under line on Murray Edwards coming home?

[FlameOn]

Torys to expell all 21 rebel MPs from the party. Lol. Way to screw yourself over Johnson

https://twitter.com/user/status/1169000894513504263

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

I realize cp is a leftist forum. Nothing new there.

However:

People who voted to leave the eu: 17,410,742
People who voted to stay in the eu: 16,141,241

This is the part where the left comes in and questions the results, the validity of the vote etc. Democracy be dam$&@.

You’ve already had the context, nuances and backstory explained to you last week.

And in great detail.

Here is a new piece of info for you. The Brexit situation is not a left/right issue, so your entire post makes no sense at all.

You’re consistent, I’ll give you that.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Strict adherence to a poorly made decision, that’s what democracy is all about!

Yes it is, exactly. Otherwise voting has no meaning there will always be arguments as to why the results were wrong and groups saying we must ignore the results and do this instead.

[devo22]

the referendum wasn't even legally binding. Strictly adhering to a non-binding referendum that was based on lies and misinformation and whose results would send Britain and its economy into turmoil is not exactly a win for democracy.

[zamler]

I bet if the no side won we'd be having exactly the same conversations.

[Fuzz]

If the yes side is so confident they have a convncing majority, and that is what the people want, what is the harm in asking again, now that the people know what is on the table?

Pretty obvious they know the no side would be the majority this time. It's like the beat up champion boxer afraid to get in the ring to defend his title, knowing he'd get his clock cleaned.

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

If the yes side is so confident they have a convncing majority, and that is what the people want, what is the harm in asking again, now that the people know what is on the table?

Pretty obvious they know the no side would be the majority this time. It's like the beat up champion boxer afraid to get in the ring to defend his title, knowing he'd get his clock cleaned.

The yes side have been arguing for a referendum. Which makes sense now that there is a better although by no means complete understanding of what the implications of such a decision means.

[Barnet Flame]

A couple of minutes ago on my way to work.

[marsplasticeraser]

Originally Posted by devo22

the referendum wasn't even legally binding. Strictly adhering to a non-binding referendum that was based on lies and misinformation and whose results would send Britain and its economy into turmoil is not exactly a win for democracy.

This is such a good point. The leave side had so much misinformation about what leaving would look like. Ironically, the deal with eu is basically exactly what most neutral observers predicted.

Unfortunately there isn’t a lot of optimism for a Britain outside the EU. What happens to financial services? What happens to all the international companies with European head offices in uk? What happens if all the European doctors are forced to leave? What happens with a trade deal with the USA that opens up health care? What happens if Scotland leaves. What happens to Ireland? What happens if wales leaves.

Does this eventually just become a separate and decimated England?

Access to 500 million wealthy consumers is very attractive for most economies.

[Resolute 14]

It's kind of amazing that Johnston managed to go from a 1 seat majority to about a 40 seat minority in a matter of hours.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by zamler

Yes it is, exactly. Otherwise voting has no meaning there will always be arguments as to why the results were wrong and groups saying we must ignore the results and do this instead.

Well that depends on what you consider democracy to be.

England (and Canada) have a representative democratic system, which is supposed to be for exactly this type of situation.
Not everyone can be experts, or up to date on everything, so we elect people to make some decisions for us.

They had a referendum...great, it wasn't legally binding, probably to avoid exactly this type of situation, where the people who are actually making the deal can say "You know what guys, now that we're neck deep in this, and see what it actually means, this is actually a really bad idea. Maybe we should walk it back a bit".

They "Go forward at all costs because the referendum" side are implicitly stating that one kind of democratic decision supersedes another.
I'd argue that a hundreds of years old tradition of representative, rather than direct democracy supersedes a non-binding referendum.

If your argument is "Brexit will be good for the country" then by all means, argue for Brexit.

If your argument is "they voted in a referendum" then you're going to need something more to back it up, because you're also implicitly arguing against long standing principles of representative democracy in the UK.

[Ozy_Flame]

I have a feeling that, if done over, the majority would vote for NO just to avoid this embarrassing disaster of an EU exit and the potential for damaging the economy that is probably more clear to average Brits than before.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Well that depends on what you consider democracy to be.

England (and Canada) have a representative democratic system, which is supposed to be for exactly this type of situation.
Not everyone can be experts, or up to date on everything, so we elect people to make some decisions for us.

They had a referendum...great, it wasn't legally binding, probably to avoid exactly this type of situation, where the people who are actually making the deal can say "You know what guys, now that we're neck deep in this, and see what it actually means, this is actually a really bad idea. Maybe we should walk it back a bit".

They "Go forward at all costs because the referendum" side are implicitly stating that one kind of democratic decision supersedes another.
I'd argue that a hundreds of years old tradition of representative, rather than direct democracy supersedes a non-binding referendum.

If your argument is "Brexit will be good for the country" then by all means, argue for Brexit.

If your argument is "they voted in a referendum" then you're going to need something more to back it up, because you're also implicitly arguing against long standing principles of representative democracy in the UK.

The reason the referendum was non binding was because it is impossible legally to have a binding national referendum in the UK, there is no law or constitution that can take primacy away from Parliament that would enable it.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The reason the referendum was non binding was because it is impossible legally to have a binding national referendum in the UK, there is no law or constitution that can take primacy away from Parliament that would enable it.

There's no rule saying a dog can't be Prime Minister...

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I have a feeling that, if done over, the majority would vote for NO just to avoid this embarrassing disaster of an EU exit and the potential for damaging the economy that is probably more clear to average Brits than before.

Ah.. possibily but I suspect it would still be very close.

[FlameOn]

Bojo loses second no-deal Brexit vote 329-300.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics...-politics-live

Simultaneously UK MPs block motion to call a snap election...

Government is defeated again in motion on general election
As expected, Boris Johnson has suffered another big loss, with the Commons rejecting his motion calling for a general election.

The PM would have needed 434 votes to reach a two-thirds majority.

Ayes: 298

Noes: 56

UK Parliament chaos continues.