Brexit re article 50 it must not be suspended/stopped under any circumstances Please sign the petition

fishhead

War Hero
I am becoming increasingly irritated by the revisionist version of history reported in many of the newspapers and then regurgitated here and elsewhere. If you take the trouble to check on what was actually said and done in the run-up to the referendum and in the period you will find it is at some variance from what is generally thought.

For instance, the idea that a vote for 'leave' anticipated a no-deal brexit is false. The manner by which we would leave the EU was studiously avoided by Vote Leave, Leave. EU or any of the other pressure groups in their campaigning as it was by all of the politicians involved. There is a possibility that some who voted leave could have been wanting to avoid any involvement with any combination of the single market, the customs union, free movement or the ECJ but that would still be possible in a variety of ways and it did not suit the leave campaigns (who expected to lose the referendum) to be more specific. They wanted to attract votes from anyone who had an objection to any part of the EU project rather than confine their appeal to the purists now supporting the ERG.

It is also not true that a second referendum was not anticipated. It was thought by many leave campaigners before the vote that electors should be given the chance to vote for the process of leaving and then given a second vote later on the process of leaving. Boris Johnson was still advocating this after the referendum as part of his leadership bid (before Gove's intervention!).

Thus, it is not true that 17.4 million people are being misled by parliament. Parliament is doing exactly what it should and examining the best way to carry out what the referendum requested - to leave the EU. It may be that they will decide that no deal is the best way despite the problems with N Ireland. It may be that they will decide that the Prime Minister's deal represents an acceptable compromise. Or it may be that they decide that we need to maintain some form of customs union (with all the concomitant issues). It is even possible that they may be unable to come to a conclusion which enjoys a majority amongst them and that they will need to consult the electorate on what is thought the best of the available alternativ
ble alternatives - a 'peoples' vote'. If such a vote eventuates and a majority now believe we should remain that will become the new objective. Such a result would not be a betrayal of the earlier referendum, it would be a change of mind by the electorate - not something to blame parliament for.



I am as cynical as anyone with regard to the motives behind the actions of all of the politicians involved but they must be judged on those actions and not on the basis of what a newspaper columnist asserts they did or on what their proprietor would like to pretend they did.
es - a 'peoples' vote'. If such a vote eventuates and a majority now believe we should remain that will become the new objective. Such a result would not be a betrayal of the earlier referendum, it would be a change of mind by the electorate - not something to blame parliament for.

I am as cynical as anyone with regard to the motives behind the actions of all of the politicians involved but they must be judged on those actions and not on the basis of what a newspaper columnist asserts they did or on what their proprietor would like to pretend they did.

Please don't fall for it.
What is undemocratic about asking the people what they want? We do it every 4 years for parliament.
When voting every 4 or 5 years to elect MPs we are picking our candidate based on a variety of policies. The referendum of 2016 was a single issue. If we are asked to take part in another referendum asking the same question that is undemocratic as it suggests the politicians are saying "we didn't like your first answer have another go".
Democracy as I see it is dependent on the result of votes being acted upon otherwise we might as well not bother.
 
D

Deleted 493

Guest
When voting every 4 or 5 years to elect MPs we are picking our candidate based on a variety of policies. The referendum of 2016 was a single issue. If we are asked to take part in another referendum asking the same question that is undemocratic as it suggests the politicians are saying "we didn't like your first answer have another go".
Democracy as I see it is dependent on the result of votes being acted upon otherwise we might as well not bother.
As pointed out, time and time again (and true to form for Brexiters, it's a classic case of 'What don't you understand about <insert phrase>?' much the same as their clarion, meaningless "What don't you understand about 'we voted to leave'?"

The original referendum was 'advisory', not 'actionable'. It was a litmus test rather than a way ahead and was by policy, able to be set aside as seen fit anyway by the governing administration.

Parliament isn't deliberately delaying Brexit. They see a lot of things we don't which need clarifying and, true to it's nature, there needs to be a consensus on the way ahead. There are literally dozens and dozens of MPs in the lower house who are remainers but whose constituencies are majority Brexiters and it would be a ballsy MP who would deliberately ignore that. It is politically naive of anyone observing this to assume that there is some sort of blocking conspiracy going on to hamper the progress of Brexit. As soon as Article 50 was invoked, we were on our way out whatever happens.

Levers
 

Sumo

War Hero
ECJ ruled in December that the UK can revoke article 50 if it wished to, PM said no to this. Only time and further political debate and wrangling will give a way forward. Whether it will be the best deal or a mishmash of what is needed to get the house votes required, we will have to wait, then see what the EU have to say?
 

fishhead

War Hero
As pointed out, time and time again (and true to form for Brexiters, it's a classic case of 'What don't you understand about <insert phrase>?' much the same as their clarion, meaningless "What don't you understand about 'we voted to leave'?"

The original referendum was 'advisory', not 'actionable'. It was a litmus test rather than a way ahead and was by policy, able to be set aside as seen fit anyway by the governing administration.

Parliament isn't deliberately delaying Brexit. They see a lot of things we don't which need clarifying and, true to it's nature, there needs to be a consensus on the way ahead. There are literally dozens and dozens of MPs in the lower house who are remainers but whose constituencies are majority Brexiters and it would be a ballsy MP who would deliberately ignore that. It is politically naive of anyone observing this to assume that there is some sort of blocking conspiracy going on to hamper the progress of Brexit. As soon as Article 50 was invoked, we were on our way out whatever happens.

Levers
The original referendum was 'advisory', not 'actionable'. It was a litmus test rather than a way ahead and was by policy, able to be set aside as seen fit anyway by the governing administration.
I have to admit I missed that particular caveat when we were asked to vote


.Parliament isn't deliberately delaying Brexit
Some MPs are and have stated so.

There are literally dozens and dozens of MPs in the lower house who are remainers but whose constituencies are majority Brexiters and it would be a ballsy MP who would deliberately ignore that.
You would think so but it appears some seem to have discovered a hitherto unseen backbone even though they stood for election on a ticket of carrying out the result of the referendum.
 

Exprop

Lantern Swinger
The original referendum was 'advisory', not 'actionable'. It was a litmus test rather than a way ahead and was by policy, able to be set aside as seen fit anyway by the governing administration.
I have to admit I missed that particular caveat when we were asked to vote


.Parliament isn't deliberately delaying Brexit
Some MPs are and have stated so.

There are literally dozens and dozens of MPs in the lower house who are remainers but whose constituencies are majority Brexiters and it would be a ballsy MP who would deliberately ignore that.
You would think so but it appears some seem to have discovered a hitherto unseen backbone even though they stood for election on a ticket of carrying out the result of the referendum.
I am beginning to see why Levers gets so upset. You obviously were not paying attention when the referendum vote was called nor to some of the posts earlier in this thread. Our system is a representative democracy. We elect MPs to represent us (the whole constituency not simply those that vote for the party of the winner) in parliament. They are not delegates mandated to vote in accord with the majority's wishes.

Part of the reason for this system is that many questions are complex and require a great deal of detailed explanation to understand. It is doubtful that many of the general population have either the interest or the expertise to decide on, for example, issues to do with public health, air traffic control, pharmaceutical licencing, social housing, fishing quotas or banking regulations. That is why our representatives are required to study these issues on our behalf and vote in accordance with what they perceive to be the best interests of their constituents.

In the case of Brexit, a majority of voters have indicated that they wish to leave the EU (note that this is not an overwhelming majority and that the MPs are required to represent all of their constituents not just those who we were in the majority). As a result of this the government have tried to devise a way of leaving the EU which honours that majority verdict without causing collateral damage to the economy and to the well-being of all parts of the population.

They are working through this but as you might expect there are disagreements as to the best way forward. Nobody has ever left the EU before and there are potential benefits to be gained and pitfalls to be avoided so it requires minute scrutiny. That is what is going on at present and it is being conducted at pace because 2 years is a very short time to consider all of the ramifications resulting from signing Article 50.

At the same time, politics is continuing in its normal way. The right wing of the Tory party is manoeuvring to ensure that it will have a candidate well-placed to replace Teresa May if and when she resigns. The Labour party are manoeuvring to ensure that they will not be blamed if the whole leaving process goes 'tits up'. There are also several individuals who are primarily interested in positioning themselves for advancement.

One should also be aware that there a several journalists, particularly ex-ministers, who have axes to grind and who want to malign various other politicians (Osborne has never forgiven May for example). There are more than enough feuds amongst the cabinet alone without looking outside. These are largely irrelevant to the real issues of Brexit but, for example, Leadsom would dearly like to make Rudd look bad and will happily leak anything which suits her purpose. This colours most of the media coverage so that an awful lot of what is reported is more concerned with angle than with accuracy.

MPs stood on a manifesto which promised that they would carry out the wishes of the electorate. At the time of the election that meant Brexit and they are still working through the necessary processes to make sure that this could be carried out successfully. However, they are also bound to have regard to whether the sentiments of their constituents have changed. If they want a less 'gung-ho' approach now that they have learned more then they should acknowledge that.

You may have thought that a vote for leaving the EU was a simple choice and perhaps for you it was. However, I doubt that the implications with regard to aircraft landing rights, medicine approvals, counter terrorism, NI borders, etc. or even the costs and recruitment difficulties of manning customs posts at our ports crossed your mind at the time. It ill behoves you to castigate those who work to carry out your wishes and protect you from the worst consequences of what you may not have considered.

To sum up, if you think that you as an everyday voter are well-enough informed to be clear on what the government should be doing a little humility would not come amiss. You have an opinion, that is all and increasingly it appears to be an ill-informed one.
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted 493

Guest
^all of what he says^

It's particularly noteworthy that regardless of the likes of Rees-Mogg and his ilk saying they want out and are not bothered much by the consequences, it kind of escapes the rationale that no matter what happens, hard, soft, May's deal, Cooper/Letwyn, delay A50 or even remain, it wont matter a fat rat's dick to them as they're quite happily accounted for and their somehwat naive Billy Brexit 'proper working class' supporters will be the ones cleaned out. You know ... the ones currently blaming the government for the mess they voted for.

Levers
 
Agree with both of the above posts EXCEPT that final sentence of Levers which, IMO, is far too general to make much sense of.

One of his various opinions & he's fully entitled to air them but don't expect everyone to agree with them or rise to the bait of debating them.

That is all (for now...)
 

fishhead

War Hero
I am beginning to see why Levers gets so upset. You obviously were not paying attention when the referendum vote was called nor to some of the posts earlier in this thread. Our system is a representative democracy. We elect MPs to represent us (the whole constituency not simply those that vote for the party of the winner) in parliament. They are not delegates mandated to vote in accord with the majority's wishes.




.
They are also not mandated to vote with the minorities wishes. On that basis other than those MPs directly involved with the execution of Brexit they should keep out of it.
A cannot remember hearing a wannabee on the hustings telling the electorate that if he/she gets their vote not to expect that he/she will carry out any of the policies on which they are standing if their party is in power. We all know about a "politician's promise" being worthless but it is rarely we see how utterly untrustworthy they are on a major matter.
I actually think that the two major parties have been too busy playing tribal politics to make any kind of success of Brexit. The whole shooting match is a complete shambles. I never thought that Brexit was going to be easy but I was totally unprepared for the monstrous balls up that has ensued. Although I still believe the UK would be better if released from the all enveloping tentacles of the EU if we didn't leave I would not loose any sleep.
 

Exprop

Lantern Swinger
They are also not mandated to vote with the minorities wishes. On that basis other than those MPs directly involved with the execution of Brexit they should keep out of it.
A cannot remember hearing a wannabee on the hustings telling the electorate that if he/she gets their vote not to expect that he/she will carry out any of the policies on which they are standing if their party is in power. We all know about a "politician's promise" being worthless but it is rarely we see how utterly untrustworthy they are on a major matter.
I actually think that the two major parties have been too busy playing tribal politics to make any kind of success of Brexit. The whole shooting match is a complete shambles. I never thought that Brexit was going to be easy but I was totally unprepared for the monstrous balls up that has ensued. Although I still believe the UK would be better if released from the all enveloping tentacles of the EU if we didn't leave I would not loose any sleep.
You may be surprised to learn that I find your post encouraging. You now seem to recognise, in a way that you did not previously, that MPs are not elected simply to carry out your wishes.

I am disappointed that you are not prepared to take your share of the responsibility for the 'monstrous balls up that has ensued'. It was always likely when a massively complex issue was reduced to a simple binary question. You were certainly warned by the government, the Bank of England, the CBI, myriad trade bodies and by the Stronger In campaign. If blame is due, it is to those who pretended that leaving would be easy (where are you now Liam Fox, Boris Johnson, Bernard Jenkin, et al?) but you do not seem to be placing it there. Did you not question their assurances?

No doubt you will sleep easily when all this is over. We will have left the EU and our children will have to pick up the pieces. It won't be your problem, it will be theirs. Nothing to worry about then!
 

InstaDan

Lantern Swinger
When voting every 4 or 5 years to elect MPs we are picking our candidate based on a variety of policies. The referendum of 2016 was a single issue. If we are asked to take part in another referendum asking the same question that is undemocratic as it suggests the politicians are saying "we didn't like your first answer have another go".
Democracy as I see it is dependent on the result of votes being acted upon otherwise we might as well not bother.
This "woe is me, they are ignoring my vote" attitude is rather tiresome. If you truly think that the leave vote has simply been ignored by Parliament and they are saying "we didn't like the first result" then I question your ability to keep up with the situation.

We have been locked in brexit talks for 3 years. Deals have been brought to the table and voted down. Businesses and individuals have suffered due to the looming no-deal brexit. We are having a bloody good go at leaving but it's not as simple and safe as was initially indicated.

I know at least 10 individuals who voted leave who say they would vote remain if there were a second referendum. I can't say the same for remainers now voting leave (this is obviously just my experience).

The implications of leaving Europe are now far clearer and I believe that if a second referendum were held, remain would win. This would be the will of the people and democratic.

How anyone can consider the government asking the people if we are sure we want to go through with this "undemocratic" blows my mind. I'm even asked twice if I'm sure about closing a word document, I feel like the future of the nation deserves a confidence check.
 

dapperdunn

War Hero
Book Reviewer
Part of the reason for this system is that many questions are complex and require a great deal of detailed explanation to understand. It is doubtful that many of the general population have either the interest or the expertise to decide on, for example, issues to do with public health, air traffic control, pharmaceutical licencing, social housing, fishing quotas or banking regulations. That is why our representatives are required to study these issues on our behalf and vote in accordance with what they perceive to be the best interests of their constituents.
I heard an excerpt from an interview with Mrs Thatcher before she became PM about referendums. She said if it was a binary question like 'Should we bring back capital punishment'? Where the answer is a fairly straightforward yes or no, then a referendum is appropriate. The question ' Should we leave the EEC' where the answer is non binary, where there are too many variables, it's not appropriate.
 

Latest Threads

Top