When did I say its not allowed to be done?Originally Posted by Khendraja'aro
When did I say its not allowed to be done?
Which is utterly meaningless as far as democracy goes. A country does not become undemocratic just because its politicians are unable to implement their manifesto. Why continue to bring this up?
Hope is the denial of reality
I'm not sure why you're insisting then that there's something as stupid as a "moral duty" to do this shit. It has been almost three fucking years with this idiocy. You guys have shown that you cannot organize an orgy in a brothel. At some point you guys need to realize that with a government this dysfunctional you cannot be successful outside the EU.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
I need to see the source for that 80%. And then I also need to see the percentage of votes they actually got. Because, you know, you guys have this absolutely fucking stupid first-past-the-post system which renders such opinions as you have meaningless because it does not in any way depict the REAL percentages.
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
Who said it does? Not me.
A party that gets elected on a manifesto then renegs on it without very good reason is undemocratic though and deserves to be punished by the voters. Its not legally binding but without good reasons to change it is morally so.
No, it's not. Bad politics != undemocratic.
Hope is the denial of reality
Does anyone know if we have an agreement on extending the article 50 procedure?
Congratulations America
"EU agrees Brexit delay until 22 May if MPs approve withdrawal deal next week, or 12 April if they do not."
Hope is the denial of reality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_U...neral_election
Tories, Labout and DUP all pledged to respect the referendum result and won over 90% of seats on 83.3% of the vote.
Going against the principles you were elected on is undemocratic. The democratic principle is that MPs will seek to respect what they were elected to do.
MPs have the right to do so if they want, and we have a right to judge them for it next time.
No, it's not. You saying otherwise doesn't make it so. Politics frequently entails making promises you can't keep. Or the situation changes. Even lying, as long as it's not done in an unconstitutional manner, is not undemocratic.
Hope is the denial of reality
This "no take backsies" stuff leavers indulge in is, frankly, stupid and a clear sign many of them are not operating in good faith when they talk about the importance of the will of the people, but the reality is there's little evidence of significant demand amongst the public for a second vote at this point in time, so having another one would stand a very good chance of getting the exact same result.
I can see a case for one if it's clear that no-deal is the only option left, but by the time that's clear it will be too late to hold another vote. Given their reticence about granting an extension in the order of months, I don't really think the EU is going to allow an extension of article 50 to hold another referendum plus campaign, which may still return the same result and leave us also in exactly the same damn position we were in 3 years ago. Plus, if they were to grant such an extension then the urgency about no deal is gone, sooo.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
If the situation changes then that falls under "good reason" that I mentioned, but the situation hasn't changed here. Lying about what you will do if elected is undemocratic.
In fact lying is considered so taboo that it is not just forbidden to lie in the House, it is forbidden for an MP to accuse another Honorable Member of lying.
Hope is the denial of reality
Nothing has changed.
Look, here are the actual definitions of democracy most political scientists subscribe to (I'm not counting definitions that require things like "every citizen must have the same impact on politics" kind of criteria that no country has ever met):
Procedural:
-free and fair elections for top political position (or those who appoint it)
Institutional:
-clear rules for political succession
-multiple viable candidates for high office
-nearly everyone can run for high office
-there are at least some constitutional limitations on the power of the executive
-clear rules for how elections are contested and by whom
-nearly everyone can vote
Rights:
-free press
-free association
-free speech
-right to vote
-right to run for high office
See what's missing? Anything about what the ruler does once in power as long as they don't violate the constitution or restrict people's basic rights.
Hope is the denial of reality
But is it acceptable to the Brits? It almost seems like a craftily stealthy insult.
Congratulations America
He muttered to himself in a darkened room, meanwhile we see Big Ben collapsing in flames outside the window.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
But there's still no majority for a second vote.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
I'm not referring to political scientists, I'm referring to generic use of the word. The etymology of democracy is 'the people' 'rule' and we are a representative democracy, we the people choose representatives based on their pledges and expect them to honour their pledges to the best of their ability - while simultaneously using their best judgements to resolve issues that arise etc. If the representatives go against what they said then that is undemocratic. They are no longer honouring what they pledged to us, which is what we elected them to do. They have the right to do that, and we have the right to judge them for it. If they can show there's good reason to do it, then we could agree with their decision.
The fact you're so flippant about lying whereas its one of the most serious accusations one can make (actually its so serious you can't even make it) in Parliament shows you're not understanding at least our view of democracy properly. Maybe in America that's considered acceptable but part of our constitutional democracy is that our "Honorable Members" act honorably.
When you exclude Don't Knows, Remain got 55% of the vote in the vast majority of pre-referendum polls too.
You're also not allowed to call an MP drunk and, well...
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
I love the fact that alcohol is forbidden in the chamber except during the budget. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is permitted to drink while giving the budget - and many have even in recent times. That to me is so quintessentially eccentric and British. Ken Clarke drank whisky while giving the budget.
True, but I like to think Remain would actually try this time around, if there were a second referendum campaign.
Also, it's going to be a lot harder for Leave to lie.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
True. Although Remain did outspend Leave by nearly 2:1 last time.
There's very inconsistent evidence. Regardless, who cares? May is clearly too incompetent to get through the Brexit process. Corbyn is a pile of crap. Why not have a ranked vote, with 3 options: remain, May's Brexit, hard Brexit? By making it a ranked choice, the top option is guaranteed to have the support of the majority.
Hope is the denial of reality
You don't like the idea of honouring our past referendums do you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_U...ote_referendum
Ranked voting for the Commons is not the same as a ranked choice referendum. Now we're extending referenda results to areas to which they were not intended to apply?
Hope is the denial of reality
I was joking.
If we're talking about whats' the most sensible thing to do, then yes, that's a viable resolution, if we're talking about what can realistically be made to happen in the time available that's just not an option.
I mean, if we're talking about hypothetical solutions there are probably dozens of possible ones. MPs could agree May's deal. MPs could agree we want a customs union and renegotiate. We could revoke Article 50 and universally agree to pretend the whole thing was a prank that got out of hand etc
The problem is there are too many factions in parliament right now with their own little agendas. The ERG just wants a straight up hard brexit which would likely come a distant third in that scenario, the DUP doesn't want anything like May's deal which would have a fair chance of winning so they won't back it either, and Labour won't back it because Corbyn's more interested in spiting the Tories than he is in resolving Brexit, May could go against part of her party and work with Remainer Labour MPs to make it happen but that would likely split the Tory party and obviously avoiding that is way more important than what happens to the country etc.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote