|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Fri 9 Aug 09:34
So apparently it is undemocratic to hold another vote to clarify the public's wishes on brexit, yet an unelected PM of a minority government threatening to squat in Downing Street after losing a confidence vote is fine.
Could anybody explain this Tory logic to me, because I'm totally confused?!
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Andrew283
Date: Fri 9 Aug 09:38
They don't want reruns of either referendum as they know they'll likely lose both. Britain is run by career politicians only looking to make bank and not for the people. Can't wait to see who Brexiteers pass the blame for the mess the country's becoming onto now.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 9 Aug 10:16
Of course if we voted for independence in 2014 we'd all have been in favour of having another vote just to double check. In some ways it may help people vote for independence in any future referendum as we would need to have a second vote before actually leaving the union.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Fri 9 Aug 14:11
Quote:
The One Who Knocks, Fri 9 Aug 10:16
Of course if we voted for independence in 2014 we'd all have been in favour of having another vote just to double check. In some ways it may help people vote for independence in any future referendum as we would need to have a second vote before actually leaving the union.
If we voted yes in 2014, and there was still a huge argument and confusion about what 'yes' actually meant, if it had brought down two governments, then yes, it would be reasonable to have another vote.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 9 Aug 15:01
Well there will almost certainly be huge arguments and confusion in the aftermath of an independence vote. Nobody can say with any certainty what kind of deal an independent Scotland would be able to strike with the rUK on all sorts of issues. At the point that deal is reached we could have another vote just to decide if its all worth it.
I'd rather the UK had voted to remain in the EU but we didn't so in a democracy we have tobl honour the majority and leave. Doesn't mean we have to leave with no deal but we do need to no longer be a member of the EU.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Fri 9 Aug 16:45
In a democracy people are allowed to change their mind.
That's why we have new elections rather than just sticking with what was decided at the first ever election.
The idea that changing your mind is undemocratic is weird and I don't know where it came from.
Bear in mind that the parliament who was elected after Brexit was unable to reach a decision on multiple occasions. A new vote is a sensible way to break the impasse.
What I would definitely and unambiguously consider undemocratic though would be if an unelected PM were to remain in office after a vote of no confidence in order to force a result that few want.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Rastapari
Date: Fri 9 Aug 17:19
We're not in a democracy ffs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 9 Aug 17:20
In the event of an independence referendum the people should be asked if they have changed their mind before we actually separate from the UK then?
I suspect Wotsit, and I'm not wanting to sound argumentative here, is that if Johnson were willing to ignore a no confidence vote to be able to force a result that you agreed with your concerns over democracy wouldn't be so heightened.
Besides if the parliament do vote for a no confidence motion why should that be respected? They also voted to implement the referendum result.
Again for the record I voted to remain but I'm not subsequently going to sell out my principles to get the result I want.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Mario
Date: Fri 9 Aug 17:23
I’m glad I’ve only got 4 generations or so to go.....
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 9 Aug 17:41
I'm that case Rasta they do a better job of faking it in this country then they do in Russia or China.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Fri 9 Aug 17:59
I suspect Wotsit, and I'm not wanting to sound argumentative here, is that if Johnson were willing to ignore a no confidence vote to be able to force a result that you agreed with your concerns over democracy wouldn't be so heightened.
Incorrect.
Forcing things is not democratic - whether I want it or not.
Let me ask you a hypothetical: would you have accepted it if Westminster had told Scotland that it can't have an Indy referendum because we had already decided back in 1707?
Or if the next election was cancelled because we already voted in 2015? Would you be "selling out your principles" if you disagreed?
They also voted to implement the referendum result.
No they didn't. The referendum was a consultative one (rather than a binding one like the Scottish Indy one) and what parliament voted to do was to invoke Article 50 which isn't the same as voting to implement Brexit. They haven't been able to agree on anything Brexit related since.
with regard to the Indy ref, I was arguing at the time that there should be another referendum to rubber-stamp any deal with the deal being renegotiated if it was rejected. Basically, if we can't agree on a deal then we clearly don't want the same thing and we're just blaming a load of other woes on either the EU or Westminster.
PS - I actually voted Leave. Not an EU fan at all, but this is a mess. People voted based on lies. Huge campaign finance fraud. Cambridge Analytica. People's fears being played on to generate myths that will persist for decades and may well end up destroying this country.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Fri 9 Aug 18:27
A referendum is as much a feature of an idiocracy as it is of a democracy. There is little point in voting for elected politicians if they are going to pass over key decisions to the electorate. We might as well allow banks to ask their customers to set the interest rates or empower all registered DAFC supporters to type in their starting team for the match v QOS tomorrow so that the majority XI can then be marshalled into shape by Stevie Crawford. When the inevitable run of bad results began we could then sack a few managers whilst arguing amongst ourselves about who was to blame.
That was the lunacy which has seen the hallowed verdict of June 2016 turned into some kind of tablet of stone. In football at that time, Roy Hodgson was still manager of England and Leicester City were EPL champions. Nothing stands still and public opinion shifts quite a bit in three years. In 1938 Neville Chamberlain was feted by crowds as the man who had saved Europe from war; by 1940 he was out of office. In 1945 Winston Churchill was feted as the man who had helped defeat Nazism; in a matter of months he was voted out of office by the same British people.
Largely agree with wotsit: I think we Scots should have learned a great deal from Brexit about how NOT to go about the path to independence.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 9 Aug 18:41
Are you suggesting that Scotland shouldn't achieve independence through a referendum as that is politicians passing over a key decision to the electorate?
Of course democracy has many faults. Not least the fact that to get elected politicians bribe the electorate knowing they won't be about to pay the piper when the music stops.
However the Chamberlain and especially Churchill example that you quote are great testament of democracy in action. The people decided in peace Churchill wasn't the man to deliver for the working class and Attlee took the premiership. In other nations after being victorious in a war of national survival a leader would crushed all opposition and consolidated his power.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Fri 9 Aug 19:00
Now imagine if Atlee had been appointed through the back door, rather than resoundingly elected, and had then forced through the NHS and Welfare State [I]after[/I] having lost a vote of no confidence in the HoC whilst telling everyone that all their problems were doctors' fault and everything, including kippers, would be sunshine and light after we whipped the doctors into line. Then blaming the doctors again for refusing to play ball because, actually, we don't really know what we want but it's definitely the doctors' fault and, if need be, we'll just do without doctors entirely.
Would that have had the same historical gravitas? Would the NHS be so precious to us if that's how it began? With no doctors.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 9 Aug 19:16
I take it in your analogy the EU are the doctors? So what kind of brexit were you expecting Wotsit when you voted to leave?
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Fri 9 Aug 19:23
'Are you suggesting that Scotland shouldn't achieve independence through a referendum as that is politicians passing over a key decision to the electorate?'
I don’t think a referendum is the best way to go about it. When people are offered a binary choice they naturally enough lose their wider sense of focus, seeing the issue in black and white terms. It’s a recipe for dogma and civil strife, as we have seen with Brexit.
The SNP stand for the idea of Scottish Independence but are not, like the Brexit Party, a single issue party. When people vote SNP they are taking wider areas into consideration and I would not be surprised if a number of SNP supporters do not fully support the party line of independence. The crucial difference between an election and a referendum is that the SNP cannot win support for Independence per se; they must convince the electorate that we could make a decent fist of governing ourselves within an independent Scotland. To do this they will have to reach out across party loyalties and persuade two traditional supporters of Scottish Independence- the original Labour Party and Liberal Party- that there is a progressive way forward that would include their supporters as well. That was how devolution was achieved.
A narrow referendum vote for independence, which is what Nicola Sturgeon seems to be pinning her hopes on, is not the best route in my view.
sammer
Post Edited (Fri 09 Aug 19:24)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: donj
Date: Fri 9 Aug 21:37
I also believe a few English people I know are jealous of our free eyetests,prescriptions,bridge tolls etc etc.They have commented to me.
I'd guess our parlaiment tries harder for our people rather than our rich gits.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Fri 9 Aug 22:03
So what kind of brexit were you expecting Wotsit when you voted to leave?
It's not the exiting the EU that bothers me, it's the lack of clarity on what we, collectively, actually want.
What I personally want isn't important, because it's the country as a whole that's leaving the EU and we need to find a consensus before we rush into any specific course of action, rather than rushing into something for the sake of it.
I've chaired a few meetings in my time and consensus can be difficult to reach. It's not always a binary thing (like the referendum) either, there are usually loads of wee trailing bits or, sometimes, folk are fed up and don't want to participate so they just agree to anything for the sake of getting it over with - at which point a bad chair could railroad the whole meeting and force through their personal agenda, or a good chair would try their best to engage the meeting in constructive discussion in an effort to properly solve the problem at hand.
Strong leadership and force of will may end this in the short term, but it will leave a much bigger social divide than taking our time to try to reach something approaching a consensus imo.
The enemy travels by private jet, not by dinghy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parbucks
Date: Fri 9 Aug 22:31
Wotsit:
Your original point: “yet an unelected PM of a minority government threatening to squat in Downing Street after losing a confidence vote is fine.”
The issue has been confused by the 5year fixed term Parliament pushed through by Nick Clegg during the Coalition Government of 2010-15.
This essentially needs 2/3 vote in Parliament to repeal.
The role of the Queen as Head of State was overlooked in legislation so has been diminished and an own goal for those who think they can get the Monarch to intervene.
Alternatively if the government is defeated then there is a 14 day period for a confidence agreement in anew government to be approved. If not, a general election will be called but importantly the timing is in the Government’s hands.
As I understand things🙏
Post Edited (Fri 09 Aug 22:41)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: donj
Date: Fri 9 Aug 22:53
Basically a big scam by them to avoid the parliament saying no.Pity the plan was to return power to them.
No wonder we want to escape from that bunch of lunatics.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: parbucks
Date: Fri 9 Aug 23:53
Not sure I understand your point but here goes.
The 5 year rule was introduced by the Lib Dem’s during the Coalition government to stop any government calling an election at a time of their choice under the old system.
This has now created “ unintended consequences “ because it was rushed through Parliament but nevertheless approved.
You can’t blame the current government for that.
As for bending the rules we have already seen the Speaker conniving with Remainers to break Parliamentary precedent against the advice of his own officials to allow obscure motions opposing Brexit to be raised.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: The One Who Knocks
Date: Fri 9 Aug 23:59
No Parbucks it was introduced by the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition.
And although my eyes were open
They just might as well be closed
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: sammer
Date: Sat 10 Aug 01:16
There are a number of contradictions in the Brexiteer handbook. As donj indicated, the sovereignty of UK parliament argument (as once voiced by Powell and Benn) now amounts to suspending or at least ignoring that parliament! All in the name of democracy of course.
The Brexiteer idea of taking back control of our borders means having no border between Northern Ireland and Eire which could mean Belfast becoming a first stop for illegal immigrants.
There has been no word on what will happen to our weights and measures which at present follow the European metric system. Are we to retain this once we leave Europe or revert to miles, pounds and ounces? Maths textbooks in UK schools were changed to the decimal system around five years before we officially joined the EU and we were offered the 50p coin (10/- in old money) before our currency was decimalised in 1971. Are Brexiteers frightened by the logic of their own argument?
The greatest contradiction is that far from making the UK ‘Great’ again, Brexit is more likely to lead to its breakup. Here is an example: if a Johnson ‘crash-out’ government supported some US military endeavour which was disowned by both the Holyrood parliament and the EU, would Johnson be able to deploy troops from a Scottish regiment?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Rastapari
Date: Sat 10 Aug 09:48
Quote:
The One Who Knocks, Fri 9 Aug 17:41
I'm that case Rasta they do a better job of faking it in this country then they do in Russia or China.
Nailed it, yes they do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: Wotsit
Date: Sat 10 Aug 18:33
The five year rule could be revoked with a simple majority.
If anybody had one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic Originator: JimMcDAFC
Date: Tue 13 Aug 10:00
The biggest problem is that the UK government do not have a written constitution so they can make it up as they go to suit their own agenda. I think this is a definite priority for any independent Scottish government to achieve and pass into law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
