Labour want to ignore the will of the people...

chewmylegoff

wymondham wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37167253

Why does he think he needs another vote - shall we keep going until the UK electorate vote his way? That would be an interesting way to vote at elections and I'm pretty sure its how dictators work? That's not very democratic is it?

How is this ignoring the will of the electorate? If you are transparent that you will not leave the EU if the electorate elect you before the leave mechanism has been triggered surely you will only be elected if people no longer want to leave the EU?

If he said he would leave the EU, got elected and then refused to follow through that would be ignoring the will of the people.

I voted to leave, for context.

It seems to me that you are the one not interested in the will of the people. Democracy isn't a one time thing, if it was why do we have elections periodically? By your logic the corpse of Robert Walpole should still be prime minister.

There is nothing wrong with giving the electorate a choice - if people want to persist with brexit then the choice not to will be rejected. I don't suggest we should have endless referenda but offering an alternative in a general election is thoroughly appropriate - people won't vote for it if they don't want it. One of the problems with politics in the last 20 years or so is that it is difficult to identify what the difference between the voting options is.

Thrugelmir

mwpt wrote: »

But how many people are concerned about it? We don't know. All we know is that a bunch of people voted to leave the EU for various reasons. I accept that is what happened, and we will now leave the EU, but since I didn't become a non-person since being on the wrong side of that vote, my voice about what brexit should look like also counts. For some reason you guys don't seem so keen on that idea.

In that case we'd never have a stable Government. As those that voted for the opposition would be on the wrong side of the vote. Majority politics has worked reasonably well in the UK for some considerable time. A referendum was a non political choice. Which was the correct method. An elected Government polling 35% is not a mandate to dictate to the other 65%. That's totally skewed. Politicians are public servants not people following their own agendas. Farage is resonating in the US as he's upfront and non establishment. People are tired of the self elected elite.

Kohoutek

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Farage is resonating in the US as he's upfront and non establishment. People are tired of the self elected elite.

Farage went to an independent school, then the City, then the European Parliament.

Conrad

Kohoutek wrote: »

Farage went to an independent school, then the City, then the European Parliament.

Outlook and mindset are what counts in the post liberal establishment age, not where you went to school.

Army grunts always respect Ruperts that have thier feet on the ground, but despise the lofty arrogant versions that never bother asking the men for feedback

Conrad

chewmylegoff wrote: »

How is this ignoring the will of the electorate? If you are transparent that you will not leave the EU if the electorate elect you before the leave mechanism has been triggered surely you will only be elected if people no longer want to leave the EU?

If he said he would leave the EU, got elected and then refused to follow through that would be ignoring the will of the people.

I voted to leave, for context.

It seems to me that you are the one not interested in the will of the people. Democracy isn't a one time thing, if it was why do we have elections periodically? By your logic the corpse of Robert Walpole should still be prime minister.

There is nothing wrong with giving the electorate a choice - if people want to persist with brexit then the choice not to will be rejected. I don't suggest we should have endless referenda but offering an alternative in a general election is thoroughly appropriate - people won't vote for it if they don't want it. One of the problems with politics in the last 20 years or so is that it is difficult to identify what the difference between the voting options is.

A bigger problem comes in the form of arrogant elites telling the ignorant masses they voted the wrong way and need to think again until correct thinking is attained.

Another chance to change the referendum result will not be tolerated by an impatient EU, and rightly so. Can you image if in four years we went back cap in hand to co firm we want to remain, they would have us o er a barrel and never take our demands seriously again.

Conrad

May, Fox, Boris all very quiet, in the spirit of the May ethos of more work, less grandstanding, I like the tension and know in the background they are all toiling away to assemble the right deal. Watch this space, I reckon we'll all be wrong footed and surprised at what they come up with, soon

kinger101

mwpt wrote: »

But how many people are concerned about it? We don't know. All we know is that a bunch of people voted to leave the EU for various reasons. I accept that is what happened, and we will now leave the EU, but since I didn't become a non-person since being on the wrong side of that vote, my voice about what brexit should look like also counts. For some reason you guys don't seem so keen on that idea.

What mechanism do you think exists for the UK government to;

(a) find a compromise on what Brexit should be that will be acceptable to a majority; and
(b) successfully negotiate this deal with 27 other countries.

We don't have referenda on every treaty the government tries to negotiate, and I don't see this as any different.

BobQ

prowla wrote: »

Well, given that migration and fee movement was one of the (if not the) defining issue of the referendum, doing nothing about it might be inadvisable.

The issue of the referendum was Remain or Leave.

Some of those favouring leave did not care about freedom of movement, some were more concerned over sovereignty, some wanted theright to negotiate trade agreements

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/evan-davis-newsnight-bbc-daniel-hannan-mep-eu-referendum-brexit_uk_576e2967e4b08d2c56393241

BobQ

kinger101 wrote: »

What mechanism do you think exists for the UK government to;

(a) find a compromise on what Brexit should be that will be acceptable to a majority; and
(b) successfully negotiate this deal with 27 other countries.

We don't have referenda on every treaty the government tries to negotiate, and I don't see this as any different.

A referendum with a choice of two options for (a).

Should the UK Government leave the EU by seeking to negotiate:

EITHER
A close relationship with the EU and its single market
OR
A distant relationship with the EU involving a trade agreement with it

The first prerequisite for (b) is to know what is the broad objective of the negotiation. The UK negotiators could then explore the negotiating space knowing what the people wanted. If it cannot be achieved we will have to live with what we can achieve, but the second option shuld be easily achieved whereas the first would need EU27 cooperation.

Either way why waste time when we do not know what we are trying to achieve?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Can't be bothered reading the whole thread but I'm going to guess the Brexiteers are arguing a democratic choice on June 23rd 2016 was good but the same democratic choice on any future date is bad.

Because more democracy is clearly a bad thing....