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

System

This is good news as one thing I've learnt is people love democracy nowadays.

mwpt

Ok, to get serious for a moment. As much as I dislike the brexit vote and still think it was based on wishy washy nationalist ideas and a big dose of xenophobia, it's done how. But what does it mean? What is the plan? We were never told and we still don't know.

Surely, in a country with representative democracy, you would expect the how to be decided by a government for which people have voted based on their views of what Brexit looks like?

I would see it as fair and more reasonable that we hold a general election before mandating a government to trigger article 50 and begin negotiations. I am unhappy about that because the uncertainty is painful, but I do see it as more in keeping with how the UK governs itself.

mrginge

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Surely another vote on HOW is more democracy, with the bonus of people having to put their brains in gear before voting?

Why would the govt head off to negotiate with the EU with the millstone of another referendum round their necks. Going to brussels with no credibility or mandate isn't the best way to get a good deal.

This is just yet another blocking attempt by desperate remoaners clinging on to a defeated position.

Perhaps you should put brain in gear before posting?

CLAPTON

mwpt wrote: »

Ok, to get serious for a moment. As much as I dislike the brexit vote and still think it was based on wishy washy nationalist ideas and a big dose of xenophobia, it's done how. But what does it mean? What is the plan? We were never told and we still don't know.

Surely, in a country with representative democracy, you would expect the how to be decided by a government for which people have voted based on their views of what Brexit looks like?

I would see it as fair and more reasonable that we hold a general election before mandating a government to trigger article 50 and begin negotiations. I am unhappy about that because the uncertainty is painful, but I do see it as more in keeping with how the UK governs itself.

Basically everyone that disagrees with you is a xenophibic idiot inspite of the fact that you voted to discriminate against all non white, non christian, non european countries in the world. Additional, you believe in free trade unless it is with black africa.

Apart that that you wish to find faux reasons to stop the referendum result at any cost.

you are unhappy about delay so what to cause the maximum delay possible.

Surely in a representatative democracy the elected government should government until voted out by due process sometime in 2020 or later.

mwpt

CLAPTON wrote: »

Apart that that you wish to find faux reasons to stop the referendum result at any cost.

No. Before and after the referendum I said it was flawed. It isn't about the result it is the fact that it lumped a bunch of disparate views under just a binary vote.

I wish to find out what "out" means by using our traditional democratic process of voting for the government who will look after that decision. I knew you'd object, because you're a snake oil salesman.

AnotherJoe

It doesn't matter really does it? Another "referendum" will be unnecessary because if OS wins the Labour leadership, the next general election vote will decide between Labour in and Tories out of the EU, so that will be a proxy for a referendum.

With New New New Labour as the Euro-party, which will make them as popular as Donald Trump as speaker at a Mexican-Muslim Friendship seminar.

molerat

Tigsteroonie wrote: »

OP - regarding your thread title - one politician does not a party make.

Unless you live in Scotland

Malthusian

Owen Smith is not the Labour leader and isn't going to be, so it's a bit odd to describe his views as being that of "Labour". The current faction in charge of Labour do not believe in elections full stop, due to the failure of democracy to deliver the socialist revolution.

Jason74

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?

I would generally agree with you, but I think this is a bit of a special case. The leave camp put forward a vision of what was possible that the remain camp said was impossible. Now the exact nature of this meant different things to different people, but I think it's reasonable to say that a significant number of leave voters "bought" a position that was that full single market access could be maintained while placing controls on immigration.

If that can be achieved, then there is imho no grounds for a second referendum. The public will have got what they voted for, and everyone will need to move on. But if that outcome can't be achieved, then I think it's perfectly appropriate to go back to the country and ask them which of the available options they want to move forward with. Indeed, to not do that would imho effectively be to pull the wool over the eyes of voters.

wotsthat

mrginge wrote: »

Why would the govt head off to negotiate with the EU with the millstone of another referendum round their necks. Going to brussels with no credibility or mandate isn't the best way to get a good deal.

Why are the government best placed to determine what, other than an EU exit, represents a reasonable outcome of any negotiations? Are they psychic?