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

stockton_2

mayonnaise wrote: »

Absolutely. We had a parliamentary democracy for many hundreds of years now and although not perfect, now is not the time to override it and effectively switch to mob rule.

Parliament asked the question of the electorate not the other way around. It does not help to use emotive words like "mob rule". If the vote had been to remain would you describe it as an example of mob rule? Nobody mentioned mob rule until after the result. Funny that!

Eric_the_half_a_bee

mayonnaise wrote: »

Absolutely. We had a parliamentary democracy for many hundreds of years now and although not perfect, now is not the time to override it and effectively switch to mob rule.

You do realise that the Greek origin of the term "democracy" quite literally means "mob rule"?

p1212

stockton wrote: »

Parliament asked the question of the electorate not the other way around. It does not help to use emotive words like "mob rule". If the vote had been to remain would you describe it as an example of mob rule? Nobody mentioned mob rule until after the result. Funny that!

The problem is not the vote result, the problem is that MPs - who should act on our behalf - ignore the results and want to keep voting until the result is what they want.

They are not doing their job and they are not respecting democracy so they should be fired instanty.

If the next one comes back as remain than its 1-1, shall we have a third one or what? Or will that be really the final one as they like the results?

btw anyone wanting second referendum will subject the country to civil war as there is zero chance leave voters will do nothing if the democratic referendum results are ignored.

Redknapps_Dog

p1212 wrote: »

The problem is not the vote result, the problem is that MPs - who should act on our behalf - ignore the results and want to keep voting until the result is what they want.

They are not doing their job and they are not respecting democracy so they should be fired instanty.

If the next one comes back as remain than its 1-1, shall we have a third one or what? Or will that be really the final one as they like the results?

btw anyone wanting second referendum will subject the country to civil war as there is zero chance leave voters will do nothing if the democratic referendum results are ignored.

Another referendum on the TERMS of brexit is a possibility and it is democratic.

SailorSam

When i heard Owen Smith on Breakfast promising that when he was the leader and in Govt he'd have another referendum, it just went in one ear and out of the other. It was just 'politician speak', something they all say which they think may get them a few extra votes, and will never happen. It will never happen because it's going a long long time before Labour get into power.

p1212

Redknapps_Dog wrote: »

Another referendum on the TERMS of brexit is a possibility and it is democratic.

We all know it wont be about the terms, the guy says he fights for staying in.

mrginge

Anyone would think Mr smith was simply a desperate opportunist who will say anything to prise out a victory.
He's tried being more left wing than Jezza.
He's tried being more electable than Jezza.
Now he's trying to be more in tune with the yoof.

Time to face facts mate. You're no Jezza.

Ronaldo_Mconaldo

p1212 wrote: »

We all know it wont be about the terms, the guy says he fights for staying in.

Could you imagine another referendum on the terms of Brexit? There's thousands of laws and rules and regulations to untangle when we're actually leaving the EU, they're looking to hire hundred of people to crack on with negotiations. So what's going to happen with this new refendum? Is it going to be multiple choice for each rule? Maybe we could have a vote on every rule every day over the next three years that it might take.

We voted 'leave', we changed Prime Minister with 6 weeks of it happening, do people really still think that that the Queen is going to float down and wave a magic wand and say it was all just a bad dream? It's happening.

Teresa May could come back at the start of September and trigger Article 50 and then there may not even be a general election until 2020 by which time Owen Smith won't have any Brexit left to stop, in the highly unlikely even Labour win that election and in the unlikely even thatOwen Smith is their leader at the time.

Good times.

Thrugelmir

The concern is that Smith is making the issue political rather non political. Simply bring the UK to it's knees.

westernpromise

mrginge wrote: »

I don't disagree that the question was not ideal. But it was put that way because certain people thought it was scary enough to put the electorate off.

The problem with a Stay / Leave if... question is that it would have been an even greater result for the latter option. That's not what the govt wanted.

And perhaps that's why they did it that way. The fact is though that if you are, say, a tenant renting for £1000 a month, and come renewal the landlord says that's going up to £1500 a month, you have no negotiating position. Unless you are prepared and able to move out, and the landlord knows that, then you have literally nowhere to go. You can't say "what about £1100?" because he just says No. Your choice is then either paying up, or making yourself homeless. So you'll pay up.

The EU is always going to put its own economic interests first so the point is to have the mandate to leave they thought no UK PM would have, and then warn them that we'll leave the EU to the EU's detriment unless they improve our deal to mutual benefit. If they still refuse, well, we leave and then during the post Article 50 negotiations they can repent at leisure.