Brexit, The Economy and House Prices (Part 2)

Herzlos

bobbymotors wrote: »

because we had one already. you don't have to like it, but you do have to lump it.

I always thought democracy was able to change it's mind when the situation changes.

Thrugelmir

Herzlos wrote: »

I always thought democracy was able to change it's mind when the situation changes.

Not without an election. The rules of which are laid out in the statute books. Part of living in a democracy is that the majority view is respected.

bobbymotors

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Not without an election. The rules of which are laid out in the statute books. Part of living in a democracy is that the majority view is respected.

indeed it is.

they really need to get over it.

always_sunny

Thrugelmir wrote: »

No one seems to want to pay for the UK's lack of contribution to the club.....;)

A major issue. Certainly for Barnier. As his hands are tied totally behind his back. Meanwhile with the shackles off. The UK moves forward. The EU cannot play the ransom game forever. As the time is ticking away and the UK is leaving.

Spin #3. When trade deals and illegal immigration in the EU haven't stirred the crowd enough, it's time to throw in the 'UK contribution' card. Oh yeah...

Is it possible that it's not as big issue as it is perceived here in the UK? Isn't like saying that David Davis' hands are tied with no deal from the EU and no imminent deal elsewhere either (yes, lots of talks, the Donald wants to do a FTA right away but so far, nada).

The UK is keen to talk 'business' as soon as possible, not such rush from the EU, let them worry about the money.
Don't be too fooled by the high unemployment levels, stagnating economy and slowness of some EU member states, there's quite a lot of money there...

ukcarper

The party's that want a second referendum have a relatively small number of MPs, there probably would be MPs in major parties that would vote for another referendum but not enough to get the vote through.

Rusty_Shackleton

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Not without an election. The rules of which are laid out in the statute books. Part of living in a democracy is that the majority view is respected.

Im not comparing the two, but simply trying to illustrate the idea of tyranny of the majority, but presumably you wouldnt say 'majority rules' if a majority, whether 52pc or 90pc, said we should bring back slavery, would you? Of course not, so clearly there are situations where you would agree the will of the majority must be overruled.

This sort of scenario is why country's have a constitution, and it is widely argued that referendums are unconstitutional because they violate parliamentary sovereignty (that thing brexiters are supposedly keen on). Thats pretty much in a nutshell why the brexit referedum wasnt legally binding, and exactly why the will of the people argument is ridiculous - the people are not sovereign, parliament is. Living in a democracy does not mean that the majority view is respected at all, that, or we dont actually live in a democracy.

If parliament decides brexit comes at too high a cost, then MPs have every right to cancel it. Arguably, in a representative democracy, MPs are negligent to be proceeding with something a majority of them dont think is right for the country, they are behaving like delegates. Our constitution allows for change by electing MPs. Remind me, how many MPs has UKIP ever had? What percentage of MPs of any party are eurosceptic?

Brexit and the referendum are an affront to democracy.

bobbymotors

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

Im not comparing the two, but simply trying to illustrate the idea of tyranny of the majority, but presumably you wouldnt say 'majority rules' if a majority, whether 52pc or 90pc, said we should bring back slavery, would you? Of course not, so clearly there are situations where you would agree the will of the majority must be overruled.

This sort of scenario is why country's have a constitution, and it is widely argued that referendums are unconstitutional because they violate parliamentary sovereignty (that thing brexiters are supposedly keen on). Thats pretty much in a nutshell why the brexit referedum wasnt legally binding, and exactly why the will of the people argument is ridiculous - the people are not sovereign, parliament is. Living in a democracy does not mean that the majority view is respected at all, that, or we dont actually live in a democracy.

If parliament decides brexit comes at too high a cost, then MPs have every right to cancel it. Arguably, in a representative democracy, MPs are negligent to be proceeding with something a majority of them dont think is right for the country, they are behaving like delegates. Our constitution allows for change by electing MPs. Remind me, how many MPs has UKIP ever had? What percentage of MPs of any party are eurosceptic?

Brexit and the referendum are an affront to democracy.

you really do need to move on or take some blood pressure tablets or both....comparing it to slavery is so ridiculous as to be farcical...despite saying you weren't comparing the two you then immediately did so

we voted

we're going

thats it.

if you dont like it, either vote for or start a pro eu party for the next election.

oh wait a minute....thatll be the liberals. vote for them, a winner all the way.

Rusty_Shackleton

Im not comparing brexit to slavery, simply demonstrating that to say the majority should NEVER be overruled is absolutely false. Your attitude towards our constitution is exactly why leave voters talk about sovereignty and the like should be taken with a pinch of salt, just another big word used by a lot of people who dont have a clue. The people who actually know a lot about sovereignty like MPs, are overwhelmingly pro EU.

fewgroats

Can we bring back slavery? No.

Can we produce a coherent Brexit with the negotiators as they are? No.

Therefore it seems like a reasonable comparison.

Thrugelmir

always_sunny wrote: »

Spin #3. When trade deals and illegal immigration in the EU haven't stirred the crowd enough, it's time to throw in the 'UK contribution' card. Oh yeah...

Oh yeah what? I haven't thrown in the UK contribution card. What I have merely pointed out is that the EU currently has no agreement as to how to deal with the lack of the UK's £8 billion contribution. A totally different issue.

Sorry if doesn't fit your agenda by looking at matters from an EU perspective rather than a very narrow UK remain one.