No deal Brexit or Corbyn government?

ukcarper

phillw wrote: »

People change their mind when they realize the consequences. You can't expect people to predict the future.

David Davies is quite clear on the matter, you have to be able to change your mind.

I don't believe the MPs have changed their minds the majority never wanted to leave and should never have risked our membership EU by voting for referendum. It's to late know the damage has been done.

phillw

ukcarper wrote: »

I don't believe the MPs have changed their minds the majority never wanted to leave and should never have risked our membership EU by voting for referendum.

I meant they have changed their minds about voting for a referendum. Seems an easy solution though as it's not legally binding and parliament is sovereign.

ukcarper wrote: »

It's to late know the damage has been done.

Sunk cost fallacy, just because we've wasted money getting to where we have doesn't mean we should stick with it.

ukcarper

phillw wrote: »

I meant they have changed their minds about voting for a referendum. Seems an easy solution though as it's not legally binding and parliament is sovereign.



Sunk cost fallacy, just because we've wasted money getting to where we have doesn't mean we should stick with it.

Yes only because they lost, if they felt leaving EU would be a disaster they have not got a for excuse for voting to hold referendum.

If you think you can just ignore result and things will go back to as before I think you are mistaken.

Davy_Jones_II

phillw wrote: »

People change their mind when they realize the consequences. You can't expect people to predict the future.

David Davies is quite clear on the matter, you have to be able to change your mind.

It’s traditional to implement the outcome of one vote first rather than flatly refuse, and delay for so long that it starts to sound credible that things might have changed.

Parliament had a huge majority for implementing the results of the referendum, it is simply not valid for the losing side to fight tooth and nail to stop the vote being implemented as everyone at theme promised that it would be.

I’ve no strong opinion on whether Brexit will be good or bad; economically I think it’ll be a bit of a negative, but I doubt that most people voted as they did based on economics, so that’s neither here nor there. The reason that I think that it must happen is that you set a hugely dangerous precedent telling the country that they can have a vote and that the result will come to pass, having the vote and then having MPs take it upon themselves to simply ignore the outcome.

I’ll now feel justified if Labour get in of avoiding any and all taxes that they levy if I don’t like them. It’s the same with any laws. There’s no longer any moral imperative for me to drive within the speed limit; yes, parliament voted to say that I must, but I’m going to protest by doing 200mph through town with false plates on in a protest against being forced to endure a result that I don’t want.

Herzlos

Davy_Jones_II wrote: »

It’s traditional to implement the outcome of one vote first rather than flatly refuse, and delay for so long that it starts to sound credible that things might have changed.

Can you give any examples of this happening before? Or basis for it being a tradition?
I've heard the claim a lot as a reason why we should leave and then ask if it's a bad idea, but noones ever been able to substantiate it.

phillw

Herzlos wrote: »

Can you give any examples of this happening before? Or basis for it being a tradition?
I've heard the claim a lot as a reason why we should leave and then ask if it's a bad idea, but noones ever been able to substantiate it.

It's made up. It's so they can play the victim.

Parliament is sovereign, they can change their mind whenever they want.

Unfortunately they are paralyzed with fear because 50% of the voters want something completely at odds with the other 50%. It wouldn't be so bad if leaving the EU wasn't such a disastrous decision.

Whatever happens come October 31st the divide in the country will become even greater.

ukcarper wrote: »

If you think you can just ignore result and things will go back to as before I think you are mistaken.

If you think things will be better if we leave the EU then so are you. People getting upset because they are holding onto three year old results are the least of the problem.

LHW99

Herzlos wrote: »

Can you give any examples of this happening before? Or basis for it being a tradition?
I've heard the claim a lot as a reason why we should leave and then ask if it's a bad idea, but noones ever been able to substantiate it.

We don't have a lot of referendums, but looking at the one to join the EEC - we had to wait 40 years before there was a follow-up, although there has certainly been a measurable level of discontent / changed minds for as much as half that time.

Herzlos

LHW99 wrote: »

We don't have a lot of referendums, but looking at the one to join the EEC - we had to wait 40 years before there was a follow-up, although there has certainly been a measurable level of discontent / changed minds for as much as half that time.

I'm not talking about a scope as narrow as a referendum which we implemented knowing it was a bad idea and then went back to the electorate, because that's never happened.


I'm looking for any citation that democracy requires a decision to be enacted upon before asking the people if it's what they want. Anything that reinforced the suggestion that we need to leave for democracy to be satisfied, even if we don't actually want to leave.


It's certainly not mentioned in any definition of democracy I've seen and I can't see how it makes sense. It's just pretty convenient that it involves leaving against the will of the people, as if Leavers think that once we're out all will magically be well.

kabayiri

Herzlos wrote: »

...
It's certainly not mentioned in any definition of democracy I've seen and I can't see how it makes sense. It's just pretty convenient that it involves leaving against the will of the people, as if Leavers think that once we're out all will magically be well.

It's about "trust".

I don't see a lot of that about right now. Rarely has the political class seem more detached.

LHW99

I'm looking for any citation that democracy requires a decision to be enacted upon before asking the people if it's what they want.

I thought that was the whole point of a democracy according to some - Parliament represents ie "makes the decisions for" the People because they are too ****** (add whatever derogatory term preferred) to understand.
Once a referendum is given however, the whole point is that you are asking for the People's input before any decision is made (not after it!).