Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Leaving aside the legal points, there's nothing wrong with a second referendum. The worry is that enough people might have changed their mind since June to change the result. As said, though, if a democracy cannot change its mind, it is no longer a democracy.

Surely the ability to change your mind is part of what makes it a democracy?

I don't condone politicians re-running referendums until they get the result they want; that's not democratic.
But if a decision is made and the electorate changes their mind later, it'd be undemocratic to stick to the now outdated result.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Graphite wrote:
Hooray! The madness continues!

So. Parliament now gets to debate things, rather than letting the PM do whatever the hell she likes. Fair enough. EVEN IF they decide to go with Brexit, at least it means that more than half a dozen people will have looked at the Government proposals and had a chance to say "No, that's a stupid idea"/"Yes that'll work brilliantly".

So - politicians doing the job they're supposed to. Excellent.

Or, more likely, we get a General Election. Which parties do you think will run on a "Stay in the EU ticket"? SNP, Greens and the Lib Dems, certainly. Probably some independents. Labour and Conservatives will PROBABLY go "pro leave" to try to cut off UKIP at the knees.

I'd probably end up voting UKIP, and I do not say that lightly....

tags fixed.
reds8n

I suspect many will - it's the law of unitended consequences. You can either have May trigger article 50 and spend 2 years negotiating and leave in 2019, or not trigger article50, get a UKIP government who leave in 2020 with no negotiation.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
That is for Parliament to decide.

Until the electorates votes Remain in a second referendum, at which point I expect you will change your tune and begin talking about "respecting the democratic will of the people".

You are overlooking the fact that a vote for remain would not have required the overturning of a previous parliamentary act. That is the issue, whether the Prime Minister can overturn an act of parliament without a debate and vote in Parliament. To allow the PM to do so sets a dangerous precedent and is completely at odds with how our democracy functions.

Would you be okay with the Prime Minister being able to overturn the human rights act without a vote in parliament? Or the same sex marriage act? The fox hunting ban?

This case was not about the results of the referendum but rather the correct, legal way that the results must be carried out and the court found that UK parliament, not the prime minister, is sovereign and has the power to overturn previous parliamentary acts.

Is it even still legal to call a general election?

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
You can just vote your local MP out if you don't agree with their voting though? Wasn't that an argument made for leaving the EU, that there is more relative ease of affecting politics in Westminster than Brussels?

Hooray for taking back democracy and not being beholden to people we didn't elect making decisions.

As if! I live in a safe Labour seat, Sedgefield (Tony Blair's old constituency).

You've got to accept the majority vote

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
You can just vote your local MP out if you don't agree with their voting though? Wasn't that an argument made for leaving the EU, that there is more relative ease of affecting politics in Westminster than Brussels?

Hooray for taking back democracy and not being beholden to people we didn't elect making decisions.

As if! I live in a safe Labour seat, Sedgefield (Tony Blair's old constituency).

You've got to accept the majority vote

I wouldn't claim any labour seat as safe the way that party is at the moment. Hold a GE at the same time as trying to block the will of the people and literally anything is possible

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
You can just vote your local MP out if you don't agree with their voting though? Wasn't that an argument made for leaving the EU, that there is more relative ease of affecting politics in Westminster than Brussels?

Hooray for taking back democracy and not being beholden to people we didn't elect making decisions.

As if! I live in a safe Labour seat, Sedgefield (Tony Blair's old constituency).

You've got to accept the majority vote

That's a false analogy. Thanks to fptp, an mp can be elected on a minority vote, if the vote is split between 3 or more candidates.

The referendum had only two choices, therefore no matter who won it was always going to be a majority vote.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
You've got to accept the majority vote

Unless it's the EU referendum apparently.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
You've got to accept the majority vote

Unless it's the EU referendum apparently.

Parliament having a debate and voting on whether to enact article 50 satisfies respecting the vote. If remain had won there would not be a vote or debate in parliament as no parliamentary act would be being repealed.

If MPs then vote to not enact article 50 then their constituents can vote them out and get someone who will vote to leave at the next general election. These MPs can then submit a new bill to parliament and get another debate and vote.

That is how our democratic system works.

This what Tony Benn had to say on it...

"The Parliamentary democracy we have developed and established in Britain is based, not upon the sovereignty of Parliament, but upon the sovereignty of the People, who, by exercising their vote lend their sovereign powers to Members of Parliament, to use on their behalf, for the duration of a single Parliament only — Powers that must be returned intact to the electorate to whom they belong, to lend again to the Members of Parliament they elect in each subsequent general election.

We could do with his wisdom right now....

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
This what Tony Benn had to say on it...

"The Parliamentary democracy we have developed and established in Britain is based, not upon the sovereignty of Parliament, but upon the sovereignty of the People, who, by exercising their vote lend their sovereign powers to Members of Parliament, to use on their behalf, for the duration of a single Parliament only — Powers that must be returned intact to the electorate to whom they belong, to lend again to the Members of Parliament they elect in each subsequent general election.

We could do with his wisdom right now....

Right, so MPs have the power which they are meant to use on behalf of their constituents (all of their constituents, not just those who vote). If the people disagree with how the MPs use it they can give it to someone else.

If MPs allowed the prime minister to override an act of parliament without it being passed in parliament then they would have damaged the powers that their constituents gave them by setting a precedent that the prime minister could override the whole of parliament, in his own words that would lead to MPs returning the Powers to the electorate not intact. If anything Tony Benn is saying that parliament must have its vote as to do it any other way is to damage the power of parliament and therefore the representation of the electorate on potentially every single issue into the future.

OK, since apparently this is a matter of principle then fine, let parliament decide if article 50 should be invoked. But if they have even an once of respect for democracy they'll invoke it. If they try to stop it in any shape or form then they need to be purged immediately by a GE. We voted to leave the EU. Despite what some people say, 52% is a bigger number than 48%, and anyone who didn't bother to vote doesn't count. The heavily pro remain parliament got to set all the terms of this referendum; the date, the question etc. There wasn't any talk of a minimum vote required to leave until they lost the vote fair and square. That's moving the goal posts. And it's shameful and disgusting behaviour. As is this absolute nonsense talk of repeatedly holding referendums because we might have changed our minds until the 'right' decision is made.

 Future War Cultist wrote:
OK, since apparently this is a matter of principle then fine, let parliament decide if article 50 should be invoked. But if they have even an once of respect for democracy they'll invoke it. If they try to stop it in any shape or form then they need to be purged immediately by a GE. We voted to leave the EU. Despite what some people say, 52% is a bigger number than 48%, and anyone who didn't bother to vote doesn't count. The heavily pro remain parliament got to set all the terms of this referendum; the date, the question etc. There wasn't any talk of a minimum vote required to leave until they lost the vote fair and square. That's moving the goal posts. And it's shameful and disgusting behaviour. As is this absolute nonsense talk of repeatedly holding referendums because we might have changed our minds until the 'right' decision is made.

People who didn't or couldn't vote in the referendum are still members of an MPs constituency. They have the right to petition their MP to vote in a certain way and if the majority of an MPs constituents ask them to vote remain then why should that MP be compelled to vote leave just because the country as a whole narrowly decided to?

Yeah if this is carried through then kiss Scotland independence good bye as it will never pass parliament.

Assuming that the case isn't overturned at a higher court and parliment want to ignore the will of the people, thier seat may be in serious jeapordy.

 SirDonlad wrote:
Assuming that the case isn't overturned at a higher court and parliment want to ignore the will of the people, thier seat may be in serious jeapordy.

Their parliament may be in serious jeopardy. Molotov Cocktails are still a thing.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 SirDonlad wrote:
Assuming that the case isn't overturned at a higher court and parliment want to ignore the will of the people, thier seat may be in serious jeapordy.

Their parliament may be in serious jeopardy. Molotov Cocktails are still a thing.

On a completely unrelated note, Bonfire night is this week. Remember remember the 5th of November!

 welshhoppo wrote:

 SirDonlad wrote:
Assuming that the case isn't overturned at a higher court and parliment want to ignore the will of the people, thier seat may be in serious jeapordy.

Their parliament may be in serious jeopardy. Molotov Cocktails are still a thing.

O.o

That's... harsh man.

Can MP's be recalled at anytime for new local elections?

I'm wont to agree, but i'm hoping that bothering my MP about respecting the will of the people (the referendum was basicly a trial run of an alternative voting system) will make the process a 'rubber-stamp' scenario, but i just know that it will be yet another round of vote-trading and 'remain' based agitation for political capital.
The MP's know that going against the referendum result will give them huge problems come next election day - my question is will their commitment to democracy get overridden by lust for influence and funding?

I suspect a lot of the problem boils down to a misunderstanding by remainers.

You see, I hear a lot talk of ‘nobody wanted a referendum’ but that simply isn’t true, it’s probably likely that in their own circle dealing with fellow remainers nobody wanted a referendum, but for leavers we’ve been after this for years. Some were after it so bad that they voted UKIP but there were many who wanted to leave the EU but couldn’t bring themselves to vote UKIP also (you’ll see many of us on this board)

Now what Remainers see happening is MPs voting to block the referendum vote, and everyone going back to voting along standard party line, sadly I think it is too late for that now. It may have been able to keep this status quo had the referendum never happened but the fact is it did, and us leavers now know that there are more of us than them.

So what is far more likely to happen at the next GE is a VERY large proportion of those who voted to leave in the belief that it would be a democratic vote and the result would stand will feel that nobody is listening to them – they’ll look for a party that represents their opinion, so who do they have to vote for?

Labour – they want to remain
SNP – they want to remain
Plyd – they want to remain
Lib Dem – they want to remain
Tory – reluctant leavers, maybe my MP supports leaving, but likely not
UKIP – We want to leave and honour the results of the referendum

Who do you see them supporting? What’s worse is that 2/3rds of the electoral seats voted to leave, this gives UKIP a good solid chance of getting a majority and being the next government, and whilst yes it is true that the number of people eligible to vote will include EU nationals at the next GE it’s also true that unlike in the referendum you’re going to have the ‘Remain’ vote split between 3 or 4 different parties, and leave focused on 1. It’s often pointed out that you only need about 30% of the vote to win a seat, that only half of them who voted leave in most ‘out’ seats.

I’m sorry remainers, but I really do see it as a choice between an orderly exit in 2019 and a GE based on other things, or a disorderly exit in 2020 and 5 years of a UKI government.

 whembly wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:

 SirDonlad wrote:
Assuming that the case isn't overturned at a higher court and parliment want to ignore the will of the people, thier seat may be in serious jeapordy.

Their parliament may be in serious jeopardy. Molotov Cocktails are still a thing.

O.o

That's... harsh man.

Can MP's be recalled at anytime for new local elections?

Yes but only under specific circumstances.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recall_of_MPs_Act_2015

 SirDonlad wrote:
I'm wont to agree, but i'm hoping that bothering my MP about respecting the will of the people (the referendum was basicly a trial run of an alternative voting system) will make the process a 'rubber-stamp' scenario, but i just know that it will be yet another round of vote-trading and 'remain' based agitation for political capital.
The MP's know that going against the referendum result will give them huge problems come next election day - my question is will their commitment to democracy get overridden by lust for influence and funding?

But they also know that voting for Brexit will give them huge problems on election day, because that's also going against the will of the people.

Whatever happen, we're going to see a lot of seats changing hands and complaining from the population. This couldn't be any more devisive.

So hopefully the MP's will ignore the seat threats and focus on what is the best decision for everyone involved.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Stranger83 wrote:
I’m sorry remainers, but I really do see it as a choice between an orderly exit in 2019 and a GE based on other things, or a disorderly exit in 2020 and 5 years of a UKI government.

I can see UKIP gaining a few more seats, but I can't see them getting enough of a majority to do anything meaningful, since the SNP have almost an entire country and can't do anything. They'd need to get 326 seats to get a majority (325 more than they currently have), or to become big enough to join a coalition with someone the Tories (because neither Labour, Lib Dem or SNP will want to go anywhere near them).

To be honest, I'd much rather this was all handled after a general election, where we'd have MP's in power that represent what's currently going on, and any potential Brexit is being dealt with by people who have an interest in making it work.

We should go back to a .monarchy.........., then at least it's only 1 persons decision.

Herzlos wrote:


I can see UKIP gaining a few more seats, but I can't see them getting enough of a majority to do anything meaningful, since the SNP have almost an entire country and can't do anything. They'd need to get 326 seats to get a majority (325 more than they currently have), or to become big enough to join a coalition with someone the Tories (because neither Labour, Lib Dem or SNP will want to go anywhere near them).

To be honest, I'd much rather this was all handled after a general election, where we'd have MP's in power that represent what's currently going on, and any potential Brexit is being dealt with by people who have an interest in making it work.

And as I said, for all the reasons I posted, I suspect that remainers are strongly underestimating the support for Brexit from those who voted leave.

Not at all; I suspect we'll see a massive increase in UKIP seats should parliament reject Brexit, but we'd need to see a 32,500% increase, or to see each Leave constituency defect to UKIP.

UKIP are very vocal, but at the moment they seem to have lost any direction, and are still pretty repulsive to a lot of the electorate.

I also suspect that the number of people who'd vote Leave/UKIP now is lower than those that'd vote Remain/Anyone else, purely because of the direct economic impact of Brexit (mainly, Costa del Asbo being 20% more expensive for holidaying).

Herzlos wrote:
I also suspect that the number of people who'd vote Leave/UKIP now is lower than those that'd vote Remain/Anyone else, purely because of the direct economic impact of Brexit (mainly, Costa del Asbo being 20% more expensive for holidaying).

I suspect that the portion of leave supporters will have actually increased. Mostly because people will have seen how the world didn't implode after a pro Brexit vote despite projects fears insistence that it would, but also because they'll be equally disgusted at the low down tactics of the remain side.

I also found out that one of the judges who made this ruling is as europhile as they come. He's on some commitee calling for wider intergration on European law. We've been stitched up good and proper.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
I also suspect that the number of people who'd vote Leave/UKIP now is lower than those that'd vote Remain/Anyone else, purely because of the direct economic impact of Brexit (mainly, Costa del Asbo being 20% more expensive for holidaying).

I suspect that the portion of leave supporters will have actually increased. Mostly because people will have seen how the world didn't implode after a pro Brexit vote despite projects fears insistence that it would, but also because they'll be equally disgusted at the low down tactics of the remain side.

I also found out that one of the judges who made this ruling is as europhile as they come. He's on some commitee calling for wider intergration on European law. We've been stitched up good and proper.

Hard to claim world didn't blow because exit hasn't yet appeared. You still have access to single market and banks have access. Unlikely to happen be leave though.

Let's see what leave voters think once they have been kicked out of single market and banks don't benefit from what they have been having so far.

Somebody in the news made a brilliant point that only confirms what I've suspected: the Westminster elite is trying its best to subvert the will of the British people.

And this was the point:

When the Lisbon treaty went through, the Royal Perogative was used. Nobody gave two hoots about Parliament. Courts didn't over rule the goverment.

Hell, Parliament itself didn't lift a finger or even cared....

And yet, May tries to use the Royal Perogative to invoke A50, and all now it's all about Parliament, and high courts, and yadda yadda...

The double standards is sickening.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Somebody in the news made a brilliant point that only confirms what I've suspected: the Westminster elite is trying its best to subvert the will of the British people.

And this was the point:

When the Lisbon treaty went through, the Royal Perogative was used. Nobody gave two hoots about Parliament. Courts didn't over rule the goverment.

Hell, Parliament itself didn't lift a finger or even cared....

And yet, May tries to use the Royal Perogative to invoke A50, and all now it's all about Parliament, and high courts, and yadda yadda...

The double standards is sickening.

I remember that, but I couldn't get the time to find the sources.

You're absolutely right though. It's sickening.

Stranger83 wrote:
First of all 51.8% is 'strictly correct' regardless of what you say because 51.8% was the result of the referendum, and everyone except a few of the hard wing remainers accepts this.

*Sigh* 51.8% is the average result. It may or may not be the true result; that's what statistics are all about. The *only* thing the average result does is give the mid-point (in terms of the distribution) of the analysis of the data. The error tells you what the probability of what the true result is and in what range. The mistake you are making is that the average result is the true result and that could easily (and quite likely) be incorrect. Whenever there is a sample or data taken there is always an error, whether that be someone at 3am miscounting, some dropped on the floor a smudged mark and so on. The reality is that this mistake is very common (I think this basis level of statistics should be mandatory for GCSE) because what happens is that decisions are made on the average result. However because there is no consideration of the error it could imply a trend or result that isn't actually real, it is a factor of the variances that naturally happen as part of taking data.

Stranger83 wrote:
Secondly, whilst you will get some variation on snapping a pencil and measuring the two halves due to different rulers being used and differences in peoples eye (or even the angle that you hold the pencil when you measure it) NON of this is relevant to a referendum that is a cross in a box - the only scope for difference would be someone miss counting a 'remain' vote as a 'leave' vote.

Well it is because I was demonstrating some basic principles of errors (apparently not with any success). A better comparison to the referendum would be baking a cake. If you wanted to bake 10 identical cakes then when you measured out the flour, despite best intentions there would be a slight discrepancy in the amount of each cake (the error on the individual components). However when you have baked the cake there will still be differences in the size of your cake (the error on the cake sample). The former affects the latter slightly but so does many other factors, including slight variations in cooker temperature, where it was placed in the oven as so on. But you can't use the former to imply the latter, there is more to it and that.

Stranger83 wrote:
Talk of what would happen if you held the vote the next day is also irrelevant, the date was set WAY in advance and everyone agreed to it - I really don't get the claim here other than 'I lost so I need to come up with a reason to say it's not clear'.

It's not clear because the error on the sample may mean that there is a high probability that the 'true' result within the errors includes both a Remain or a Leave win