Brexit at Glastonbury 2016 - a video compilation

[blackred]

21 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Except that wasn't my initial assertion. It was a choice between democracy and dictatorship.

In which case you need to admit that under some democratic systems the result of a referendum could be ignored (i'm not suggesting it should). Ideallogically you may not agree that this is the case (the only valid form of democracy is direct etc), however in reality it is.

21 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

it's also patronising bollocks, where someone has to nominate themselves as knowing better than anyone else.

Again this is an ideological difference. I don't believe i vote for someone who considers themselves 'better', I vote for someone who I believe will come to a reasoned conclusion before they vote, someone who can do this professionally with the resources available to them to come to a sound conclusion. As I have neither the time or resources to do this effectively I am happy to abrogate my responsiblity, even though in practice that's rarely the case (my prefered candidate isn't elected) I have no issue with the prinicple.

21 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

You're chosing to ignore that it was stated before Parliament that the result would be binding.

I happen to think that ignoring the public's will when it was clearly stated it would be enacted is a far worse result than anything brexit might bring us. It is a clear statement that the public's view counts for nothing if self-appointed* betters disagree.

You are chosing to ignore that it wasn't made legally binding, unlike the AV referendum, therefore it must go through democratic process. Ignoring the sovereignity of parliament was a big issue for leavers so I would hope they are in agreement. Again, I'm not suggesting that the commons would (or should) vote against the result, however I do want the opportunity to vote against my MP based on their decision and the outcome of it - that is democratic accountability.

It's also worth pointing out that if MP's were selected on a PR basis after the 2015 elections then a remain vote in the commons was still the most likely outcome, admittedly this would be much closer than the split that was indicated pre-referendum. A good example of direct democracy not necessarily having the same outcome as PR.

Edited July 7, 2016 by blackred

[eFestivals]

1 minute ago, blackred said:

In which case you need to admit that under some democratic systems the result of a referendum could be ignored (i'm not suggesting it should).

In which case we're on the same page and there's nothing to say.

And perhaps you shouldn't have bothered with your mis-reading to make no point at all...?

[blackred]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

In which case we're on the same page and there's nothing to say.

And perhaps you shouldn't have bothered with your mis-reading to make no point at all...?

I think getting you to clarify your stance so it wasn't misleading was well worth it Neil!

Edited July 7, 2016 by blackred

[eFestivals]

3 minutes ago, blackred said:

Again this is an ideological difference. I don't believe i vote for someone who considers themselves 'better', I vote for someone who I believe will come to a reasoned conclusion before they vote, someone who can do this professionally with the resources available to them to come to a sound conclusion. As I have neither the time or resources to do this effectively I am happy to abrogate my responsiblity, even though in practice that's rarely the case (my prefered candidate isn't elected) I have no issue with the prinicple.

I have no issue with the principle either.

But here, rightly or wrongly, they put the decision to the people to make - and that was just as much their considered opinion, and overwhelmingly, too (it was only SNP MPs who voted against the ref, who amusingly don't want the people to make a decision unless it's the Scottish people).

 

Edited July 7, 2016 by eFestivals

[DeanoL]

25 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

You're chosing to ignore that it was stated before Parliament that the result would be binding.

Cameron said it would be binding. Maybe he lied too. If we hold him to that, should we not also hold them to the 350 million for the NHS and a reduction in immigration? Why only hold one side to their statements?

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, DeanoL said:

Cameron said it would be binding. Maybe he lied too.

Cameron definitely told some porkies, tho I'm not sure if they were to Parliament or not. I did look up earlier to see if lying to Parliament is criminal or not, and apparently it's not.

Whatever, he said it. I believe it should stand, no differently to how I'd expect a remain result to stand

 

Quote

If we hold him to that, should we not also hold them to the 350 million for the NHS and a reduction in immigration? Why only hold one side to their statements?

It's not the same thing. Cameron was talking about the ref result being binding as PM, and not as a proponent of remain.

It wasn't a statement from one side or other, it was a statement of intent by govt about the operation of the result of the referendum they'd legally mandated in Parliament.

Edited July 7, 2016 by eFestivals

[DeanoL]

56 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

Cameron definitely told some porkies, tho I'm not sure if they were to Parliament or not. I did look up earlier to see if lying to Parliament is criminal or not, and apparently it's not.

Bet that was a tricky one to Google today!

[eFestivals]

1 hour ago, DeanoL said:

Bet that was a tricky one to Google today!

I know what you mean, cos there's a few times lately for me where the older factual references have been just about unfindable, lost behind a blizzard of recent news articles around the same subject.

But I actually found that one dead easily.

 

[mcshed]

On 06/07/2016 at 9:15 AM, russycarps said:

 

Politicians are dishonest which is why them being dishonest about this referendum wont make any difference. The trust is already long gone. Unless the politicians are all suddenly going to stop being self serving and be completely straight from now on - which isnt going to happen - then why not wish for them to be dishonest in a way that will actually be beneficial for once. Our political and democratic system is already damaged beyond repair, so another hammer blow wont make any difference.

What's the worst that could happen if they did reverse this? people out on the streets in revolution? would that really be such a bad thing anyway, in the long run? Ripping it all down and starting again doesnt sound so bad to me...

If remain had won then yes the leavers would be sounding like me. But the difference is the weight of evidence suggests I am right and they are not. 

 

 

It would be such a bad thing as the people who would end up out on the streets are the kind of people who are smashing up Polish shops and shot Jo Cox.

[Miesh]

Further to my post on Sunday.  This happened in my city today.  Disgusted and saddened that it did. However the response, in terms of money raised and comments / help given is heartwarming.  Although a friend told me people were verbally abusing those who were helping.