Jeremy Corbyn

[TheNoise]

6 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

even when it votes for brexit, or says to vote for brexit on steroids?

I'm all for democracy, but that doesn't stop me from realising that people can vote stupid.

Yes they can, but should a democratic vote be overturned ? I voted remain and despite what I think should or shouldn't happen next, that's not what the majority voted for. I personally think that's why Corbyn is dithering so much, he doesn't want to be seen as going against a democratic referendum. Would it set a precedent ? Don't like the result ? Forget it and do something else. Or just keep holding referenda until the 'right' result is reached (sorry Sturgeon supporters) ?

 

16 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

The idea of politics, and so democracy, is to bring about improvements, and not to take a sledgehammer to the better world we've created. If you want to smash it all then it might as well be done properly with violent revolution.

Even that's not done right. Let's be honest, if we had a violent revolution it probably wouldn't even affect the government other than giving extra cash to bring in the troops, the real losers would be JD Sports.

[eFestivals]

7 minutes ago, TheNoise said:

should a democratic vote be overturned ?

that depends on how democratic it really was.

If the public have been told a lie to win the vote, why should that vote stand?

[eFestivals]

9 minutes ago, TheNoise said:

I personally think that's why Corbyn is dithering so much, he doesn't want to be seen as going against a democratic referendum.

it's because he's a 40-year brexiter as keen for brexit as Rees-Mogg. Nowt else.

Just as with nukes, Jez sticks to what he believes no matter what the feelings of the party might be.

Edited December 29, 2018 by eFestivals

[TheNoise]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

that depends on how democratic it really was.

If the public have been told a lie to win the vote, why should that vote stand?

I'm not disagreeing with you, but what politician hasn't lied before an election ?

[Ayrshire Chris]

36 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

even when it votes for brexit, or says to vote for brexit on steroids?

I'm all for democracy, but that doesn't stop me from realising that people can vote stupid.

The idea of politics, and so democracy, is to bring about improvements, and not to take a sledgehammer to the better world we've created. If you want to smash it all then it might as well be done properly with violent revolution.

And that’s the problem with having a referendum.  Asking a simple question to a complicated situation with no real idea what the consequences will be,  let’s be honest, how many people had even heard of the single market, the customs union, what a backstop is etc etc when they voted to leave. At least in a general election you have the chance to change the government at the next vote if you don’t like them.  The referendum is different, you have to live with the decision for a generation at least. 

[eFestivals]

18 minutes ago, TheNoise said:

I'm not disagreeing with you, but what politician hasn't lied before an election ?

I'd say the lies about brexit were fundamentally different to standard politician porkies.

[TheNoise]

5 minutes ago, Ayrshire Chris said:

And that’s the problem with having a referendum.  Asking a simple question to a complicated situation with no real idea what the consequences will be,  let’s be honest, how many people had even heard of the single market, the customs union, what a backstop is etc etc when they voted to leave. At least in a general election you have the chance to change the government at the next vote if you don’t like them.  The referendum is different, you have to live with the decision for a generation at least. 

But that must have been what happened when we voted to join the EU. I don't know, I wasn't of voting age in 1975, I'm just going off this article: http://ukandeu.ac.uk/fact-figures/when-did-britain-decide-to-join-the-european-union/

[Kalopsia]

2 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

I'd say the lies about brexit were fundamentally different to standard politician porkies.

This is exactly why I would prefer a second vote.

[TheNoise]

1 minute ago, eFestivals said:

I'd say the lies about brexit were fundamentally different to standard politician porkies.

Once again, I agree.

Personally I think it should be mandatory to vote, I've always said that if you don't vote then you can't complain. We may not be in this mess if everybody voted.

[eFestivals]

5 minutes ago, TheNoise said:

when we voted to join the EU.

there was never a vote on that. The vote in 1975 was to confirm staying in the EEC which we'd joined in 1973.

[ivan]

5 minutes ago, TheNoise said:

Once again, I agree.

Personally I think it should be mandatory to vote, I've always said that if you don't vote then you can't complain. We may not be in this mess if everybody voted.

Surely a democracy allows the individual the freedom / right not to vote ?

 

[TheNoise]

7 minutes ago, ivan said:

Surely a democracy allows the individual the freedom / right not to vote ?

 

It does, which is why I used 'personally' and 'I think'. I wouldn't call Australia non-democratic, but voting is compulsory there. It's not like you're being forced to vote for a specific party or regime.

It seems to me (again, personal opinion) that most of the people complaining are the ones who didn't vote. I've had (actual fact) somebody at work quite arrogantly call me out on the vote, as I'm of the age that are getting the blame for the result. I asked if she voted, she didn't. I said I had and I voted remain and quoted what percentage of people in her age bracket voted (I can't remember now but 30%-ish).

 

[eFestivals]

17 minutes ago, ivan said:

Surely a democracy allows the individual the freedom / right not to vote ?

 

that would make Australia not-democratic.

I'd say your take is simply a liberal view of how democracy might operate, where people can opt in or out of being involved.

But because people cannot opt out of the effect onto them, perhaps they shouldn't get to opt out of their part in the political decision?

[StupidDream]

Do a blank or incorrect vote, basically the same.

[strummer77]

It shouldn’t be mandatory to vote. If people want to have no part of a political process they should absolutely have that right. 

[TheNoise]

7 minutes ago, strummer77 said:

It shouldn’t be mandatory to vote. If people want to have no part of a political process they should absolutely have that right. 

I honestly believe it's people like you who can make a real difference.

[strummer77]

3 minutes ago, TheNoise said:

I honestly believe it's people like you who can make a real difference.

I did vote. Remain. And that’s my decision. 

However if people decided the referendum was a sham and did not want to justify or validate it with their participation that is their absolute right. 

Edited December 29, 2018 by strummer77

[TheNoise]

2 minutes ago, strummer77 said:

I did vote. Remain. And that’s my decision. 

However if people decided the referendum was a sham and did not want to justify or validate it with their participation that is their absolute right. 

I was actually thinking of general elections when I said it and if you do vote then I apologise. What I meant to say was it's people who usually say you shouldn't (have to) vote who I believe wouldn't vote for the main parties. If all of these people come together and voted for something better, then wouldn't that be a good thing ? Using the Green Party as an example as it's the first one that came to mind, wouldn't it be better if they had more seats ? More seats may lead to a better understanding by the masses, they would be seen as less of a fringe group and people might start to vote for them rather than one of the main two just to keep the other one out. 

The only way to change a process through abstaining to be a part of it will never work unless every other person in the country does the same thing and that's never going to happen.

[TheNoise]

12 minutes ago, strummer77 said:

However if people decided the referendum was a sham and did not want to justify or validate it with their participation that is their absolute right. 

And that's one of the reasons we ended up with a leave vote.

Yes it is their absolute right to not participate - I mean, it's not like the decision affects them, is it ?

[not worthy]

After what period of time would another referendum be acceptable?

We have general elections anywhere up to every 5 years as part of our normal democratic process.

For those not comfortable with the idea of another vote on the EU, what period would be acceptable?

Surely those folk couldn't believe it should never be taken to the country again, as that would not be democratic.

So, how long - 2 years, 3, 5?

by the time we get to the end of a transition agreement we'll be toward the end of a 5 year period

[Scott129]

Under most systems of compulsory voting (e.g. Australia) there is an option to abstain by ruining your ballot paper. That at least requires some effort and consideration.

What compulsory voting does is stop those who don't vote because they simply can't be bothered to turn up, which to me is a bit wrong given the sacrifices people have made for our right to vote

[eFestivals]

20 hours ago, not worthy said:

After what period of time would another referendum be acceptable?

in normal circumstances the international norm is 10 to 15 years - but that's where it's generally felt that the process has been properly handled, and where it's actually possible to carry out what the winning side had said prior to the vote. 

In this instance Leave offered impossible unicorns in order to win, and won by just a small margin. That offer of unicorns is probably the difference between winning and not.

And in this instance an attempt to follow thru is being tried, but looks like it's going to fail because the reality is nothing like the promises that Leave made and so support has evaporated.

The political process is stuck, and a way forwards needs to be found. A "2nd vote" isn't really what it would be, instead it should be called "a confirming vote", where the public get to say we carry on with brexit with a version that matches the reality, or whether we choose another path.

In the light of new information, people reconsider decisions. There's nothing outrageous or anti-democratic about that. 

I'm sure Leave will scream if there's a second vote, but a 2nd vote would be the direct consequence of the lies those leavers told. If they don't want to be called out on their lies they shouldn't lie.
 

20 hours ago, not worthy said:

We have general elections anywhere up to every 5 years as part of our normal democratic process.

Since the EU ref we've re-considered which party should lead the govt, and there's been 2 reconsiderations of who should be tory party leader (and consequently that leader of govt).

To say that brexit cannot be reconsidered when other things are being reconsidered because of brexit is illogical.

[DeanoL]

On 12/29/2018 at 8:54 AM, TheNoise said:

I'm not disagreeing with you, but what politician hasn't lied before an election ?

Right. Many manifesto pledges governments make in elections don’t actually get carried through. Often for good reason- the world changes, new information comes to light, things aren’t as simple as they seem... and short of a small slap on the wrists, governments are usually allowed to get away with that. Why is it not the end of deomocracy when these aren’t followed through on? Why does any opposition leader have the right to rally votes against a manifesto pledge of the elected party? 

It’s because, for better or worse, that’s how representative democracy works. Why are we throwing it out now, for one specific thing? Other than the fact that a bunch of elected officials and their rich mates have a vested interest in crashing out with no deal and are trying to annul parliamentary democracy in order to profit off the consequences?

[muffled oars]

Regarding the rights and wrongs of a second referendum, May didn’t have a problem calling an early election when she thought that would benefit her. Why not just stick to the five year period and follow “the will of the British people”? Or the Tories looking for a re-run of their leadership contest? How come a tainted referendum is the one immovable in all this?

 

[TheNoise]

48 minutes ago, muffled oars said:

May didn’t have a problem calling an early election when she thought that would benefit her.

I saw that as her running scared. I don't believe for one minute any politician wanted to deal with brexit once it became clear what was involved, May included. I also believe that's one of the reasons Corbyn won't call for a no-confidence in the government, he doesn't want to take on the task either. I can't see Corbyn as PM after an election, I doubt any one party will win, we're stuck with coalitions which is what nobody votes for.