Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

CrabRevolution

downcow wrote: »

Because they claim to be great believers in having a second vote if there are suggestions that the situation has changed. Well there are strong calls from Anna Soubry constituents for the opportunity to vote again as she has left the Tory party. The thing I distain most in politics is hypocrisy

A second vote would be undemocratic. The people vote for those MPs and that has to be respected.

Enzokk

downcow wrote: »

Because they claim to be great believers in having a second vote if there are suggestions that the situation has changed. Well there are strong calls from Anna Soubry constituents for the opportunity to vote again as she has left the Tory party. The thing I distain most in politics is hypocrisy

I agree, political hypocrisy is the worst.

It really upsets me when politicians say one thing one day and then turn around and say another as it suits them.

FrancieBrady

CrabRevolution wrote: »

A second vote would be undemocratic. The people vote for those MPs and that has to be respected.

People say a second vote would be 'undemocratic', but it wouldn't be in fact.

downcow

VinLieger wrote: »

So you then would also agree a second referendum should be held?

Or are you a hypocrite and therefore hate yourself?

Not al all. You are trying put words in my mouth.
I believe the referendum should be implemented. After a few years of implementation then I would not oppose calls from rejoiners to campaign for a referendum to rejoin.
I don’t care whether Soubry has a by-election or not. I am simply pointing out that her call for a people’s vote lacks all integrity and is fairly hypocritical.

downcow

CrabRevolution wrote: »

A second vote would be undemocratic. The people vote for those MPs and that has to be respected.

I agree totally with you and I am consistent and therefore also accept the referendum

VinLieger

downcow wrote: »

I don’t care whether Soubry has a by-election or not. I am simply pointing out that her call for a people’s vote lacks all integrity and is fairly hypocritical.

So you would also agree everyone who says a by election should be called but a 2nd referendum is an affront to democracy are also hypocrites?

Hurrache

I think CrabRevolution was being sarcastic.

lawred2

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Imagine this was Ireland for a second. The recent referendum to repeal the eighth didn't actually make abortion legal here, just said it would be regulated by law.

Just imagine for a moment that if FG decided not to implement the proposed legislation, or made access more restricted than what was in the white paper. There would have been war, and the government would've collapsed (even if it had a 20 seat majority). This is a hot button issue over there, just like abortion was here.

Referenda are legally binding in Ireland.

You don't know what you're talking about

Imreoir2

downcow wrote: »

Anyone know why the 11 defectors are not having a by election? Is it not very ironic that these people are demanding another referendum because (as they say) people didn’t know what they were voting for. Snap - they were elected by people who thought they were voting for labour and Tory mps.
They could kill two birds with the one stone by accepting a by-election.
1) they would be removing the hypocrisy of their position and practicing what they preach
2) they have the power to have 11 mini referendums to compare to the previous results in their constituencies. If there is more than a 2% swing towards their position then I would be willing to contimplate a 2nd referendum

Individual people are elected, not party reps. Those MPs were elected by their constituients and that mandate remains no matter their party alegience. That is how the UK system works, I doubt you will find many examples of a by-election happening because an MP choose to resign from a party.

Hurrache

Imreoir2 wrote: »

I doubt you will find many examples of a by-election happening because an MP choose to resign from a party.

Don't be so rash, MrMusician18 is about to provide an example which sets precedent that MPs will now resign their seat upon leaving their party they were members of when elected.

Imreoir2

VinLieger wrote: »

We have had this discussion before referendum in ireland are legally binding so they would not be allowed to do this.

You are wrong

Well, actually that is not so. The referendum was to repeal the 8th amendment and make the issue of abortion one that was subject to legislation. The government published the draft legislation their proposed to implement but there would have been no breach of the constitution if the government decided to throw out that draft legislation and pass legislation that made the regulation of abortion even more stringent. There may well have been hell to pay from the electorate had they done so, but constitutionaly they would have been on sound footing.

J Mysterio

downcow wrote: »

Because they claim to be great believers in having a second vote if there are suggestions that the situation has changed. Well there are strong calls from Anna Soubry constituents for the opportunity to vote again as she has left the Tory party. The thing I distain most in politics is hypocrisy

I have to say that I'm amused this is upsetting you so. Those MPs resigned from the Tory party to explicitly represent their constituents best interests - good on them! If all MP's were so strongly principled we wouldn't be in this mess.

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta

downcow wrote: »

Not al all. You are trying put words in my mouth.
I believe the referendum should be implemented. After a few years of implementation then I would not oppose calls from rejoiners to campaign for a referendum to rejoin.
I don’t care whether Soubry has a by-election or not. I am simply pointing out that her call for a people’s vote lacks all integrity and is fairly hypocritical.

Re-joining would be the 2nd most insane thing that the UK ever did (1st being Brexit) - ERMII, joining Euro, Schengen implementation...

VinLieger

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta wrote: »

Re-joining would be the 2nd most insane thing that the UK ever did (1st being Brexit) - ERMII, joining Euro, Schengen implementation...

Downcow seems to think joining and leaving the EU is as easy as flicking a switch

gooch2k9

VinLieger wrote: »

Downcow seems to think joining and leaving the EU is as easy as flicking a switch

It is when you're the UK. Sure the German car manufacturers will be jumping to give them a deal.

An Ciarraioch

Hurrache wrote: »

Don't be so rash, MrMusician18 is about to provide an example which sets precedent that MPs will now resign their seat upon leaving their party they were members of when elected.

TBF, Carswell did when he switched from the Tories to UKIP.

An Ciarraioch

Can kicked down the road until March:

http://twitter.com/DarrenEuronews/status/1098299972334862336

downcow

VinLieger wrote: »

So you would also agree everyone who says a by election should be called but a 2nd referendum is an affront to democracy are also hypocrites?

I would feel I was being hypocritical to suggest such.

MrMusician18

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Well, actually that is not so. The referendum was to repeal the 8th amendment and make the issue of abortion one that was subject to legislation. The government published the draft legislation their proposed to implement but there would have been no breach of the constitution if the government decided to throw out that draft legislation and pass legislation that made the regulation of abortion even more stringent. There may well have been hell to pay from the electorate had they done so, but constitutionaly they would have been on sound footing.

Exactly. The white paper, which became the termination of pregnancy act, which had the provisions about time periods and access was not what we actually voted on, but it was politically promised, and I'd argue, politically binding on the government to implement the plan. There would've been hell to pay if it passed and they backed out of the white paper.

VinLieger wrote: »

Nope you are incorrect the referendum had very specific text that it was proposing to use to replace the 8th amendment, if they had chosen to use text completely at odds with what was in the referendum proposal text they would have been taken to court and lost badly.

And if they had introduced laws at odds with the proposal text in the constitution they would also have been taken to court and lost badly.

Again you are wrong, its kind of a trend your starting

But technically we only voted to delete the 8 and insert the following in the Constitution: Provision may be made by law for the regulation of termination of pregnancy

There was therefore no breach of the Constitution while the new amendment was in force but the old 19 century law was in place.

Nothing about a right to a termination in the above is there?

Oh, who was wrong? Do you want to dig in further?


What I find astounding is that you'll have people posting here about how we in Ireland don't get things wrong like this, we have a referendum commission to inform us... Yet, the politically engaged on a political forum had no idea what they were actually voting for in one of the most publicised and contentious referendums in years.

So yeah, things can be politically binding here too.

downcow

VinLieger wrote: »

Downcow seems to think joining and leaving the EU is as easy as flicking a switch

You will note I said I would not oppose them starting a campaign for a referendum to rejoin.
It took the most of 40 years to achieve the leave referendum so I am not expecting success until about 2060

VinLieger

downcow wrote: »

You will note I said I would not oppose them starting a campaign for a referendum to rejoin.
It took the most of 40 years to achieve the leave referendum so I am not expecting success until about 2060

LOL and you still try to claim you voted remain

Strazdas

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Can kicked down the road until March:

http://twitter.com/DarrenEuronews/status/1098299972334862336

Does that mean the meaningful vote for next week is back off again? It was rumoured yesterday that it could possibly be held next Tuesday but it looks like that is an impossibility now.

Strazdas

downcow wrote: »

You will note I said I would not oppose them starting a campaign for a referendum to rejoin.
It took the most of 40 years to achieve the leave referendum so I am not expecting success until about 2060

The 40 year gap is utterly meaningless. The UK could have held a second European referendum in 1978 or 1981 or whatever.

It just so happened that there was a 40 year gap but the number means nothing ; it could have been a four year gap or an 85 year one. Ireland has held two referendums on the same subject with barely with a 12 month gap on several occasions.

Hurrache

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Can kicked down the road until March:

http://twitter.com/DarrenEuronews/status/1098299972334862336

Wow, that was a very quick chat? Is this the outcome of the talks today?

VinLieger

MrMusician18 wrote: »

What I find astounding is that you'll have people posting here about how we in Ireland don't get things wrong like this, we have a referendum commission to inform us... Yet, the politically engaged on a political forum had no idea what they were actually voting for in one of the most publicised and contentious referendums in years.

So yeah, things can be politically binding here too.

Except they were also legally binding in that we changed our constitution.

Also not being 100% up on the complexities around the 8th referendum and the resulting laws being passed is nothing like what happened in the UK with "brexit means brexit durrr"

MrMusician18

lawred2 wrote: »

Referenda are legally binding in Ireland.

You don't know what you're talking about

They are indeed legally binding. But in the plebiscites to date it's only amendments to the Constitution that are. Only that text.

The promises the government make about accompanying legislation are not legally binding. But seeing as so many of the so called politically informed on this forum are having trouble distinguishing the difference, they clearly are politically binding.

An Ciarraioch

Hurrache wrote: »

Wow, that was a very quick chat? Is this the outcome of the talks today?

Yes - the talks only started at 6.30, so must have just been a 30-minute chat.

ancapailldorcha

VinLieger wrote: »

LOL and you still try to claim you voted remain

No more of this please.

Strazdas

MrMusician18 wrote: »

They are indeed legally binding. But in the plebiscites to date it's only amendments to the Constitution that are. Only that text.

The promises the government make about accompanying legislation are not legally binding. But seeing as so many of the so called politically informed on this forum are having trouble distinguishing the difference, they clearly are politically binding.

"Legally binding" also means the same government are free to call a second referendum, within months if necessary.

A legally binding referendum that does not have the option to be immediately reversed would be profoundly undemocratic.

lawred2

MrMusician18 wrote: »

They are indeed legally binding. But in the plebiscites to date it's only amendments to the Constitution that are. Only that text.

The promises the government make about accompanying legislation are not legally binding. But seeing as so many of the so called politically informed on this forum are having trouble distinguishing the difference, they clearly are politically binding.

The vote to change the constitution is legally binding..

The subsequent legislation is for the Oireachtas as it is their job to legislate so as to reflect the provisions (or amendments) of our constitution. Abortion was a single issue piece of legislation.

I don't think you'll find anyone who will argue otherwise.

But there is no comparison between a clearly defined single issue referendum versus a vague all things to all people in/out advisory survey.. Even the out campaign put forward a vision of Brexit that they would now conclude to be the softest of Brexits.. (and a surrender to the EU etc etc - imagine surrendering to the cheese eating surrender monkeys - the horror)

Since when were politicians bound to arrogance and the blind stupidity of a previous administration?