Why do you think people want to leave the EU?!
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...
- Thread starter ainsworth74
- Start date
- Status
Why do you think people want to leave the EU?!
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
What exactly?
I was agreeing with you.
Struner
Member
Like Northern Ireland?
Yes, I do. It's very nice.
I can't be the only remain voter who's getting sick and tired of being referred to by that ridiculous, and IMO derogatory, term.
Killingworth
Established Member
I rather think the "democratic will of the people" line has lost it's meaning in the current climate. Even in this thread we see contributors apparently switching sides over time, and I sense similar confusion wherever I go. Over the last 4 years, whether it was the referendum, last general election or the European elections, the will of those who voted is confused. It hardly gives a strong mandate for anything. A lot didn't vote and at present a lot more are torn in different directions. Any further ballots are likely to reflect that and results could, probably would, add to our confusion.
The status quo may well be the least worst option, but politics requires something to be done so that's not an option we'll be allowed.
John Griffiths
Member
Ridiculous, derogatory and childish, used by those unable to provide any rational arguments in support of their actions.
J-2739
Established Member
Guys I think anme is being sarcastic from reading the thread, lol...
(unless this is some inside joke...)
(unless this is some inside joke...)
Where did I say that? I did point out the absurdity of your claim that democracy wins over the GFA, given that the GFA is rather more a democratic process than the UK leaving the EU without any terms in place.
Spot on.
Pyreneenguy
Member
- Joined
- 29 May 2011
- Messages
- 327
It wasn't a referendum to leave the E.U but to ratify the E.U's constitution. A very long and complicated piece of text that hardly anyone read or understood. The very same can be said for Brexit : a very complicated subject that many voting no simply didn't understand or were easily manipulated( those millions for the NHS etc).
krus_aragon
Established Member
Okay, help me out here.
I tried to keep my own opinions to the middle paragraph:
As you think I'm saying things in a "long way", let me try to shorten it.
I think that: if the Prime Minister believes that MPs (i.e. Parliament) are not doing what they were elected to do, they should all be gotten rid of and the public should be asked to elect a new set of MPs.
I'm struggling to see how that could be saying I don't want to honour the democratic will of the people. I'll assume that the problem wasn't in that paragraph, but elsewhere. (But please correct me if that's an incorrect assumption on my part!)
Was it in the first paragraph, perhaps? In response to your earlier post:
I said:
I suppose what I'm getting at here is "who gets to decide whether Parliament is right or wrong"? If the answer to that is "The Prime Minister", then that puts us in an odd situation, because Parliament decides who (from among the MPs elected by us) is Prime Minister. Do you see how that is rather cyclic? One could say it'd be like letting prisoners elect their own prison guards (though it's a slightly silly comparison).
Or was it the third paragraph?
I'm guessing it's this paragraph that piqued your interest. If so, I fear you may have misinterpreted me. I was only trying to explain the history of the situation we're in. Let me paraphrase and expand on it for you:
In centuries past, the method of getting authority from the electorate to govern was the General Election. MPs were given a mandate by their constituents when elected, and if this mandate needed to be queried, Parliament was dissolved and a fresh election held. The passing of the Great Reform Act of 1832 (which got rid of rotten boroughs and introduced the secret ballot) is a good example of this: when the Government's reform bill was voted down in the Commons, it dissolved Parliament and held an election, to check whether the public still agreed with what it was trying to do. The new Parliament supported the (revived) bill through the Commons, and after a stand-off with the Lords it passed into law.
Since 1975, there has been another method of getting a mandate from the people in the UK: the referendum. Note that I'm not claiming it's better or worse, just different. It's not been used that often; residents of many parts of England have only ever seen three referenda. In other parts of the UK, it's a maximum of six (by my count).
In some of these referenda, Parliament has asked a question and gotten the answer it wanted (e.g. EEC in 1975, London Assembly in 1998). In others, it wanted to do something, and was told not to (e.g. Scottish and Welsh devolution, 1979). But in 2016, it was told to do something it didn't want to do, for the first time. Now we have the conflict that I described in that third paragraph, between the mandate given through a referendum and a mandate given through a general election. Both of them could be the "democratic will of the people". The current rules of the country don't explain how a referendum should override the result of a general election, because this situation has never occurred before, and it hadn't been foreseen by legislators either.
Now let me put in some of my own opinion. I don't dislike the referendum system. In fact, I rather like the Irish system (where the written constitution was first approved by referendum, and any amendments to it must also be approved by referendum). And if this country decides that referenda should overrule general elections, I can accept that. The problem I see is that that isn't how the system currently works, so how does the country decide to change it? If the system needs changing, it needs to be changed from within that system, unless you're going to opt for revolution and overthrow the system.
The current system isn't working properly: the existing way of dealing with a Parliament that can't get its job done is to get rid of that Parliament and elect a new one, but we've ended up in a strange political situation where Parliament doesn't support the Government's actions, but it doesn't bring the Government down, and neither the Government not Parliament as a whole have sought a fresh election (thanks in part to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act). If we do end up at a general election (which I suspect we will at some point) then hopefully the "democratic will of the people" will be heard loud and clear, and Parliament can get on with enacting that will.
Regardless of my opinion of what the right outcome is, this situation is going to have to come to some soft of resolution in the next two months. I'm sure there will be political intrigue from all sorts of directions as that happens.
------
There. I'm sorry it turned out to be an even longer post than the previous one, but I've put at least an hour's effort into trying to explain things as clearly as possible. If I've got anything factually incorrect here, please do point it out to me (you or any other reader of the thread). Alternatively, if you still feel that your earlier sentiment is true, please help me understand why you feel that is the case.
So today, Boris Johnson went on TV repeatedly to deny that his move to close down Parliament has anything to do with Brexit. Instead, he tells us that it is all about setting up a Queen's Speech on a new legislative programme about policing, education, the NHS, etc.
This is an absolute flat out bare faced lie. Just as with Trump, before being "elected", many people attested to the unsuitability of BJ's character for high office. So here we go, with a narcissistic ego driven bare faced liar at the helm, attracting praise from a considerable number of his supporters. I sincerely hope that those supporters do not constitute a majority in our country.
This is an absolute flat out bare faced lie. Just as with Trump, before being "elected", many people attested to the unsuitability of BJ's character for high office. So here we go, with a narcissistic ego driven bare faced liar at the helm, attracting praise from a considerable number of his supporters. I sincerely hope that those supporters do not constitute a majority in our country.
The people who use it still seem to think it's the cleverest pun ever invented, as if they'd only just thought of it....
A Trump-esque childish put down to cover for the absence of an actual argument or any coherent reason why they want to Leave.
Struner
Member
fair enough
Indeed mate. It's a funny old world. Ha ha. All the best.
Couldn't agree more.
Can we also get rid of the term "Brexiteer" - there is nothing "swashbuckling" about them
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
-eer is a really common suffix meaning someone associated with an activity.
Brexiteer is no different to auctioneer, musketeer, profiteer, or a puppeteer (insert your own jokes!)
Any attempt to try and suggest it's a word derived from "buccaneer" would probably be definitioneering...
Geezertronic
Established Member
Should we ask that people replace Remoaner with Remaineer?
Whoa! Who said that I wanted to leave? Which post gives you that idea. If it's this one, try reading it again. Taking nurses from lower-cost of living nations is a cheap trick to avoid paying for training. Taking them from third world states is both cynically destructive and morally wrong.
Aictos
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Apr 2009
- Messages
- 10,403
Just one question, how come since the UK Govt of the time never gave the UK public a vote to join the EU in the first place, only giving them a say two years into membership just to rubber stamp their decision yet when the majority of the UK Public vote to leave then suddenly it’s the wrong reply?
Cameron came back and promised EU reforms, doesn’t sound like that happened at all?
Yes the UK and EU has done many great things together in partnership but even though it was before my time I can safely say I reckon the UK Public at the time didn’t understand what they were voting got back in the 70s and hence the screw up mess that both the EU and UK Govt has put us in.
Cameron came back and promised EU reforms, doesn’t sound like that happened at all?
Yes the UK and EU has done many great things together in partnership but even though it was before my time I can safely say I reckon the UK Public at the time didn’t understand what they were voting got back in the 70s and hence the screw up mess that both the EU and UK Govt has put us in.
Another problem is that half the MPs still want to be part of the EU.
If they accepted we MUST leave (after all, isn't it law after they wanted to try and add more complication?) and busied their efforts into figuring out how to solve the problems, we'd be in a better position.
I don't agree with a fair amount my employer does, but I don't try and stop it happening hand over foot. I work out how I can make the problem work for me.
If they accepted we MUST leave (after all, isn't it law after they wanted to try and add more complication?) and busied their efforts into figuring out how to solve the problems, we'd be in a better position.
I don't agree with a fair amount my employer does, but I don't try and stop it happening hand over foot. I work out how I can make the problem work for me.
433N
Guest
- Joined
- 20 Jun 2017
- Messages
- 752
... if it ever meant anything in the first place.
Ironically, it would seem (to me) to be closest to the Marxist idea of a Dictatorship of the Proletariat in which the working class hold power. The people who use the term believing it provides weight and gravitas to their pronouncements seem oblivious to the fact that (a) we have the opposite of the working class holding power and, now, (b) a dictatorship by the ruling class.
I'd go as far as to say that the people who use the term 'will of the people' look quite ignorant and silly.
plymothian
Member
The slightly more farfetched idea of proroguing parliament is to end the current session and start a new one because what did Bercow say about May's WA - it cannot be brought back during the current session. Therefore Johnson would have a few days to bring up a new meaningful vote on the WA and frighten MPs in to getting it passed.
Leavers justify no deal by continually reminding us MPs voted overwhelmingly to trigger Article 50, but it happened under Mrs May who at least from the outset was actively seeking a form of compromise & consensus on the ultimate negotiated outcome.
I wonder how many MPs correctly anticipated the whole process being hijacked at the final stage by the hard leavers? and if it wasn’t actually that many, do you believe the initial vote would’ve at the very least displayed a significantly reduced majority in favour?.
Last edited:
I don't agree with this. People say the Nissan workers in Sunderland didn't understand what they were voting for. They didn't understand that they would lose their jobs if the UK left the EU. This is insulting nonsense. Of course they knew they would lose their jobs. They work in a factory making cars largely for export to the EU. They are not stupid. The point is that they don't care. This is what the remainers don't understand. They had the choice between a job and a blue passport and they chose the blue passport. They know they and their families will be on benefits for the rest of their lives and they still vote for brexit. This is noble dedication to a cause! I would personally be in favour of letting them put up a statue of a car assembly line worker in Morecombe or Carlisle or wherever these people consider their spiritual home.
Whenever we conclude a tax avoidance deal in the city of London free from the stifling rules of the EU, we should remember these people. Whenever builders work an 80 hour week to add an extension to our house in Surrey, liberated from the tyrrany of the working time directive, we will be thankful for their sacrifice.
Bantamzen
Established Member
I've had to resist the urge to launch my television out of the window this morning after watching Rees-Mogg live on BBC News. He stood their and claimed that the anger at this move was "phoney" (a clear nod towards Trump's fake news tactics), and that people didn't want the benefits of leaving such as cheap food and clothes. What a cheap, snide and clearly untrue thing to say, and entirely typical tactic of this farce of an administration.
I suspect you could say the same for a significant percentage of the 17.4 million people who voted to leave. Had there been a lot more talk from the hard core Brexiteers about gunning for a no deal scenario, enough of those people voting yes would have had a change of mind and abstained or voted against. But clearly the leave campaign knew that talk of no deal would have been toxic for them, and so they overplayed the prospect of an "easy" deal.
I suspect you could say the same for a significant percentage of the 17.4 million people who voted to leave. Had there been a lot more talk from the hard core Brexiteers about gunning for a no deal scenario, enough of those people voting yes would have had a change of mind and abstained or voted against. But clearly the leave campaign knew that talk of no deal would have been toxic for them, and so they overplayed the prospect of an "easy" deal.
- Status