Post-brexit - time for a republic?

krus_aragon

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2009
Messages
5,594
Location
North Wales
But 48% is enough to win a general election? I don't understand.
I'm beginning to believe you're being contrary for the sake of it, or possibly enraged at the current political situation and venting your frustration.

I've already spent a significant amount of time trying to engage with you on a number of threads, but it seems to have been for little gain.

I'll be abstaining from our discussion for a while, until I feel that there'll be a constructive response.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

mmh

Established Member
Joined
13 Aug 2016
Messages
2,265
Oh dear. If we need a minimum of 50% of the popular vote as well as a high turnout, we may have to go back beyond the 1950s to find such a legitimate Government.
Plus governments with such a high vote would likely to have such huge majorities they'd be able to do what they want with no worry about the scrutiny and checks of parliament people are so vocally defending. To use a word that's popular this week, they could act like "dictatorships!"

As ever, be careful what you wish for, unintended consequences are everywhere.
 

krus_aragon

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2009
Messages
5,594
Location
North Wales
Plus governments with such a high vote would likely to have such huge majorities they'd be able to do what they want with no worry about the scrutiny and checks of parliament people are so vocally defending. To use a word that's popular this week, they could act like "dictatorships!"

As ever, be careful what you wish for, unintended consequences are everywhere.
On reflection, a Government with 50%+ of the popular vote can be more difficult to achieve in a first-past-the-post system when you have more than two candidates in each constituency.

The only post-1950 Government with more than 50% of the vote (in the image I linked) was the recent coalition Government, which thus had the sum of two parties' voter share.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
18,472
Location
Nottingham
I think you need maths lessons my friend if you believe that 48% is larger than 52%, and that the Remain vote "won" the referendum in 2016. Sucks to be you if you do believe that, but I believe you are trolling for the sake of trolling
By no measure of winning a referendum.

The larger vote share wins, the larger vote share was Leave, ergo - Leave won.
Lets try and make this very simple. Brexiters seem to like cake.

Imagine a referendum to choose between "Battenburg" and "Not Battenburg". Battenburg is a bit sticky and yellow and foreign so you'd probably find a majority of people choosing something else.

But "not Battenburg" isn't defined. The supporters of fruit cake, Swiss roll, and a whole range of sponges would all vote for "not Battenburg". But in this cake analogy everybody has to have the same cake, and they find out that what's on offer is a mouldy cheesecake then they might decide they prefer Battenburg after all.
 

krus_aragon

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2009
Messages
5,594
Location
North Wales
You win Analogy of the Week! But I think that's probably a sign we've gone off topic - which is the role / desirability of the monarchy in the political system
Shurely a desire to "let them eat cake" is particularly on-topic for a debate about monarchies and republics? ;)
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
7,211
Sorry but nobody voted to join the EU, all the government of the day did was to offer a vote to REMAIN in the EU 2 years after dragging the UK into it, that isn’t democratic but rather rubber stamping a decision already taken.
The 1975 referendum was on our continued membership of the European Community (EC) which was replaced under the 1993 Maastricht Treaty by the European Union (EU).

I could have been clearer on that it was continued membership of the EC, however I was correct in starting that it was what became the EU & not the EU.

However if the population had voted not to stay then we'd have left at that point.

The point still stands, if people aren't allowed to change their minds then we shouldn't have even had a vote this time around. Given that typically older people voted for Brexit then typically they would have voted to remain in the EC the first time around.
 

Cccca

New Member
Joined
29 Aug 2019
Messages
1
Location
Beds.
I don't mind the monarchy.
What I would do though is remove all of the hereditaries from the House of Lords.
Have a basic law that sets out the role, scope and powers of the monarch, PM, Cabinet and Parliament and the rights of the people. This could only be changed by a 2/3 voting majority in both Houses.
Make Britain a federal state. The new Upper House would comprise members appointed from local communities who have excelled in their fields.
 

JonasB

Member
Joined
27 Dec 2016
Messages
313
Location
Sweden
I mean no insult to HMQ personally, but the current Borising of our unwritten constitution makes you wonder if there is any point at all in her having a formal role in government. If all she can do is go along with the Prime Minister's advice and all the Privy Council can do is advise her to comply, the whole thing becomes a charade. I wonder if one effect of the whole Brexit debacle will be for us to realise just how unfit for purpose our whole ramshackle governmental arrangement is. Do others agree - and if so what changes should we make?
From my (outside) point of view I'm not going to have an opinion on the British monarchy, but it seems to me that it would be a good idea to actually write down some kind of consitution or fundamental laws. Because it looks like an unwritten constitution can cause some problems.
 

GrimShady

On Moderation
Joined
13 Dec 2016
Messages
1,740
I'm no fan of Ruth Davidson, but under her leadership the Tories have gone from 15 to 31 MSPs and just 1 MP to 13, and shattered the old no-Tories-in-Scotland adage.
IMO I would have attributed that to protest votes.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
18,472
Location
Nottingham
IMO I would have attributed that to protest votes.
IT was a lot because with the eclipse of Labour in Scotland the Tories were the most credible choice for those opposed to independence. Ruth Davidson is credited with doing a lot to de-toxify the Conservative party in Scotland, where the sort of Eton-and-Oxford Cameron attitude didn't go down at all well (not to mention memories of Thatcher). All of which has now pretty much gone down the pan with the party completely ignoring Scotland's view on Brexit, and now back to an Eton-and-Oxford man who by most measures is considerably more toxic than Cameron.
 

Busaholic

Established Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
9,347
Lets try and make this very simple. Brexiters seem to like cake.

Imagine a referendum to choose between "Battenburg" and "Not Battenburg". Battenburg is a bit sticky and yellow and foreign so you'd probably find a majority of people choosing something else.

But "not Battenburg" isn't defined. The supporters of fruit cake, Swiss roll, and a whole range of sponges would all vote for "not Battenburg". But in this cake analogy everybody has to have the same cake, and they find out that what's on offer is a mouldy cheesecake then they might decide they prefer Battenburg after all.
Would it be just supporters of fruit cake voting for 'not Battenburg' or the fruit cake itself? :lol:
 

bramling

Established Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
8,275
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
So if the the people want 0% tax and fully funded public services the mps have to do thier best to give it to them?

What about the people who want one thing and those who want the opposite. (not including those who want a 3rd option) what do mps do.

Do they do what's best for the people who voted for them, the best for themselves or what's best for the country. Do they follow the majority even if its going to cause the people pain and suffering or make them homeless and broke for example?

For every person who wants something there will be a significant number who want something else.
There is a slight difference with your 0% tax analogy. No political party would ever offer that in a manifesto. Both the last two Conservative manifestos promised to implement the outcome of the referendum, and MPs such as Mr Grieve stood on that platform.

By the time of the 2017 election if I remember rightly May was already propagating the notion “no deal is better than a bad deal” (I forget if that actually made the manifesto in as many words).

I can sort of respect the Lib Dem position as to be fair their position on Brexit has always been pretty much the same - although perhaps they avoided too much awkward scrutiny at the time as the referendum coincided with the period when they had their lowest number of MPs. Labour meanwhile have been completely muddled, but generally attempting to make some attempt at saying they would honour the referendum result (though anyone watching their conferences might raise more than an eyebrow at this!). I think it’s very hard for a Conservative MP to actively promote remain, even in a remain seat - their manifesto was pretty clearly pro-leave. Even someone like Kenneth Clarke is on rather dodgy ground IMO.

Obviously John Major isn’t constrained by having stood on the back of a manifesto, just weighed down by all those chips on the shoulders which have no doubt been quietly growing away since 1997. George Osborne and Philip Hammond are giving him a bit of competition on who can grow them fastest though... ;)
 
Last edited:

krus_aragon

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2009
Messages
5,594
Location
North Wales
By the time of the 2017 election if I remember rightly May was already propagating the notion “no deal is better than a bad deal” (I forget if that actually made the manifesto in as many words).
I had a dig around in that document a month or so ago. Among the snippets I found were:
Theresa May’s Conservatives will deliver
  • The best possible deal for Britain as we leave the European Union delivered by a smooth, orderly Brexit.
and also:
The negotiations will undoubtedly be tough, and there will be give and take on both sides, but we continue to believe that no deal is better than a bad deal for the UK.
So make of that what you will...
 

UP13

Member
Joined
27 Jul 2018
Messages
221
but it seems to me that it would be a good idea to actually write down some kind of consitution or fundamental laws. Because it looks like an unwritten constitution can cause some problems.
Technically we have an uncodified constitution not an unwritten one. Many parts of our constitution are written down.
 

Busaholic

Established Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
9,347
There is a slight difference with your 0% tax analogy. No political party would ever offer that in a manifesto. Both the last two Conservative manifestos promised to implement the outcome of the referendum, and MPs such as Mr Grieve stood on that platform.

By the time of the 2017 election if I remember rightly May was already propagating the notion “no deal is better than a bad deal” (I forget if that actually made the manifesto in as many words).

I can sort of respect the Lib Dem position as to be fair their position on Brexit has always been pretty much the same - although perhaps they avoided too much awkward scrutiny at the time as the referendum coincided with the period when they had their lowest number of MPs. Labour meanwhile have been completely muddled, but generally attempting to make some attempt at saying they would honour the referendum result (though anyone watching their conferences might raise more than an eyebrow at this!). I think it’s very hard for a Conservative MP to actively promote remain, even in a remain seat - their manifesto was pretty clearly pro-leave. Even someone like Kenneth Clarke is on rather dodgy ground IMO.

Obviously John Major isn’t constrained by having stood on the back of a manifesto, just weighed down by all those chips on the shoulders which have no doubt been quietly growing away since 1997. George Osborne and Philip Hammond are giving him a bit of competition on who can grow them fastest though... ;)
Kenneth Clarke voted against triggering Article 50, was open about his actions and the reason for them, and got re-elected the following year, so his constituents were hardly having the wool pulled over their eyes. Clarke also voted in favour of May's deal, as he felt it was the best that could be achieved, so nothing he does now to attempt to avert the no-deal disaster scenario could be described as 'dodgy': indeed, I'd describe it as 'dodgy' if he didn't assert his opposition. The most craven hypocrites are the likes of Nicky Morgan, Amber Rudd, the appalling Matt Hancock and the pathetic Liz Truss, who'll put their own political positions and careers ahead of what they, apparently, used to believe so fervently.
 

Top