Bofferbrauer2 said:
*Looks at record-long Shutdown*
Yeah, right
|
Well if they're so keen on opposing then they should start a civil war and see how far they can go last time compared to opposing Abraham Lincoln ... 
OlfinBedwere said:
theory, yes. In practice, trying to pretend that the opposition doesn't exist after the vote - or worse, openly treating them with contempt and hostility while dismissing their views as being irrelevant - almost never ends well in the longer run.
|
It is both true in theory and in practice if we take a look at the majority of modern western liberal democracy but the only effective way to circumvent mandate by the people is either through a constitution (whether it'd be with a republic or a monarchy) or some other anti-democratic mechanism such as requiring a consensus, term limits, & etc ...
The opposition needs to deal with the fact that they don't have the mandate ...
HylianSwordsman said:
fatslob-:O said:
That's not true. For one the house of commons could either decide a vote of no confidence again, the second being a general election, and the other option being revoking article 50 ...
A vote of no confidence wouldn't stop a no deal Brexit. A general election is unlikely, but if it happened, it wouldn't stop a no deal Brexit because even a Lib Dem majority couldn't overturn the first referendum without a second referendum, I mean I guess they could since you guys don't have a constitution to protect your referendums or anything so all that holds your laws together are norms and precedents, but still, I just can't seriously entertain this possibility. Revoking article 50 is remaining, which goes against the first referendum, and thus isn't possible. I suppose they could revoke it and then reinvoke it to get around the need for unanimous support from every EU country for a delay, but I don't see that being accepted and I don't see even your government as being stupid enough to try that.
There is no consensus for what the format of a second referendum would be and campaigning is absolutely mandatory since it is THE LAW ... (a minimum of at least 10 weeks and even then that length would be heavily criticized by the Electoral Commission)
I see. Didn't know that. So then they would definitely need to ask the EU for an extension. They better get on that if they want to do a second referendum then. Waiting until March 29th to ask for an extension to allow for a referendum would be really messy.
@Bold Actually, the critics would be correct that it isn't fair in principle if a supposed second referendum included a remain option which led to a remain vote in contrast to a leave vote with the first referendum since the result of the first referendum wouldn't be respected when it has yet to be enacted ...
If you actually cared about respecting the result of the first referendum then a remain option shouldn't even be included in a potential second referendum and should be just either May's deal, no deal or another possible way to leave. Democracy is not all about holding votes but it's also about coming to terms with the consequences that comes with it ...
As I said, the first referendum would still be respected because all a ranked choice referendum would do is get a more accurate read of what the people wanted with the first referendum. If they simply redid the first referendum exactly as it was done then in a second referendum, I'd agree with you here.
"It wouldn't feel as much like one half the country dragged the other half into something they hated"
This view is incompatible with the consequences of democracy. If it were that simple then we wouldn't need a democracy and would instead opt for unity. A democracy exists solely to separate the mandate from the opposition ...
I understand that the point of democracy is to decide action based on incomplete agreement of the people, and that to live in a democracy is to agree to go along with the consequences of not always being on the side of the broader consensus, but the health of democracy is dependent upon the respect of the people for democracy, and when opinion is so evenly split on matters of such importance to the country, it's just not healthy for the democracy. When it is possible to alter the democratic mechanisms to create broader consensus among the populace, it should be done. There's no need to demand methods that create less consensus. I'm not suggesting unity for unity's sake, if that's all I wanted I'd ask for a dictatorship. I'm asking for democratic unity for democracy's sake. There's no harm, only good, in designing better democratic mechanisms to create broader democratic consensus. A democracy does exist to separate the mandate from the opposition, but it also exists to create the best possible mandate that minimizes opposition and creates the broadest consensus possible so as to create the strongest mandate possible.
The hard brexiteers were already negotiating trade deals across the world. The only party that weren't willing to negotiate before the exit was the EU and solely the EU because they wanted a withdrawal agreement ...
Well you haven't made much progress there, have you? You can't seriously suggest the hard Brexiteers wouldn't rather have had a hard Brexit be the option on the first referendum and have won that instead, so as to have the whole government commited to a hard Brexit and thus fully invested in working towards making the best hard Brexit possible. A much better system of trade deals would have been possible by now if you had the whole force of the UK government committed to it from the beginning. A second referendum with ranked choice voting would make a hard Brexit a real possibility, and a No Deal referendum result under the circumstances I described may even justify a further extension on Brexit to allow for the negotiation of such trade deals, since there would be no pretenses of a withdrawal agreement being a possibility, as the hard Brexit would be mandated.
Just as America came to terms with Trump it is now time for Britain's turn to come to terms with Brexit ...
America has hardly come to terms with their current president. He's being investigated in various ways and may eventually be impeached. And especially if the American people on the whole want him impeached, he should be impeached. Just as if the people of the UK want to cancel Brexit, they should be allowed to do so. I don't understand what the Brexiteers are so afraid of here. They've shown they can win before. Worst case scenario for them, Remain wins, UKIP reforms, this time with Brexiteers having gained valuable experience in what can go wrong, so that they can form better plans for a hard Brexit with which to campaign on. They'd formulate more viable Brexit plans and know more about how to sell those plans to the people. Any hard Brexit that resulted from an eventual UKIP victory would be better informed and proceed much more smoothly than the current fiasco. Every way I look at this it just seems like it would be better for everyone, and for democracy as a whole.
|
|
A vote of no confidence or a general election has the possibility of leading to avoiding brexit altogether and revocation of article 50 is still technically viable but whether it is politically viable is another matter altogether ...
Even the possibility of an extension may not grant enough time to hold another referendum. It is compulsory that the Electoral Commission has at least 22 weeks to setup a referendum. As I mentioned before 10 weeks minimum is needed for campaigning and the 12 weeks before that is used to test the question in hand ...
"If they simply redid the first referendum exactly as it was done then in a second referendum, I'd agree with you here."
A new format does not justify inclusion of an option that has been ruled out recently. If we are to preserve the spirit of democracy and the yet to be granted first wishes then remain needs to be excluded if we are to have a second referendum ...
"I understand that the point of democracy is to decide action based on incomplete agreement of the people, and that to live in a democracy is to agree to go along with the consequences of not always being on the side of the broader consensus, but the health of democracy is dependent upon the respect of the people for democracy, and when opinion is so evenly split on matters of such importance to the country, it's just not healthy for the democracy."
What is or what isn't healthy for democracy is a matter of debate for the constitutional republics/monarchies out there or thereof to find the right balance. I can tell you what is not democratic is not accepting the result. What you also ask for subsequently is the Singapore/Taiwan/Japan model of democracy but would find a weaker opposition somehow palatable in a liberal democracy ? By setting dominant party politics as the precedent you are virtue signalling that you are content with one party dominating the majority of your political life. Are you truly certain that sacrificing one of the cornerstones of a liberal democracy which is a strong opposition for a stronger consensus if it means facing the possibility of seeing republicans as the mandate the majority of the time or even people like Trump ?
"Well you haven't made much progress there, have you?"
Depends entirely on what you mean by 'progress'. Britain has made quite a bit of progress outside the EU so even if the British people are committed to Brexit, it won't matter if the two parties won't agree on the withdrawal agreement. To the EU, a withdrawal agreement comes first before talking about trade deals ...
"America has hardly come to terms with their current president. He's being investigated in various ways and may eventually be impeached. And especially if the American people on the whole want him impeached, he should be impeached. Just as if the people of the UK want to cancel Brexit, they should be allowed to do so."
It's good enough that America isn't waging a civil war over it at the very least so that's pretty much coming to terms with the president. If the British people wanted to undo Brexit then do it AFTER the fact that it has happened, not under false pretenses of democracy. Leaver's have waited OVER 41 YEARS for their chance ever since the European Communities membership referendum. It's nearly unbelievable how you're suggesting to break a precedent that the UK has held for decades and proudly at that ...
1973 Northern Ireland sovereignty (no), 1975 EC membership (yes), 1979 Scottish devolution (no), 1997 Scottish/Welsh devolution (yes), 1998 Greater London Authority/Northern Ireland Belfast (yes), 2004 North East England devolution (no), 2011 Welsh devolution (yes), 2011 alternative vote (no), 2014 Scottish Independence (no)
In all of the above mentioned cases the results of all previous referendums were respected yet somehow you want undermine democratic principles to make a special case for Brexit ?
