HylianSwordsman said:
You seem to be much more out of touch with the principles of democracy. Democracy simply means rule by the people. If they want to overturn a previous result, they can. Especially something with direct democracy like a referendum. In the United States we have something called the Congressional Review Act that allows a newly elected congress to undo things just done by a previous administration. This is fine because those previous things were done by democratically elected officials, and the new things are being done by new representatives. Both courses of action are being done by people acting on a platform that people then voted to represent them, so overturning previous results is fine. So there's an example of it being done with a representative democracy mechanism, but for direct democracy, the case is even stronger, since it is the directly stated, absolute will of the people (nonbinding or not, this is what the result of a referendum is understood to represent). Furthermore, if we simply had to come to terms with a specific elected official, impeachment wouldn't be an option. If we simply had to come to terms with results, recounts wouldn't be an option, nor would court challenges based on suspicions of electoral fraud.
Besides, if you're so insistent that this betrays some kind of precedent, then perhaps you could work out a deal with the EU to instantly reenter, so that for a fraction of a second, on March 29th, they'd be out, but immediately be back in again, thus fulfilling both referendums, strictly speaking. I mean if you admit that a second referendum could be held, just that it couldn't stop the results of the first referendum, there's no reason the second referendum couldn't be held now, but the conditions of the "Remain" option instead be "Rejoin" and a deal worked out with the EU to make that rejoining instant. I'm sure the EU would be interested in having the UK rejoin, especially if it were done so seemlessly.
Thanks for the clarification on Northern Ireland.
|
@Bold There is a time for making a decision but there is also a time carrying out that mandate as well. You cannot realistically propose that the former is to endlessly obstruct the latter. A famous politician who went on to become a president uttered, "elections have consequences" and if you supported the result to his mandate for presidency until the end of his term then you must support the result to the mandate for Brexit as well so you can't have it both ways. In practice, there are no do-overs in real life so you must either come to terms with the democratic result or admit that you harbour double standards ...
If the people want to overturn the result then do it after the mandate has been enacted. For democracy to be fair, it has to take turns otherwise what you propose is no different to doing 'polls'. Just as the American public deserves a peaceful transfer of power in the executive branch, the British people also deserve a peaceful resolution for their referendums ...
The Congressional Review Act is NOT democratically decided so it's not relevant for comparison purposes. Laws, bills, and amendments are often either decided as a republic or by a monarchy. What those democratically elected representatives or the monarchs do has no bearings on the democratic process itself so it cannot be used as a justification for 'overturning' what the people actually voted on. The process of impeachment, recounts, and the courts are all decided by higher powers like a republic or a monarchy which act as a safeguard against democracy but there's no precedent for undoing carrying out the mandate itself with democracy in any of your cases. At this point, you're just at grasping here and I reiterate that it is you who does not understand the underlying principles and institutions that truly comes with democracy ...
It should really come clearly and obvious to you in my argument from now on as to why we do not successively hold multiple votes since there is no 'rule' with endless obstructionism. You must now learn to come to reconcile with EVERYTHING ELSE (Brexit and Trump) that is offered with democracy and not just the results that are only compatible (ACA and Obama) with your views if you want to declare yourself as 'democratic' ...
Unfortunately, for your second paragraph it is not in my place to negotiate with the EU and it is in the British people's obligation to weather Brexit itself. The reason why Britain is not so keen on reentering the EU is because Donald Tusk revealed and told David Cameron to "get real" over his "stupid referendum" since he was absolutely spooked by the possibility of the UKIP party siphoning off the conservative voters but lo and behold without having the coalition of the Lib Dems, however little did Cameron know that UKIP ideology managed to infiltrate the Conservative party and then soon after a vote held place. After the vote, It brought tears of joy and laughter into my eyes how such a powerless party like UKIP managed to easily brainwash the political elites (Conservatives) into supporting their cause so there's no need for UKIP anymore when there's a little bit of UKIP to be had in the Conservatives. Since the EU is not willing to make a real compromise in the face of a democratic mandate, they'd rather see the UK crash out instead so here we are where there's about to be standoff between the EU and the UK because of a "stupid referendum" ...
Frankly, let's just leave the idea of a second referendum a total rest for now. Along with the reasons I stated previously, Theresa May is confident that there is NO current parliamentary majority for a second referendum and Jeremy Corbyn along with the front bench of the opposition keeps refusing calls for a second referendum too so it doesn't look likely to change in the near future. Corbyn in a last ditch attempt effort to appeal to the Remainers inside his party called for the revocation of article 50 but even he knows the conservatives won't let up easy on that demand either. If the Remainers truly believed that Brexit is no-compromise issue then they shouldn't have compromised their vote in the last election for another party that would "respect the referendum result" in their manifesto so that is why Corbyn does not truly give a shit either way since he plays both positions Brexit because be realizes his own party is also divided and is only in it to see the conservative party tank after taking the chaos of Brexit ...
MrWayne said:
Bold 1) That's exactly what i said, the decision to decommissioning nuclear energy was made by the previous government and her government stopped the decommissioning.
Bold 2) Why shouldn't it be acceptable? That's the power the constitution grants him. Also the german president can't be compared to the queen or other monarchs because he gets elected.
Bold 3) There is no final goal within democracy, it will always change. I don't know if the majority of the british people still want EU membership but a second referendum should clarify that 
Things like a second Brexit referendum or a second election of the german Bundestag should always be the ultima ratio. If by a miracle the British parliament can agree on a solution(no deal, deal, stay in the EU), fine but if the parliament can't agree on anything there have to be a second referendum.
a) because nobody can justify a no deal scenario in this case, the government would be against it, the majority of the parliament would be against it and probably the majority of the british people would be against a no deal scenario.
b) a second referendum would be different than the first one because it would correct the big flaw the first one had. The big flaw the first referendum had was that you had to decide between the status quo, staying in the EU, something very concret, and Brexit, about whom nobody knew exactly what he would look like. Now people can decide between three very concrete options, no deal, May's deal or stay in the EU.
|
1) I think you need to be more informed from now on before engaging in political discussions. Angela Merkel did NOT repeal Gerhard Schroeder's call for decommissioning nuclear power and in fact speed it up! She faced rebuke from her own party's former leader who was also a former chancellor for that decision and it was Helmut Kohl which oversaw the openings of the German nuclear reactors ...
2) That doesn't mean that there aren't 'flaws' in the constitution. By your justification does that mean Her Majesty should veto a bill that she does not like unless she wants her head lopped off ? The great powers of a republic or a monarchy should express restraint first before abusing it ...
3) Why don't we hold out after Brexit then to see they still want in on the EU ? 
The parliament can't even agree to a second referendum either. They can't agree on any deal and I doubt revoking article 50 is a good idea among Conservative MPs ...
a) That's not for you to solely decide, it's for the elected representatives to decide. For the most part, the conservatives are content leaving with no deal and I suspect if push comes to shove for either significantly delaying article 50 or revoking article 50 then the DUP will seriously consider pulling the plug before it comes to that because at the end of the day remainer rebels within the conservative party realize that they need the DUP just as much as themselves to keep them all in power as well or face the possibility of deselection. It's basically a game of who will blink first between the remainer rebels or the DUP ... (I suspect that Theresa May will just keep whipping the rebels until she meets the DUPs demands)
b) The result of the first referendum should also be respected (see the above reply I made to Hylian) and it is the format originally agreed upon by the MPs at the time and more importantly there is no majority of having another vote currently in the parliament ...
