UK Parliament to Vote on Brexit

[Hands]

It is the will of the people. By trying to factor in people who simply don't give one either way, you're really splitting hairs.

The will of the people would be the majority, or as close to all as possible, of the people.

I'm kinda tired of arguing against this false narrative so I'll let Mr low of the LSE handle it for me

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016...will-of-the-british-people-it-never-has-been/

 

[Caaethil]

The will of the people would be the majority, or as close to all as possible, of the people.

I'm kinda tired of arguing against this false narrative so I'll let Mr low of the LSE handle it for me

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016...will-of-the-british-people-it-never-has-been/

I feel like we're arguing more over semantics than the topic at hand. If you would like me to refrain from saying "the will of the people" and instead say "the will of the majority who voted", I will. If that's what it takes to appease you, so be it.

 

[Hands]

I feel like we're arguing more over semantics than the topic at hand. If you would like me to refrain from saying "the will of the people" and instead say "the will of the majority who voted", I will. If that's what it takes to appease you, so be it.

I;d be happy with "the will of quarter of the population"

 

[Caaethil]

I;d be happy with "the will of quarter of the population"

"The will of the majority who voted" is equally accurate and I'm not sure why I'd use a different but equivalent phrase just because it better suits your narrative that it's a quarter of the population therefore it doesn't matter.

 

[Hands]

"The will of the majority who voted" is equally accurate and I'm not sure why I'd use a different but equivalent phrase just because it better suits your narrative that it's a quarter of the population therefore it doesn't matter.

I'd rather you said a quarter for the same reason you'd rather push the falsehood that it's the will of the people en masse. If you want to deal in biased narratives that's fine, but we'll use mine, as it's actually contextually correct.

 

[Caaethil]

I'd rather you said a quarter for the same reason you'd rather push the falsehood that it's the will of the people en masse.

I literally just conceded that it's technically not the will of the people. Why are you being this way? You seem incapable of accepting a victory, you just want to beat it in until I'm six feet underground. It's really unhelpful.

If you want to deal in biased narratives that's fine, but we'll use mine, as it's actually contextually correct.

Since when was "The will of the majority who voted" not contextually correct? Why do you insist on arguing semantics?

 

[Hands]

I literally just conceded that it's technically not the will of the people. Why are you being this way? You seem incapable of accepting a victory, you just want to beat it in until I'm six feet underground. It's really unhelpful.

You misunderstand me friend, this isn't like the Trump argument, I'm not doing this to win a silly debate. I'm doing this to protect the reputation of my country and the collective intelligence of it's peoples. You sound like a Sun propaganda piece with this "will of the people" nonsense and it makes us look like a country of short sighted reactionaries who cut off our noses to spite our faces to those observing us from outside.

Since when was "The will of the majority who voted" not contextually correct? Why do you insist on arguing semantics?

That is not the false narrative I was referring to, I was referring to the falsehood that over 50% of Britain voted to leave and that leaving is what the majority of Brits want, despite virtually every piece of research and evidence suggesting otherwise.

 

[Caaethil]

You misunderstand me friend, this isn't like the Trump argument, I'm not doing this to win a silly debate. I'm doing this to protect the reputation of my country and the collective intelligence of it's peoples. You sound like a Sun propaganda piece with this "will of the people" nonsense and it makes us look like a country of short sighted reactionaries who cut off our noses to spite our faces to those observing us from outside.

I CONCEDED THIS POINT. I AGREE WITH YOU. I WAS WRONG - FOR THE THIRD TIME. LOOK! IT'S IN BIG RED BOLD LETTERS! CAN I MAKE THIS MORE CLEAR?

Do you really need to continue to 'protect our country's reputation' when I already conceded the point?

That is not the false narrative I was referring to, I was referring to the falsehood that over 50% of Britain voted to leave and that leaving is what the majority of Brits want, despite virtually every piece of research and evidence suggesting otherwise.

BIG AND RED AND BOLD! YOU'RE RIGHT! I WAS WRONG - IT'S NOT WHAT THE MAJORITY OF BRITS WANT!

But in the end, "the majority of the people who voted" is equally as accurate as "a quarter of the population". So I'll use whatever terms I damn well please as long as it's not outright false. Can we get back to discussing something important?

 

[Hands]

I CONCEDED THIS POINT. I AGREE WITH YOU. I WAS WRONG - FOR THE THIRD TIME. LOOK! IT'S IN BIG RED BOLD LETTERS! CAN I MAKE THIS MORE CLEAR?

Do you really need to continue to 'protect our country's reputation' when I already conceded the point?


BIG AND RED AND BOLD! YOU'RE RIGHT! I WAS WRONG - IT'S NOT WHAT THE MAJORITY OF BRITS WANT!

But in the end, "the majority of the people who voted" is equally as accurate as "a quarter of the population". So I'll use whatever terms I damn well please as long as it's not outright false. Can we get back to discussing something important?

You make it sound like you're the only person pushing the narrative. The whole leave campaign has been falsehoods and propaganda, it must be challenged with the truth at every turn. We set our country back three decades in as many hours. It's the patriotic duty of the left to d what we can to limit the damage that Brexit will have both domestically and socially and that involves crushing the myths.

 

[Caaethil]

You make it sound like you're the only person pushing the narrative. The whole leave campaign has been falsehoods and propaganda, it must be challenged with the truth at every turn. We set our country back three decades in as many hours. It's the patriotic duty of the left to d what we can to limit the damage that Brexit will have both domestically and socially and that involves crushing the myths.

That's great, do it in your own time. I don't need to hear it repeatedly - it's not relevant to the discussion at hand, is it?

 

[Hands]

That's great, do it in your own time. I don't need to hear it repeatedly - it's not relevant to the discussion at hand, is it?

I don't know how anything could more constitute as my own time then time I spend after work on a forum.

Either way, I think we're done here. We both agree Brexit isn't the "will of the people" and we both agree that the referendum wasn't legally binding and I think we both agree that the court acted legally and correctly in line with British law and legal precedent.

 

[Caaethil]

I don't know how anything could more constitute as my own time then time I spend after work on a forum.

I mean, you're wasting my time responding to me with comments that apparently now aren't even aimed at me.

Either way, I think we're done here. We both agree Brexit isn't the "will of the people" and we both agree that the referendum wasn't legally binding and I think we both agree that the court acted legally and correctly in line with British law and legal precedent.

I don't think the fact that Brexit isn't technically "the will of the people" is an argument for choosing to remain after the fact. It's still the will of the majority of voters.

 

[Ivysaur]

Let's just say that under British law, Parliament is sovereign, not "the people". And that's not even the question here. The actual matter is whether the Government (and, technically, the Queen, since she is the one in whose name the Government operates) is allowed to activate Article 50, therefore de facto nullifying the European Communities Act (an act of Parliament) without the explicit consent of Parliament. The Court ruled against that- if the Government (and therefore the Queen) wants to invalidate rights granted by an act of Parliament, she has to go to Parliament first to get its approval.

It all may sound like legalistic mumbo-jumbo dipped on a ton of legal fiction (obviously the Queen has nothing to do with any of this), but that's essentially how the British political system has worked for centuries- and that's how the people managed to drive Kings into utter political powerlessness, something that actually does matter a lot, especially since, before that, they could essentially remake law on the spot at their will. The solicitors who took this matter to court argued that giving the Government (read: Queen) the power to undo this law without the consent of Parliament would mean "undoing the result of the English civil war" that established the order of Parliament > King/Government > "the people". The court agreed.

So, in the end, the people have advised the Government in a non-binding referendum, but to make anything out of it, the Government needs to get consent from Parliament. It's that simple. It's how Parliamentary democracy works.