UK Parliament to Vote on Brexit

[Aliencommander1245]

I'm not sure why you're trying to talk about the lies of leave if you have done no research into remain.

Because I have, just not specificially into the BBC enough to pretend I know what I'm talking about. I know as a whole the Leave campaign was heavily, heavily influenced by things blatantly untrue or impossible promises dumped the moment a leave result came through

It doesn't matter because the people chose to leave. I don't think most people expected any direct economic benefits from leaving. They expected freedom from what they perceived to be a bureaucratic system that didn't represent them.

There was very much a big economic thing touted, "we'll get a better deal for Britain" was a big selling point of leave as much as "we don't even make our own laws!!!!!" (which was funnily enough another thing that was untrue)

But it DOES matter, because even if the people didn't vote on the basis of "if we leave it'll ruin our economy and leave us worse off" doesn't that make it significantly more of an issue? That people were uninformed of the negative side of what they were voting for?

I like how you take such an important and nuanced debate and make it so black and white. You've just dismissed over half of the UK's opinion as unequivocally wrong.

From the perspective of "is this going to be good for the country economically and, uh, most faucets of trade and money that come from that", it is definitely the worse decision/wrong decision.

And yet they never once covered any of the bad things Clinton had done, to the point of lying about them.

They did, though, constantly and perpetually to the point that Trump's gaff of the day and constant awful rhetoric was displayed as "equal" to the email scandals that plagued her campaign. That's bias towards Trump, even, simply by virtue of equating situations that aren't equitable in the slightest

More than anything else, this is a blatant disrespect for any contrasting opinion.

Only if the contrasting opinion is patently and blatantly wrong

I don't care if the government can or can't get a good deal out of it, I want it to respect the verdict of the people.

Well, too bad? They're probably still going to anyway, but you live in a represnational democracy. You elect the people to make the decisions for you based on their merits and on how much you think they reflect your own views and values.

If the government goes "this would be bad for the country" they have not only every right, but i'd even say an obligation to not do what the public requested.

This is why no one has a True Democracy, because asking the opinion of the people to determine everything and anything leans too much into fickle popular-ism over level headed decision making considering pros and cons

On both sides, by the way.

I'm aware there was some misinformation on the remain side, but none as egregious and outright intentional lies as the things farage and johnson spouted out. Both sides didn't win by a margin of less than 2%, though

The remain camp made all of these horrible terrible things very clear when we were voting. We still voted leave. It's not going to change by repeating it and making us vote again. It reeks of them telling us we chose the wrong answer.

They didn't do it very well, though, and were poorly organised and poorly planned. The failure to actually put across the information they needed to sits solely on the leave campaign.

BUT. Saying "it won't change by repeating it" is pretty uh... optimistic? The margain was so tiny, and now that the lies have fallen apart and the awful consequences for the country are coming to the front, do you not think that tiny margain may have been swain?

To claim it "reeks of telling you that you chose wrong" is strange, do you do the same when you get an "Are you sure? This cannot be changed" popup in a game or website or something? Do you think they're telling you you're wrong, rather than making sure you want to go ahead now you know all the consequences?

Isn't it MORE democratic to ask again once all the information is out rather than locking people into a single vote even if public support for said thing might've declined? Is the will of the people before they were informed or aware of the consequences supposed to be stronger/better/more democratic than the will of the people once they're fully informed and aware of what they're voting on?

They're well within their rights, yes. That doesn't mean I should like it. Anyone who tries to overrule the will of the people isn't getting my vote, it's that simple.

I mean, that's the basic tenants of a representational democracy. You vote in someone who you think represents you best, and if they don't then you vote for someone else next time. That's the will of the people at work, not an opinion poll to advise the people on how to do the job they're there to do

Yes, because that's how the system was designed. Don't blame the player, blame the game.

Aren't you doing that exact thing about the brexit vote, though? You can't have it both ways

And to be clear, we don't know for sure how the popular vote would have gone had the electoral college not been in place. So many people during this election, dissatisfied with both candidates, chose to vote third party instead of for the lesser of two evils because they live in deeply red/blue states anyway. Had the college not existed, they'd have probably chosen one of the two main candidates instead.

Probably, but considering the big lead over Trump hillary has in the electoral college and the other two candidates being "moderate" I'd say Hillary still would've won. The campaigns would've been different to start with anyway though, so who knows for sure

I'm rather surprised you endorse that, actually.

Endorse is a stronger word than it should be, support in theory works better. In a true & fair representational democracy there'd be rules around lying and promising impossible things to start with to prevent that situation from ever occuring, but i do think the public has the right to re-vote on something should it come to light they've been swindled and lied to though. I'm surprised you don't endorse that kind of thing :p

It's a suggestion by definition, doesn't mean we should be okay with parliament not taking it.

I didn't say you don't have a right to be mad, just that the Parliament has the right not to do it if you've given them a decision they deem bad

 

[Caaethil]

Because I have, just not specificially into the BBC enough to pretend I know what I'm talking about. I know as a whole the Leave campaign was heavily, heavily influenced by things blatantly untrue or impossible promises dumped the moment a leave result came through

I don't think most who voted leave based it on the hot air Farage and co spouted.

There was very much a big economic thing touted, "we'll get a better deal for Britain" was a big selling point of leave as much as "we don't even make our own laws!!!!!" (which was funnily enough another thing that was untrue)

I mean, we don't make all of our own laws. I don't think anyone said we make none of our laws- I'd like to see a source on that.

I don't think we've had long enough to see the actual economic implications of Brexit in the long term.

But it DOES matter,

Because you don't agree, right? You don't agree with the public's choice, therefore it needs to change. Right?

because even if the people didn't vote on the basis of "if we leave it'll ruin our economy and leave us worse off" doesn't that make it significantly more of an issue? That people were uninformed of the negative side of what they were voting for?

Maybe remain should have better informed everyone instead of providing hyperbolic fear-mongering that we couldn't take seriously.

From the perspective of "is this going to be good for the country economically and, uh, most faucets of trade and money that come from that", it is definitely the worse decision/wrong decision.

Shouldn't have given us the option then. But they did. And we won and you lost. That should be the end of it.

They did, though, constantly and perpetually to the point that Trump's gaff of the day and constant awful rhetoric was displayed as "equal" to the email scandals that plagued her campaign. That's bias towards Trump, even, simply by virtue of equating situations that aren't equitable in the slightest

You have a striking habit of calling anything you disagree with unfair, incorrect, biased or otherwise deplorable, don't you?

Only if the contrasting opinion is patently and blatantly wrong

According to over 50% of the population it's not. So I guess it's not that blatant.

Look man, if you're going to give me this crap about how "it's just obvious" I'm not even going to talk to you. You've got to at least have an actual, reasonable conversation.

Well, too bad? They're probably still going to anyway, but you live in a represnational democracy. You elect the people to make the decisions for you based on their merits and on how much you think they reflect your own views and values.

The government is not obligated to do everything we want. That doesn't mean we shouldn't expect it to when it gives us a vote.

If the government goes "this would be bad for the country" they have not only every right, but i'd even say an obligation to not do what the public requested.

They are not obligated to do what you specifically think is best for the country. If you can show me how there is demonstrably zero gain from Brexit, I'll take you seriously.

This is why no one has a True Democracy, because asking the opinion of the people to determine everything and anything leans too much into fickle popular-ism over level headed decision making considering pros and cons

I like how you just roll off so easily these comments on how leave voters didn't consider the pros and cons. I'm genuinely impressed.

I'm aware there was some misinformation on the remain side, but none as egregious and outright intentional lies as the things farage and johnson spouted out. Both sides didn't win by a margin of less than 2%, though

Not sure why the percentage is relevant.

They didn't do it very well, though, and were poorly organised and poorly planned. The failure to actually put across the information they needed to sits solely on the leave campaign.

Frankly, if the remain camp did a crappy job of making their argument, too bad for them.

BUT. Saying "it won't change by repeating it" is pretty uh... optimistic? The margin was so tiny, and now that the lies have fallen apart and the awful consequences for the country are coming to the front, do you not think that tiny margin may have been swain?

I don't know, do you want to use you all-seeing eye to show me?

To claim it "reeks of telling you that you chose wrong" is strange, do you do the same when you get an "Are you sure? This cannot be changed" popup in a game or website or something? Do you think they're telling you you're wrong, rather than making sure you want to go ahead now you know all the consequences?

No, because in a game your choice isn't submitted until you say "Yes, I'm sure". We've already done the bloody vote, this was a hot topic for literally months.

Isn't it MORE democratic to ask again once all the information is out rather than locking people into a single vote even if public support for said thing might've declined? Is the will of the people before they were informed or aware of the consequences supposed to be stronger/better/more democratic than the will of the people once they're fully informed and aware of what they're voting on?

I don't know, should they have a third vote if we remain and something bad happens?

Where does it end?

I mean, that's the basic tenants of a representational democracy. You vote in someone who you think represents you best, and if they don't then you vote for someone else next time. That's the will of the people at work, not an opinion poll to advise the people on how to do the job they're there to do

A country-wide poll is an excellent measure of the will of the people, what on Earth are you talking about?

Aren't you doing that exact thing about the brexit vote, though? You can't have it both ways

Nobody is forcing either of us to like the system or be happy when it does stupid things. I don't know if you noticed, but I'm not revolting against the government. I'm not rioting.

Hillary supporters? Yeeeeeeaaaah, about that.

Probably, but considering the big lead over Trump hillary has in the electoral college and the other two candidates being "moderate" I'd say Hillary still would've won. The campaigns would've been different to start with anyway though, so who knows for sure

Nobody, and that's the entire point, isn't it now?

Endorse is a stronger word than it should be, support in theory works better. In a true & fair representational democracy there'd be rules around lying and promising impossible things to start with to prevent that situation from ever occuring, but i do think the public has the right to re-vote on something should it come to light they've been swindled and lied to though. I'm surprised you don't endorse that kind of thing :p

I mean, who's to say the public wants to revote? Obviously the remain camp do because they only like democracy when it gets them what they want, but other than that I don't see who we're talking about here when we say 'the public'.

Your entire argument seems to be built on the fundamental assumption that every leave voter made the wrong choice based on being uninformed.

I didn't say you don't have a right to be mad, just that the Parliament has the right not to do it if you've given them a decision they deem bad

I fully understand that they have the right.

You've established I have a right to be mad. I'm mad. That's literally my entire argument. I'm not happy that they're doing this. Where's the disconnect? Where are you missing what I'm getting at? Where in the pipeline is "I don't like this" turning into "They have no right!"?

 

[Hands]

According to over 50% of the population it's not. So I guess it's not that blatant.

There are 64 million people in Britain, 17.5 million voted leave. That isn't even 30%, never mind the 50% you claim. More people didn't vote at all than voted to Leave. 16 million people voted to remain. This notion that it's the will of the people is very, very false. It is the will of less than half the eligible voters in the United Kingdom, and less than a third of the population.

What you have is a group of people outraged that an advisory referendum result that was built on lies that less than a third of our population believe in is in fact been held to British legal standard. I thought you wanted more power to British courts? Or is that only when they do what you want?

 

[Caaethil]

There are 64 million people in Britain, 17.5 million voted leave. That isn't even 30%, never mind the 50% you claim. More people didn't vote at all than voted to Leave. 16 million people voted to remain. This notion that it's the will of the people is very, very false. It is the will of less than half the eligible voters in the United Kingdom, and less than a third of the population.

I misspoke, you got me. Can't help but feel you're nitpicking a bit though. Less people still voted remain.

What you have is a group of people outraged that an advisory referendum result that was built on lies

It wasn't built on lies. It was in all likelihood supplemented by lies, but it wasn't built on lies. You cannot possibly be suggested that everyone who voted leave, or even the majority of them, did so on the basis of Farage's propaganda.

that less than a third of our population believe in

More than the number that believes in remain.

is in fact been held to British legal standard.

They gave us a referendum and it is entirely reasonable to expect them to follow through whether it was technically legally binding or not.

I thought you wanted more power to British courts? Or is that only when they do what you want?

Quote me saying this, please.

 

[Hands]

I misspoke, you got me. Can't help but feel you're nitpicking a bit though. Less people still voted remain.


It wasn't built on lies. It was in all likelihood supplemented by lies, but it wasn't built on lies. You cannot possibly be suggested that everyone who voted leave, or even the majority of them, did so on the basis of Farage's propaganda.


More than the number that believes in remain.


They gave us a referendum and it is entirely reasonable to expect them to follow through whether it was technically legally binding or not.


Quote me saying this, please.

So you don't want more power for British courts over Britain?

 

[Caaethil]

So you don't want more power for British courts over Britain?

Loaded questions, stop wasting my time.

 

[Hands]

Loaded questions, stop wasting my time.

It's not a loaded question, either you wanted more power to British courts or you didn't.

 

[Caaethil]

It's not a loaded question, either you wanted more power to British courts or you didn't.

I don't know what that has to do with this discussion so I don't feel especially compelled to discuss the matter. I can only discern that you're trying to bait some kind of a yes/no response with which I probably lose either way. So unless you can explain why this question is relevant to the discussion, can we go back to Brexit? Thanks.

 

[Hands]

I don't know what that has to do with this discussion so I don't feel especially compelled to discuss the matter. I can only discern that you're trying to bait some kind of a yes/no response with which I probably lose either way. So unless you can explain why this question is relevant to the discussion, can we go back to Brexit? Thanks.

Well from where I'm sitting, the complaint here is the high court ruling is against the views of under a third of the country despite the court ruling being enshrined in British law and decided by the British legal system, which is something the leave campaign heavily pushed for. I'm not sure how you are failing to see the relevance of me asking you if you wanted more British rule of law in a thread started directly in response to the British high court over Brexit.

 

[Caaethil]

Well from where I'm sitting, the complaint here is the high court ruling is against the views of under a third of the country despite the court ruling being enshrined in British law and decided by the British legal system, which is something the leave campaign heavily pushed for. I'm not sure how you are failing to see the relevance of me asking you if you wanted more British rule of law in a thread started directly in response to the British high court over Brexit.

Okay, let me explain then. The people's vote > the high court > the EU. Simple enough?

 

[Hands]

Okay, let me explain then. The people's vote > the high court > the EU. Simple enough?

Please stop dodging the question. Are you for or against more legal autonomy for British courts?

 

[Caaethil]

Please stop dodging the question. Are you for or against more legal autonomy for British courts?

Please stop asking irrelevant questions. I've made my stance very clear. I want British courts to take precedence over the EU, but not over the people when said people are given a vote. Stop trying to create hypocrisy where there is none.

 

[Hands]

Please stop asking irrelevant questions. I've made my stance very clear. I want British courts to take precedence over the EU, but not over the people when said people are given a vote. Stop trying to create hypocrisy where there is none.

There's cognitive dissonance for sure. You think that 26% of the UK outweighs the rule of law yet when it comes to America, where more people voted for Hillary than Trump (around the same margin as voted to leave the EU here actually) you come out with "dont h8 the playa h8 the game doge". You keep suggesting the protesters need to accept the result and move on. So either you are against Trump being president since it is "against the will of the people" in the same way you are against the British legal system, or you are a raging hypocrite. I think we both know which one it is.

 

[Caaethil]

There's cognitive dissonance for sure. You think that 26% of the UK outweighs the rule of law yet when it comes to America, where more people voted for Hillary than Trump (around the same margin as voted to leave the EU here actually) you come out with "dont h8 the playa h8 the game doge". You keep suggesting the protesters need to accept the result and move on. So either you are against Trump being president since it is "against the will of the people" in the same way you are against the British legal system, or you are a raging hypocrite. I think we both know which one it is.

Can you please cool down a little before you next post?

Anyways, no, it's not hypocrisy. The Brexit vote was a majority wins case. The majority of voters picked Brexit, and that's that. The American election is different. The system is not designed such that the majority wins (as much as I agree that would be the best way to go about it). The British democratic system chose Brexit. The American democratic system chose Trump. As I've explained before, it's impossible to know that Clinton is the 'will of the people' anyway. In a system without an electoral college, the votes would have come out quite differently. We don't know how it would have gone so your point is null.

In conclusion, yes. Don't h8 the playa h8 the game. That applies to Brexit and Trump. I have conceded consistently in this thread that parliament absolutely has the right to vote on this - I'm just not happy about it, just like you're not happy about the electoral college. I'm not h8ing the playa in this case, I'm h8ing the game, therefore no hypocrisy.

 

[Hands]

Can you please cool down a little before you next post?

Anyways, no, it's not hypocrisy. The Brexit vote was a majority wins case. The majority of voters picked Brexit, and that's that. The American election is different. The system is not designed such that the majority wins (as much as I agree that would be the best way to go about it). The British democratic system chose Brexit. The American democratic system chose Trump. As I've explained before, it's impossible to know that Clinton is the 'will of the people' anyway. In a system without an electoral college, the votes would have come out quite differently. We don't know how it would have gone so your point is null.

In conclusion, yes. Don't h8 the playa h8 the game. That applies to Brexit and Trump. I have conceded consistently in this thread that parliament absolutely has the right to vote on this - I'm just not happy about it, just like you're not happy about the electoral college. I'm not h8ing the playa in this case, I'm h8ing the game, therefore no hypocrisy.

You misunderstand, I do not disagree with the electoral college. Nor have I complained about it.

Parliament has more than the right to vote, they can outright say no. Referendums are only advisory and are not legally binding in the UK. Really you should feel lucky that the will of less than a third of the people living in the UK is being viewed so seriously. If we had the vote again tomorrow, with people now seeing that Leave was full of cowpat, we would see a very different outcome.

I'll change my tone if you want, but this is me pretty much in neutral. If the way I type is genuinely bothering you I'll make every effort to curb my mannerisms when talking with you in the future.

 

[Caaethil]

Parliament has more than the right to vote, they can outright say no. Referendums are only advisory and are not legally binding in the UK. Really you should feel lucky that the will of less than a third of the people living in the UK is being viewed so seriously. If we had the vote again tomorrow, with people now seeing that Leave was full of cowpat, we would see a very different outcome.

You keep saying less than a third. I'm not sure that's as great a statistic as you think it is. It's still more than half of those who voted.

You still cannot be so sure that the vote would go so differently now. The numbers show that not an awful lot of people on either side regret their vote. Because, as I've been saying - few based their votes on the nonsense of Farage and company. In fact, I think people are rather surprised that the world hasn't ended yet. Hell, I'm Googling it now and I see examples of people saying they regret voting remain, for a variety of reasons.

 

[Hands]

You keep saying less than a third. I'm not sure that's as great a statistic as you think it is. It's still more than half of those who voted.

You still cannot be so sure that the vote would go so differently now. The numbers show that not an awful lot of people on either side regret their vote. Because, as I've been saying - few based their votes on the nonsense of Farage and company. In fact, I think people are rather surprised that the world hasn't ended yet. Hell, I'm Googling it now and I see examples of people saying they regret voting remain, for a variety of reasons.

I'd be heavily interested in seeing those statements, feel free to inbox them to me,

And the reason I keep bringing up how few people actually voted is because its paramount that outside observers realise how factually incorrect this "will of the people" rhetoric is.

 

[Star-Lord]

There absolutely is a cognitive dissonance - You've quite frankly been complaining and acting like a petulant child over the fact the brexit vote will go through parliamentary procedure, acting out in the way that the British ruling system is set up, citing that "The will of the people aka the majority" is more important. Yet you're saying people can't be upset about Hillary getting the popular vote yet cannot lead because Trump won via the electoral college.

Both of these are going through proper procedure yet you defend one and not the other? Hm.

So, in regards to Brexit, "Don't hate the player(s), hate the game".

 

[Caaethil]

And the reason I keep bringing up how few people actually voted is because its paramount that outside observers realise how factually incorrect this "will of the people" rhetoric is.

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.

 

[Caaethil]

There absolutely is a cognitive dissonance - You've quite frankly been complaining and acting like a petulant child over the fact the brexit vote will go through parliamentary procedure, acting out in the way that the British ruling system is set up, citing that "The will of the people aka the majority" is more important. Yet you're saying people can't be upset about Hillary getting the popular vote yet cannot lead because Trump won via the electoral college.

Both of these are going through proper procedure yet you defend one and not the other? Hm.

So, in regards to Brexit, "Don't hate the player(s), hate the game".

Aren't you listening? People can be upset about how the electoral college screwed the democrats over, but it's incredibly silly to demand that Hillary be made president.

Similarly, I'm a little miffed that parliament seems to want to stop Brexit at all costs, but accept that that's how it is. Never once did I say we should demand this be stopped.

No hypocrisy, as I explained before.