EU membership referendum debate thread

[johnhemming2]

You were criticising parliament having a debate.

What is wrong with parliament having a debate on a petition that has 4M signatures.

[woodburner]

Because the decision was made by the referendum.

I am not going on bashing my head against this wall, and will not respond to further comments. I have made my position clear enough.

[Little John]

You were criticising parliament having a debate.

What is wrong with parliament having a debate on a petition that has 4M signatures.

A democratic result in favour of Brexit.

So, do I take it you would be content, following any general election, for Parliament to debate whether to immediately re-run that election if 4 million of the losing side signed a petition? And, if the debate went the way of running it again, that would be quite okay would it? In which case what would be the point of general elections?

The point of such petitions is to fill in the gaps left behind by a democratic deficit. There is no democratic deficit here. The leave side of that referendum won.

[johnhemming2]

However, that argument could be used for the referendum in the 1970s. People have to be allowed to argue that a referendum has taken the wrong decision.

The rule in parliament is that there has to be a debate (not a decision) if people ask for one.

Clearly you don't understand the idea that people are allowed to dissent in public. Freedom of speech only really matters when people disagree.

[johnhemming2]

The point of such petitions is to fill in the gaps left behind by a democratic deficit. There is no democratic deficit here. The leave side of that referendum won.

The point of petitions is to allow citizens to define at least in part and only in Westminster Hall what is debated by parliament even if the citizens are in a minority.

Your view which is that only people who agree with you are allowed to talk or campaign is something I find completely unacceptable.

[Little John]

However, that argument could be used for the referendum in the 1970s. People have to be allowed to argue that a referendum has taken the wrong decision.

The rule in parliament is that there has to be a debate (not a decision) if people ask for one.

Clearly you don't understand the idea that people are allowed to dissent in public. Freedom of speech only really matters when people disagree.

No, that argument could not be used for the 1970 referendum for two reasons. Firstly, it is undeniable that what people voted for or against in 1970 bears no resemblance whatsoever to what the EU has become. Secondly, general elections are held every five years in order to allow people to reconsider their positions. 40 years is quite long enough to have to wait for another vote on the EU. Particularly so given, as I have said, its utter transformation from what it started out as. By extension, a few short months is several years, if not several decades, too soon for the results of that referendum to be challenged with another vote.

[Little John]

The point of such petitions is to fill in the gaps left behind by a democratic deficit. There is no democratic deficit here. The leave side of that referendum won.

The point of petitions is to allow citizens to define at least in part and only in Westminster Hall what is debated by parliament even if the citizens are in a minority.

Your view which is that only people who agree with you are allowed to talk or campaign is something I find completely unacceptable.

That really is the most pathetic bullshit, even by your standards John Hemming. You are making yourself look like even more of a joke than you already do.

[johnhemming2]

The point of such petitions is to fill in the gaps left behind by a democratic deficit. There is no democratic deficit here. The leave side of that referendum won.

The point of petitions is to allow citizens to define at least in part and only in Westminster Hall what is debated by parliament even if the citizens are in a minority.

Your view which is that only people who agree with you are allowed to talk or campaign is something I find completely unacceptable.

That really is the most pathetic bullshit, even by your standards John Hemming. You are making yourself look like even more of a joke than you already do.

People should be allowed to argue a point that you disagree with without being subjected to abuse. That includes me.

[bigjim]

A democratic result in favour of Brexit.

So, do I take it you would be content, following any general election, for Parliament to debate whether to immediately re-run that election if 4 million of the losing side signed a petition? And, if the debate went the way of running it again, that would be quite okay would it? In which case what would be the point of general elections?

The point of such petitions is to fill in the gaps left behind by a democratic deficit. There is no democratic deficit here. The leave side of that referendum won.

I thought democracies also allowed one to question the direction that their country is going if they didn't like it. Remain may have lost but the number of voters was not insignificant. Surely that is also a mandate for a Brexit lite position?

'Oh but we won get over it yadda yadda yadda'. No.

[Potemkin Villager]

I think there is an important issue here and it is that folk voting to leave did not really know what they were voting for and even at this stage tptb still don't seem to know either!

I was struck by the extraordinarily vacant and clueless looks on the faces at the Chequers board meeting of May & Co after they all had been thinking jolly hard about Brexit over the summer hols. The endless meaningless waffling and vapourising of the supreme great leader herself is just so excruciatingly embarrassing. It all must be giving the leaders of other European countries a good larf.

I am sure there is a philosophical word to describe less than zero information statements such as "Brexit means Brexit".

Once again I am forced to conclude that you really, really, really just can't make this stuff up.

[Little John]

A democratic result in favour of Brexit.

So, do I take it you would be content, following any general election, for Parliament to debate whether to immediately re-run that election if 4 million of the losing side signed a petition? And, if the debate went the way of running it again, that would be quite okay would it? In which case what would be the point of general elections?

The point of such petitions is to fill in the gaps left behind by a democratic deficit. There is no democratic deficit here. The leave side of that referendum won.

I thought democracies also allowed one to question the direction that their country is going if they didn't like it. Remain may have lost but the number of voters was not insignificant. Surely that is also a mandate for a Brexit lite position?

'Oh but we won get over it yadda yadda yadda'. No.

If People like you keep this shit up, being the useful idiots for a certain section of the establishment that you are, then expect bloodshed on our streets in the not too distant future.

[johnhemming2]

A democratic result in favour of Brexit.

So, do I take it you would be content, following any general election, for Parliament to debate whether to immediately re-run that election if 4 million of the losing side signed a petition? And, if the debate went the way of running it again, that would be quite okay would it? In which case what would be the point of general elections?

The point of such petitions is to fill in the gaps left behind by a democratic deficit. There is no democratic deficit here. The leave side of that referendum won.

I thought democracies also allowed one to question the direction that their country is going if they didn't like it. Remain may have lost but the number
of voters was not insignificant. Surely that is also a mandate for a Brexit lite position?

'Oh but we won get over it yadda yadda yadda'. No.

If People like you keep this shit up, being the useful idiots for a certain section of the establishment that you are, then expect bloodshed on our streets in the not too distant future.

So now you are saying there will be blood on the streets merely because people are arguing a contrary position to yours.

[kenneal - lagger]

.... Firstly, it is undeniable that what people voted for or against in 1970 bears no resemblance whatsoever to what the EU has become. ........ Particularly so given, as I have said, its utter transformation from what it started out as........

The point about the first referendum was that we were lied to about what we were joining. The EU was conceived from the start to be a full union but knowing that the people of Europe, just having fought a war to retain their nationalities, would never vote for a full political union the politicians of the time deceived the people into thinking that it was only a trade association.

They have since lied to us on an ongoing basis to get us to the situation we have today where the EU and the Euro can only continue to work if there is full political union, and very quickly indeed! If that doesn't come about soon the euro will fail and the whole caboodle will come crashing down. They will probably blame that on Brexit as well.

[woodburner]

I thought democracies also allowed one to question the direction that their country is going if they didn't like it. Remain may have lost but the number
of voters was not insignificant. Surely that is also a mandate for a Brexit lite position?

'Oh but we won get over it yadda yadda yadda'. No.

If People like you keep this shit up, being the useful idiots for a certain section of the establishment that you are, then expect bloodshed on our streets in the not too distant future.

So now you are saying there will be blood on the streets merely because people are arguing a contrary position to yours.

There already is blood on the streets. Polish guy killed in Harlow recently, plenty of abuse suffered by eastern Europeans from the moronic-tendency we have in the UK (and whom we could well do without).

[johnhemming2]

There already is blood on the streets. Polish guy killed in Harlow recently, plenty of abuse suffered by eastern Europeans from the moronic-tendency we have in the UK (and whom we could well do without).

And how is that linked to some people arguing we should remain in the EU?

There is such a thing as causality.