Theresa May resigns

[dimreepr]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2019/may/24/theresa-may-resignation-uk-prime-minister-politics-brexit-live-news

Now we're in the shit...

Can anyone see a scenario that doesn't end, badly?

[iNow]

19 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Can anyone see a scenario that doesn't end, badly?

Vote again on whether or not Brexit is the best path forward or if, given all that’s been learned these last few years, it’s simply better to remain in the EU. 

Contrary to claims that allowing a 2nd vote would destroy the central tenets of democracy itself, it would actually reinforce them. 

“We decided, we tried, we failed. We tried again and failed again. Four times. We learned about the errors of our past decision and collectively decided to pursue a better path.”

Suggesting this is the opposite of democracy is silly. Vote again. Do what the people decide since the last decision couldn’t be realized. 

[dimreepr]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

Vote again on whether or not Brexit is the best path forward or if, given all that’s been learned these last few years, it’s simply better to remain in the EU. 

Contrary to claims that allowing a 2nd vote would destroy the central tenets of democracy itself, it would actually reinforce them. 

“We decided, we tried, we failed. We tried again and failed again. Four times. We learned about the errors of our past decision and collectively decided to pursue a better path.”

Suggesting this is the opposite of democracy is silly. Vote again. Do what the people decide since the last decision couldn’t be realized. 

I completely agree but we're much more likely to get a more right wing PM that thinks democracy = what I want; and if we don't get an election in the mean time, what I want is... the good old days... 

[StringJunky]

16 minutes ago, iNow said:

Vote again on whether or not Brexit is the best path forward or if, given all that’s been learned these last few years, it’s simply better to remain in the EU. 

Contrary to claims that allowing a 2nd vote would destroy the central tenets of democracy itself, it would actually reinforce them. 

“We decided, we tried, we failed. We tried again and failed again. Four times. We learned about the errors of our past decision and collectively decided to pursue a better path.”

Suggesting this is the opposite of democracy is silly. Vote again. Do what the people decide since the last decision couldn’t be realized. 

It's not the people that have fucked up, it's the politicians. They are incapable of carrying out the results of the poll. I like your flexible principles.

Edited May 24, 2019 by StringJunky

[dimreepr]

7 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

It's not the people that have fucked up, it's the politicians. They are incapable of carrying out the results of the poll.

Well that's true, but every 3/4/5 years we get to choose again.

Otherwise it's an amendment that can't be amended.

Edited May 24, 2019 by dimreepr

[iNow]

33 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I like your flexible principles

Will you please elaborate?

[dimreepr]

IMO the future involves a no-deal brexit which, as so often stated (by them), we will survive; I just wonder if we'll ever walk again... 

Every Empire in history is reduced to it's essence, given time.

[koti]

On 5/24/2019 at 4:47 PM, iNow said:

Will you please elaborate?

I think that Brexit is a bad idea but your above logic eludes me. Which vote is more valid than the other, the last one, why? Correct me if Im wrong but according to you, they could keep on voting forever without ever reaching an implementable result.

[dimreepr]

11 minutes ago, koti said:

I think that Brexit is a bad idea but your above logic eludes me. Which vote is more valid than the other, the last one, why? Correct me if Im wrong but according to you, they could keep on voting forever without ever reaching an implementable result.

That's democracy for you... 

[koti]

1 minute ago, dimreepr said:

That's democracy for you... 

No its not. Democracy is having a collective decision and sticking to it for an agreed and predetermined time frame. 

Edited May 26, 2019 by koti

[dimreepr]

Just now, koti said:

No its not. Democracy is having a collective decision and sticking to it for an agreed time frame. 

Until someone disagree's... Democracy evolves in its own time-frame...

[koti]

7 minutes ago, dimreepr said:

Until someone disagree's... Democracy evolves in its own time-frame...

I don’t think so, you can disagree all you want and the made decision should be held for an agreed and predetermined term. If you start changing that, thats when it starts to no longer be a democracy. Theres also another name for what Im saying - being responsible for your actions.

Edited May 26, 2019 by koti

[dimreepr]

Just now, koti said:

I don’t think so, you can disagree all you want and the made decision should be held for an agreed and predetermined term. If you start changing that, thats when it starts to no longer be a democracy .

You do know, the incumbent government gets to choose here, right? 

 

[iNow]

32 minutes ago, koti said:

I think that Brexit is a bad idea but your above logic eludes me. Which vote is more valid than the other, the last one, why? Correct me if Im wrong but according to you, they could keep on voting forever without ever reaching an implementable result.

We previously voted in favor of slavery. We then later changed our mind, voted again, and decided against it. 

We previously voted that women aren’t allowed to vote. We then later changed our mind, voted again, and decided against it. 

We previously voted that children could work, that segregation was okay, that industries could pollute, that some nations were enemies, that other nations were allies... We then later changed our mind, voted again, and adjusted with the times as new information became available. 

Its not logic I’m using in support of my position, it’s history itself. This is exactly how democracy operates. 

[koti]

19 minutes ago, iNow said:

We previously voted in favor of slavery. We then later changed our mind, voted again, and decided against it. 

We previously voted that women aren’t allowed to vote. We then later changed our mind, voted again, and decided against it. 

We previously voted that children could work, that segregation was okay, that industries could pollute, that some nations were enemies, that other nations were allies... We then later changed our mind, voted again, and adjusted with the times as new information became available. 

Its not logic I’m using in support of my position, it’s history itself. This is exactly how democracy operates. 

I disagree. Your mentioned examples are all regulated by modern laws, certainly by British law. This was not the case when slavery or voting for women were at the table in the US.

[iNow]

Ok. Still, my core point remains valid. We vote in favor of things then later vote again on those same things and reverse our previous position all of the time. 

[dimreepr]

2 minutes ago, koti said:

I disagree. Your mentioned examples are all regulated by modern laws, certainly by British law. This was not the case when slavery or voting for women were at the table in the US.

Guns... 

[zapatos]

5 minutes ago, koti said:

I disagree. Your mentioned examples are all regulated by modern laws, certainly by British law. This was not the case when slavery or voting for women were at the table in the US.

What exactly is a "modern" law? The most recent one?

[koti]

29 minutes ago, zapatos said:

What exactly is a "modern" law? The most recent one?

Im sure the British constitution bans slavery and enables women to vote, thats what I mean. 

[zapatos]

3 minutes ago, koti said:

Im sure the British constitution bans slavery and enables women to vote, thats what I mean. 

But it didn't used to. So which vote is final?

Wasn't there a vote to join the EU? If no "do overs" should be allowed, then why did they get to vote to leave?

[koti]

15 minutes ago, zapatos said:

But it didn't used to. So which vote is final?

Wasn't there a vote to join the EU? If no "do overs" should be allowed, then why did they get to vote to leave?

They got to vote to join, they joined.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, koti said:

No its not. Democracy is having a collective decision and sticking to it for an agreed and predetermined time frame. 

I don't know where the "predetermined time frame" comes from. The UK used to have a system when a government could call a general election whenever they wanted. That has changed with the Fixed Term Parliament Act, but the time between elections is still very variable. Theresa May called one 2 years after the previous one. 

1 hour ago, koti said:

I think that Brexit is a bad idea but your above logic eludes me. Which vote is more valid than the other, the last one, why? Correct me if Im wrong but according to you, they could keep on voting forever without ever reaching an implementable result.

In general, the most recent vote is more valid than earlier ones. 

In the case of Brexit, a second vote would not be on the same thing as the first one, so the issue of "more valid" (nor "keep voting forever") just doesn't arise. It is just a silly strawman put about by Leave campaigners (presumably because they are scared that any second vote would not go the way they want - hence the claim it is "not democratic").

 

[John Cuthber]

Democracy may be many things, but brexit is the result of lying and cheating.

Lying was writing on the side of a bus that we would  gain £350 million a week to spend on the NHS.

Cheating was not admitting that the bus cost money and should be included in the election budget.

 

If this had been a football match and someone had cheated, we would be demanding a rematch.

Shouldn't we hold politics to the same standards?

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, koti said:

They got to vote to join, they joined.

You are dancing around the point I am making.

[studiot]

1 hour ago, zapatos said:

But it didn't used to. So which vote is final?

Wasn't there a vote to join the EU? If no "do overs" should be allowed, then why did they get to vote to leave? 

 

1 hour ago, koti said:

They got to vote to join, they joined.

 

No there was never a public vote to join.

The government of the day under Edward Heath decided to join and took us in.

There was a later referendum, heavily biased in its wording about remaining in. (1975)

The 2016 referendum was the first plain and simple in or out question and Cameron deserves credit for that simplicity.

Both official sides of that debate ran totally incompetent campaigns and many half truths, statemetns of wishful thinking or ignorance and outright lies were made.

This have never been unusual in British politics.

One such untruth was the statement

"The UK would be the first country to leave."

This is just not so., although I believed it until I found out that in fact Iceland had left many years earlier.

Another half truth was the idea that the European Union of 2016 was the same as the European Economic Community the UK joined in 1973.

It is nothing like.

The EU is an entirely different, non democratic political organisation. I have never been allowed to vote for its 'president' - unlike the USA.
It was created without democratic reference to its people during the time of Major.

As an oldster I can remember the days before the UK became a member of the EU.

Personally I cannot point to many benefits I have seen. Things were definitely better in 1965 than in 1975 or 1985 and I do not think they have improved since.

In particular I was promised the right to freely (ie without let or hindrance or question)  travel to other parts of the EEC/EU as though it were all one big country.
This has certainly never happened.

I still cannot 'pop over' to visit relatives in Rotterdam as easily as I can those in Rochester,
Without men with tommy guns demanding my papers and reason for visit and so on and so forth.
Of course the same applies when I come home.