It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
So the democratic will of the people of the UK as expressed in the 2016 referendum means nothing to you and so many others here? Why should the will of the people be overruled either by the ECJ or by the Westminster parliament in the undemocratic manner you suggest? This is an affront to participatory democracy in the UK; nothing less.
This should be a huge concern to anyone (remainers and leavers). Are we a democracy or not? What is the point of a referendum? Where does the power really lie? Why should people have any faith in the political process? What's the point in voting? These are actually bigger questions in the long term than whether we should stay or remain in the EU.
The UK is supposed to be a parliamentary democracy. It is (fortunately) not usually left to any random person on the street to make these monumental decisions. We elect representatives to make these decisions. Most MPs think Brexit is the worst mistake since Suez - and one with probably far bigger and far reaching consequences.
Cameron's decision to call a referendum went against the basic foundations of the British (unwritten) constitution. It would be appropriate for MPs to ignore what was after all a consultative and not binding referendum.
Add in all the lies and Russian interference on the Leave side and there's even more reason to overturn this mockery of democracy.
The ECJ doesn't overrule anything here. The only question to decide right now is IF the UK, by another majority decision, changed its mind about EU membership, could the other member states keep it out because the UK had once declared termination? Are you really holding the EU responsible for playing babysitter and insisting that the UK gets out of the Union forever, even if it changed its mind through yet another democratic process? Now that doesn't sound like the new level of sovereignty so much touted by the Leavers. More like kindergarten. If no one applies for staying in, no one will.
@Dragonpol
What have people voted for? Leave or remain, that was it.
- A binary choice in a matter much more complicated than that.
- Spurred on by cheap demagogy and appealing to people's cultural pride, wallets and fears.
- Without any insurance as to what was going to happen afterwards.
Were people fully aware of the consequences of either vote? Had the powers that were and would be already set out a detailed course in case one of the other vote won? Britons voted "leave" in principle, but many if not all without understanding the finer yet more important details of what was to come next. That, by the way, is not their fault.
Lastly, Ricky Gervais kinda hits the nail on the head from 2:22 and onwards in this video:
;-)
Attlee and Thatcher were entitled to their opinion but their comments dont cover overiding the result once the vote has happened.
There is nothing unconstitutional about the referendum. There is legal precedent. That claim is only coming from those who dont like the result. Was the Scottish Referendum unconstitutional? Nobody seems bothered as the result was what the establishment wanted. Was the original 1975 vote unconstitutional?
If they are unconstitutional, how come we have a law laying out how they are run? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_Parties,_Elections_and_Referendums_Act_2000
Non of these arguments would be seeing daylight if the result had gone the other way and none of these arguments were being made before the result. I would be very interested to see any links to anything before the vote claiming that the referendum was not constitutional.
The lies thing is a red herring. All politicians lie. No General Election result would have any legal gravity if we claimed that lies led the result to be unfounded.
"Were people fully aware of the consequences of either vote?"
If that is the benchmark for validating any public vote, then no vote would reach that level. How many voters in a general election are "fully aware of the consequences?"
Gervais is right, the average person is an idiot. But he fails to deal with the political ramifications of that re what we mean by democracy. Remainers are happy to slag off, insult and demean voters on this one occasion as it fits their wider agenda. If they had won by .3 of a percent, then everything would be fine. We are dealing with very fine margins here but responded to by wild statements.
Or we leave such big decisions to be made by our elected representives as Getafix says. But whats the point , if they are elected by idiots? It makes no sense to undermine the electorate re a referendum and then defer to our elected representatives when the representatives are elected by the same idiots.
"Justin Welby, the archbishop of Canterbury, was one of the early speakers. He called for national reconciliation, and said that a second referendum might be one way in which this could be achieved."
Adds to my point re the establishment wanting to override the original vote.
Oh look, it's The Last Leg.
It was a good show for the first 499 times of "if you voted Brexit, you are racist". But that 500th time, killed my interest in the show. And I thought Auntie was bad... well, there was that Jimmy Saville business, but I think that is best steered away from, until Auntie tries to claim the moral high ground on something.
All of the news readers are tories and don't even hide it. They constantly give May an easy time and regularly misrepresent or just outright lie about Corbyn.
I am very careful what I hear called news on their anymore they are clearly representing their paymasters and not delivering fair balanced news anymore.
Maybe not Fox News but after Brexit's had it's way with us and turned us into an insular little island, who knows what horrors await us.
Liberal Tory but Tory all the same.
I voted leave, but I do feel there should be another referendum, at the very least on May's awful agreement with the EU.
Leave: no deal.
Leave: PM's deal
Remain: Back to the previous status quo.
Remain: Push for reform in the EU.
These four still don't even really cover every aspect of it, but I am sure you all understand.
I completely agree with you. At least those four options force people to think a hell of a lot more than in any "either... or" scenario. Also, politicians would have a much tougher time selling their story to the voters, which is never a bad thing.
I believe there's a good chance most people would have voted for your fourth option.
30 % leave - May deal
30% leave - no deal
(so 60% want to leave in some form)
35 % Remain - status quo (they win?!)
Thats why these votes really have to be binary
You're right, 60%, a staggering majority in your example, would technically "lose". However, half of that majority disagrees with the other half about the conditions. A "no deal" voter might, if his camp doesn't win, prefer to leave things as they were or to reform the EU rather than accept May's deal, wouldn't you agree?
And yes, 35 % feels like a small number for a victory. I completely agree. Then again, a 48/52 result isn't a whole lot better. In either scenario, we can stick to the "the team with the most votes wins" principle, or we can complain that the numbers make us feel uncomfortable. Either way, it's a complicated mess. ;-)
Remain - status quo 30
Remain - push for change - 30
Leave - no deal 35 (winners)
Remainers would NOT be happy and demand a third vote, it works both ways.
A child can understand 48/52. A binary choice, by definition, will produce a clear winner.
Oh absolutely.
Look, just to be clear, I fully accept the result. (Not that I have an alternative anyway. ;-)) At the time of voting, the majority of the voters wanted to leave.
I simply hope that in ten years from now, we'll be able to say that Brexit was a good thing. The way I see it now, it's either not going to turn out a good thing, or there will hardly have been a Brexit at all...
A customs union that has started to interfere in every single political aspect of the member states?
Very true.
Frankly Brexit is a major distraction from the real issues the UK faces. Staying in was the sensible thing to do but now it looks like we are leaving and we can see what Brexit looks like it's just going to be similar to being in the EU but worse. The long term impact currently looks like it will be a hit to growth and prosperity but not an almighty crash. Brexit is basically a total waste of time but I think it's going to happen.
I don't know the big detail on why it threatens the peace, but assuming Northern Ireland/Republic of Ireland, the EU, and the the rest of the UK do not want a hard border and it's not allowed under the GFA then Brexit can never happen. The backstop will keep the UK under EU control for an indefinite period. Parliament was going to vote down May's deal and now she's put it on hold.
The only solution I can see is all the parties agreed to amend the Good Friday Agreement to allow a hard border but one that will guarantee all the existing keys element of the Agreement. I doubt the Northern Ireland Assembly and the government of Ireland will agree to amending the GFA.
Basically, David Cameron and everyone else involved in the Brexit referendum never told the public about the problem of Northern and Southern Ireland. I don't think there is a solution to Brexit. Brexit can't happen without a hard border and a hard border is not allowed under the terms of the Good Friday Agreement.
The whole thing appears to be a massive waste of time. We've all been led down the garden path and the path leads to nothing but a big hard wall. Time to forget Brexit? I think so.
Not true.
John Major and Tony Blair made a joint appearance during the referendum campaign to draw attention to the issue. Anyone paying the slightest attention should have been aware that Brexit would pose a significant risk to the GFA.
But most Brexiters don't care. In fact polls suggest many who voted Brexit in England would be happy for Northern Ireland to join the Republic and for Scotland to become independent.