It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Liberal Democrats Want To Stop Brexit. Can Someone Help Me With This.

page: 12
23
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 3 2019 @ 01:18 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot
American here, this is how we would do it..

The vote was to leave, so you leave. This was a decision for a generation. Just because some poll say three years later the majority wants to stay doesn't mean there should be another vote. The only poll that matters is the vote. Period. Thus far your government has not respected the vote of it's subjects.

If you believed in real democracy then you would have new leadership by now. In America not honoring a referrendum sounds impossible, and is honestly the scariest thing I could imagine.




posted on May, 3 2019 @ 02:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: SouthernForkway26
a reply to: ScepticScot
American here, this is how we would do it..

The vote was to leave, so you leave. This was a decision for a generation. Just because some poll say three years later the majority wants to stay doesn't mean there should be another vote. The only poll that matters is the vote. Period. Thus far your government has not respected the vote of it's subjects.

If you believed in real democracy then you would have new leadership by now. In America not honoring a referrendum sounds impossible, and is honestly the scariest thing I could imagine.



As we are reminded often on this site the US constitution was written at least in part to avoid direct democracy. I don't believe there has ever been a national referendum in the US.

Leaving the EU is the biggest constitutional change in the UK for decades and fundamental alters the rights of UK citizens. Would you be ok with the US constitution being altered by a simple majority vote?

While brexit supporters and media have successfully framed this as being about democracy the idea doesn't stand up to unbiased scrutiny. This isn't a game where the rules are more important than the principle. If you believe that the referendum is more important than the intent it was to measure, do people want to leave the EU, then you are not supporting democracy.

Oh and we are citizens not subjects.


edit on 3-5-2019 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 02:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: ScepticScot

Out of interest what if Anthony Blair had been born Anthony Windsor, first son of Liz & Phil?



Well he would never have made PM



So some good would have came from it...

The point being of course we shouldn't have a hereditary head of state based on who we wouldn't want to be king/queen as we have no choice over it.

Also makes no sense to support the system because you think the Queen does a good job or oppose it because Charles talks to plants.


edit on 3-5-2019 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 08:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: uncommitted

A referendum isn't legally binding, never has been, never would be. I'm not suggesting anything other than exactly that - Parliament is sovereign and is not obligated to act on the result of a referendum. That's not an opinion, it's what it is.



And isnt that why politicians are held in such low esteem?

Why offer anything they are not prepared to carry out?

If a politicians mouth is moving ...... they are lying?




It's certainly not a new term, it originates in Ancient Rome.



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 09:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: sapien82



.... it was only in 2013 that the rule on catholics taking the crown was lifted


The monarch may now marry a Catholic but has to remain head of The Church of England and as such MUST be Protestant.

No Catholic has ever been Prime Minister as well.
Blair was told if he wanted to convert to Catholicism he would have to resign as PM.



....not that I am a fan of religion or monarchy


Ditto....or Prime Minister's as well!



Constitutionally there was nothing to stop Blair converting to Catholicism while he was PM, may have made him choosing a COE Bishop a bit awkward though and it's thought that, and the Northern Ireland situation at the time made him choose to wait until he left office.



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 09:45 AM
link   

originally posted by: SouthernForkway26
a reply to: ScepticScot
American here, this is how we would do it..

The vote was to leave, so you leave. This was a decision for a generation. Just because some poll say three years later the majority wants to stay doesn't mean there should be another vote. The only poll that matters is the vote. Period. Thus far your government has not respected the vote of it's subjects.

If you believed in real democracy then you would have new leadership by now. In America not honoring a referrendum sounds impossible, and is honestly the scariest thing I could imagine.



Has there been a national referendum anytime recent in America? Can't say I can remember seeing/reading about that.



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 10:52 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot
We don't have national referendums in the U.S. There are local and occasionally state referendums on the ballot. Anything that is on the ballot is decided by a simple majority. It takes a higher percentage of votes to amend the Constitution because only our elected officials can amend it, not citizen voting. The Constitution framers recognized a weakness that a few votes from our representatives would be the easiest way to hijack the Constitution. Amending it takes more than a simple majority of representative votes. It is a good system.

I would be fine with electoral-college style voting for Constitutional amendments, but not direct democracy. The U.S. demographics are such that the rural population would never be represented in a direct democracy.

We are two countries with two different systems. Maybe over there the 'intent' of a vote is different. I'm curious to your opinion on the intent of the Brexit vote, and your opinion on how far above a simple majority was needed to honor it.

In America we propagandize with hyperbolic rhetoric, we jerrymander the voting districts, we try to change who can be eligible to vote, all because we 100% honor the vote, win or lose.



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 11:50 AM
link   
a reply to: SouthernForkway26

Referendums have no real legal status in the UK.
Personally I think there should be higher standards than simple majority for constitutional or major changes, however in the absence of any fixed rules I accept the referendum as run.

Despite the views of some of the more hysterical brexit supporters parliament isn't thwarting brexit. As it stands we are leaving. No sensible person ever thought it would be a quick process and the delays there have been are entirely the fault of the current government.

Despite replying on the DUP and despite the obvious divisions in her own party ( which was real reason for referendum in first place) May choose not to involve parliament until forced to and at the last minute. Parliament isn't going against the will of the people, for once it's doing it's job.

I accept the legitimacy of the first referendum, what I find absurd is the notion that having a second one is somehow undemocratic.

Let's say 3 years ago The UK had voted to leave NATO. In the meantime the a major power had increased military spending, threatened it's neighbours and been linked to a chemical attack on the UK. Do you out think the the previous mechanic of referendum should rule out another one to see if that's still what people wanted?



posted on May, 3 2019 @ 02:36 PM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot
From the outside looking in it sure looks like something is thwarting Brexit. It has been a few years now and it's not any closer to happening now than sincethe very first day after the vote.

You give several reasons such as the referendum being non-binding, polls say opinions changed, and Brexit is just slow. The only proof that Brexit supporters have that their vote means anything is "as of now" Brexit is still on, with little reason to believe a sincere effort to leave is being made.

If a second referendum was held and Brexit won again by a slim margin would anything about the exit process change? Would there be sincere effort to leave or would it be like the American far left that still don't accept the facts?

In your hypothetical, if U.K. had voted to leave but still hadn't yet then NATO allies are still obliged to help. If the U.K. was out they would need to find help another way, maybe even from former NATO allies, or a new ally. Many alliances are good for their time but can become antiquidated as the situation changes. There shouldn't be any animosity because a country wants out of an alliance.



posted on May, 6 2019 @ 06:00 AM
link   
a reply to: SouthernForkway26


From the outside looking in it sure looks like something is thwarting Brexit. It has been a few years now and it's not any closer to happening now than sincethe very first day after the vote.


It wasn't going to happen until this year regardless, when the date to leave was set it was always 2019 so technically it's only become 'late' over the last couple of months or so - some people with loud voices over here either didn't know that or pretend they don't.



posted on May, 6 2019 @ 03:42 PM
link   
ScepticScot:

... parliament isn't thwarting brexit.


Clearly, they are and have thwarted all attempts to actually leave. Dates were given as to when we should have left, but the dates have passed, and the UK is still tied to the EU. There is no intention to honour the first referendum result. They will continue to thwart the process of 'leaving' until enough time has passed to hold a second referendum.

If the first referendum had given a result to remain with the EU, there would not have been any issues. No politician would have fought to actually seek a second referendum hoping to get a leave result, it wouldn't have happened. The UK people would have voted their country's self-sovereignty away, and its individualism, and we would be swamped with less-than-desired immigrants, quantity over quality to break the perception of our own culture. Fact is, it is going to happen anyway.

Your postings are pretty much disingenuous, but they cannot supersede the principal of democracy, even if its process is subverted. I don't think you are naive, I think you are deliberately happy at the state of affairs as they currently stand, and perhaps, there are a number of reasons why you think the way you do?

The idiocy of the 'remainers' is confounding and disturbing, equally so is the slow acceptance of the 'leavers' to the way the world is changing towards a centralised global tyranny, and be under no illusion, that is what the remainers will get. Regardless of what side of the fence one is, all will be enchained to global corporate draconian tyranny that will deepen and worsen over time. It is the only direction it can go...it will never soften. Each individual's value will be predicated on how useful they are to the system, and if you are of no use, you will not enjoy the same benefits as those who are, and those benefits will be tiered and hierarchical.

Governments who actually 'govern' for the people are impedances to globalisation, but most governments in the West are on board with globalisation and have been so for many decades. The corporatisation of the world is the next political idea and it is worth fighting against.



posted on May, 7 2019 @ 02:14 AM
link   

originally posted by: elysiumfire
ScepticScot:

... parliament isn't thwarting brexit.


Clearly, they are and have thwarted all attempts to actually leave. Dates were given as to when we should have left, but the dates have passed, and the UK is still tied to the EU. There is no intention to honour the first referendum result. They will continue to thwart the process of 'leaving' until enough time has passed to hold a second referendum.

If the first referendum had given a result to remain with the EU, there would not have been any issues. No politician would have fought to actually seek a second referendum hoping to get a leave result, it wouldn't have happened. The UK people would have voted their country's self-sovereignty away, and its individualism, and we would be swamped with less-than-desired immigrants, quantity over quality to break the perception of our own culture. Fact is, it is going to happen anyway.

Your postings are pretty much disingenuous, but they cannot supersede the principal of democracy, even if its process is subverted. I don't think you are naive, I think you are deliberately happy at the state of affairs as they currently stand, and perhaps, there are a number of reasons why you think the way you do?

The idiocy of the 'remainers' is confounding and disturbing, equally so is the slow acceptance of the 'leavers' to the way the world is changing towards a centralised global tyranny, and be under no illusion, that is what the remainers will get. Regardless of what side of the fence one is, all will be enchained to global corporate draconian tyranny that will deepen and worsen over time. It is the only direction it can go...it will never soften. Each individual's value will be predicated on how useful they are to the system, and if you are of no use, you will not enjoy the same benefits as those who are, and those benefits will be tiered and hierarchical.

Governments who actually 'govern' for the people are impedances to globalisation, but most governments in the West are on board with globalisation and have been so for many decades. The corporatisation of the world is the next political idea and it is worth fighting against.


They are clearly not twarting brexit as we, as it stands at moment, are leaving the EU. As covered in my post above the delay is due to the incompetence of May who seemed to believe she could pass some of the most important legislation without consulting parliament until the last minute.

Farage said before the referendum that if it was close (actually using 48-52 as the example). He would have campaigned for another referendum. You really think UKIP would have just wound up if the result had been remain?

I am glad you admit it mainly about immigration for you but that doesn't eally surprise me....

Explain to me what is undemocratic about a second referendum. Do you think we should still leave even if the majority now want to stay?

You description of people who hold a different opinion than you as idiotic and your paranoid ramblings about global tyranny say a lot more about you than 'remainers' or reasons I 'think the way I do'.


edit on 7-5-2019 by ScepticScot because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2019 @ 06:59 AM
link   
a reply to: ScepticScot

www.abovetopsecret.com...

check out the numbers in this thread poll. It seems your prayers have been answered, and another vote was held. You lost again. Should we have another re-do?



posted on May, 12 2019 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: ScepticScot

www.abovetopsecret.com...

check out the numbers in this thread poll. It seems your prayers have been answered, and another vote was held. You lost again. Should we have another re-do?


That's an opinion poll.

About the EU elections.

And it doesn't show a majority for brexit.



posted on May, 12 2019 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: ScepticScot

www.abovetopsecret.com...

check out the numbers in this thread poll. It seems your prayers have been answered, and another vote was held. You lost again. Should we have another re-do?


That's an opinion poll.

About the EU elections.

And it doesn't show a majority for brexit.


Does show the Brexit party will win. Ask Obama about what happens after you win an election and gain power.



posted on May, 12 2019 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SouthernForkway26
a reply to: ScepticScot
American here, this is how we would do it..







Oh and we are citizens not subjects.



Your leaders will beg to differ.



posted on May, 12 2019 @ 11:30 AM
link   
They want a one world government, with a constitution that they write. And trust me, you are not going to like the conditions. No free speech, no self defense weapons of any type, strict regulations on everything, because, they are smarter than you are. Just shut up, sit down, and eat this oatmeal. It's good for you.

Control. On a scale never seen before.

The entire EU concept was a massive boon for these folks, until, like all socialist ideas, things start crashing down. In 2010 Greece had a debt load so massive, it teetered on default. Instead, the EU "loaned" them $320B and required some "changes" to their government and financial systems. Greece won't pay that loan back until around 2060 or so. Which mean Grexit won't happen until well after that.

Britain, finally wised up and said they had enough.

What these people who want one world government don't realize is, our entire planet would then be owned and run by the The Rothschild family. They pretty much run every banking system in the world, but without national sovereignty, and the ability to defend their own country, would turn the entire world into a police state where there is no way to get away from it.

Leave independent countries alone. Let them live.

The Rothschild family, on the other hand, needs to get reigned in, and I mean soon.

Fred..



posted on May, 12 2019 @ 11:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: ScepticScot

www.abovetopsecret.com...

check out the numbers in this thread poll. It seems your prayers have been answered, and another vote was held. You lost again. Should we have another re-do?


That's an opinion poll.

About the EU elections.

And it doesn't show a majority for brexit.


Does show the Brexit party will win. Ask Obama about what happens after you win an election and gain power.


It's for the European elections so no they will not gain power.

It's also constituency based system so a lead nationally doesn't even mean they necessarily win the most seats.

Also, and this is the key part, not a referendum on brexit.



posted on May, 12 2019 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: NoCorruptionAllowed

originally posted by: ScepticScot

originally posted by: SouthernForkway26
a reply to: ScepticScot
American here, this is how we would do it..







Oh and we are citizens not subjects.



Your leaders will beg to differ.


I am rees mogg and the like would prefer it if we were still subjects.

Personally I like being a European citizen.



posted on May, 13 2019 @ 03:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: ScepticScot

I am rees mogg and the like would prefer it if we were still subjects.

Personally I like being a European citizen.



Well you can always immigrate to any one of the 27 EU countries and remain

an European citizen....... Mrs Merkle is BIG on immigration so you would feel

really at home?




top topics



 
23
<< 9  10  11    13  14  15 >>

log in

join