Originally posted by Dogg Thang
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Europe III: April F-EU-Ls
Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
-
Originally posted by Dogg Thang View PostAh okay. The question is about UK referendum results so I don’t see relevance but you must be right.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Asura View PostAdmittedly it's because in the UK, we generally don't have referendums (referenda?), so when people are trying to cite a precedent, there aren't many others to choose from.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Team Andromeda View PostSo no then... Thank you ....
Why are you bothered though? You got the result you wanted.
Will. O'. Dee. Peeple. Innit?Last edited by Nu-Eclipse; 02-09-2018, 19:42.
Comment
-
Genuine question, despite the overspending rule break from Leave, Remain had more spent on it didn't it? They had similar spending limits in theory but the government slapped a near £10m pro-Remain leaflet campaign down as well which was a greater sum than the over spend?
Mainly curious as I recall the answer to whether Leaves rule breaking on the limits having a significant effect on the outcome being very vague hence why no overturn would be considered because you'd have to attribute a massive number of votes to the fact and be able to rule out future rule breaking and nefariousness from future referendums absolutely for any to ever hold weight.
The legally binding aspect of the referendum feels by the by as well. If you ignore the outcome then you shouldn't bother running one in the first place, they also stated that it would be adhered to before the vote so there's little case against MP's not sticking to it either regardless of the arguments. The most common case being made is an economical one for the UK but this gains no traction either as it's very old news, voters not only knew the economy would take a Brexit hit but they anticipated a much worse one than we've had so far thanks to how doomsday Cameron and Osborne painted a picture.
I mean, really, the only possible option on the table for Remain would be a second referendum but it's near impossible at this point. It'd have to almost immediate and be massively constrained and controlled in a way no-one would trust the government to carry out and one that should leave prevail would make No Deal a certainty as the EU would walk out of negotiations right now as we throw everything back to square one in uncertainty.
A second referendum post-deal outcome is frankly too late, likely an orchestrated scenario to avoid last minute upset for the Tories. Doing one before would be a vote on a Brexit that hasn't happened based on a deal that hasn't been negotiated, worthless. You'd also have to commit the country to a third referendum as we wouldn't know the true effects of changing our minds last minute and remaining on our international standing or on public opinion until a later date too, you couldn't just cancel it and then stick your fingers in your ears to half the country having just made such a massive move for the sake of the other half a country.
Basically, Asura is spot on - Remain MPs, voters etc have to take control of Brexit at some point. It's going to happen but the nature on how it happens is still very much up in the air and there is still a lack of clear direction of where to go. Leave wastes its time asking for the impossible whilst Remain wastes its time trying to turn back the clock. Another referendum, a decade after Brexit would be perfectly reasonable but I could easily imagine much of the outcome of that will rest on how the remain side of the coin allows the leave side to dictate the coming years.
Comment
-
Originally posted by fishbowlhead View PostI hope the London housing market falls in on its self spectacularly. It’s affecting the housing prices in every county around it to the point when virtually everything is unaffordable.
Madness.
As a hardline socialist I feel that no individual should own property, it should all be state owned and provided for free to the public based on occupation location and other factors. But I'd settle for a total collapse.
So many homeless in London, and yet so many uninhabitated homes owned by the rich.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Superman Falls View PostGenuine question
Comment
-
But that ties in with what I was saying about having absolutes with referendum outcomes, a second vote would have to be above question that any rule breaking or bad practice took place. Otherwise, if we run it and say Remain narrowly win we would then scrabble to cancel Brexit... then a year later potentially uncover something questionable about the rerun and be looking at a third run whilst integrating into the EU again.
I'm not disagreeing with the principle of how legitimacy can be brought into question by these actions, it's just like Asura leans into - when stacked against the real and happening practicalities of the situation it isn't a rerun that is going to decide the coming years for the UK. Can the UK do well in the EU, yes. Can it do well outside the EU, probably yes too. Will it? Well, that's the real question given the incompetence shown over the last 18 months.
Comment
Comment