Unethical, undemocratic and dishonourable behaviour to force the POV of an elite

[Udayana]

Can't see how it is unethical to let people have a chance to change their minds.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Rose,

I definately think we weren't knowledgable enough to have this vote, in fact I think the government was irresponsible to hold it in the first place.

That's definitely and knowledgeable but apart from that absolutely correct.

Gonnagle.

[wigginhall]

Yes telling lies to win is unethical.

But I think both sides did this.

People couldn't tell which side was lying about what.

Nobody really knew what Brexit entailed because it had never happened before.

Well, I would think that when Brexit eventually materializes in some shape or form, then we should be able to validate or invalidate that.   The Tory candidates are already arguing about whether EU nationals should be able to stay, showing how Brexit can mean anything.   There is soft Brexit, very soft Brexit, hard Brexit, very hard Brexit, and so on.   Why can't we vote on the final outcome?

[Bramble]

We've heard a great deal about how this referendum result was a revolt by the masses against a loathsome elite but it seems to have pushed politics further to the right and was apparently supported by the hedge fund industry. I doubt if this was what most Brexit voters had in mind. The new elite that seems poised to take over could well make us all pine for the days when we were governed by Dave. Strangely, Leave voters are still crowing about their triumph, apparently oblivious of the direction we could now be heading. Perhaps in time they will join the calls of Remainers for another chance to vote on the sort of future we really want. 

[wigginhall]

We've heard a great deal about how this referendum result was a revolt by the masses against a loathsome elite but it seems to have pushed politics further to the right and was apparently supported by the hedge fund industry. I doubt if this was what most Brexit voters had in mind. The new elite that seems poised to take over could well make us all pine for the days when we were governed by Dave. Strangely, Leave voters are still crowing about their triumph, apparently oblivious of the direction we could now be heading. Perhaps in time they will join the calls of Remainers for another chance to vote on the sort of future we really want.

Yes, I was wondering what people in a place like Oldham, which voted Leave, will feel if a right-wing Tory government takes over?  Oldham is one of those places which possibly voted as a  protest at being ignored by successive governments, a kind of post-industrial wasteland.   Or possibly voted against austerity and globalization. 

 

[Aruntraveller]

It has been said that the Brexiteers wanted to give the establishment a bloody nose.

What they didn't notice was that they were having both legs amputated to achieve their aim.

In other words cutting your nose off to spite your face.

[wigginhall]

I saw a guy on TV say, 'I'm voting against the elite'.   Well, yes, you are about to get the proletarian wing of the Tory party in power.

[jeremyp]

Didn't parliament agree to let the PM trigger article 50 when it passed the law that the referendum would happen by the end of 2016? If they agree to build an aircraft carrier do they have to pass a separate law before it can be used?

I have no idea. The leal argument seems to be that the 1972 EEC act can't be overridden without further legislation. I'm not an expert in constitutional law, so I don't know if the argument has merit. I'd put money on the legal challenge failing though.

Because the majority think that it is worth sacrificing some economic gain in order to take back control of our country.

We never lost control of our country, and if PD is right many of those people are now having second thoughts.

What we have here is an utter shambles.

[wigginhall]

The idea of taking back control in a globalized economy seems quite strange, as if the nation state can over-ride this.  How would it do this?   For example, my local water company is owned by an Australian/Chinese consortium.  I suppose the British government could demand that this reverts to British ownership - but I don't think the Tories will be doing this soon.   

[ProfessorDavey]

I have no idea. The leal argument seems to be that the 1972 EEC act can't be overridden without further legislation. I'm not an expert in constitutional law, so I don't know if the argument has merit. I'd put money on the legal challenge failing though.

All that parliament agreed to do was to hold an advisory referendum - nothing more, nothing less. Any further stages toward actual brexit will require further parliamentary approval.

[jeremyp]

It is unethical. It's driven by people " clients" who refuse to be named. They might not be entitled to a vote.

All that matters is that they are entitled to use the courts. It's unethical to deny people legal redress.

The principal of attempting to overturn the result and promises of the government is unethical.

Nonsense. If people were not allowed to overturn the result by any legal means, that would be undemocratic.

We don't even know the " clients " are entitled to a POV. They may not even be residents of the U.K.

Everybody is entitled to a point of view.

Because more people wanted to leave than stay.

You don't know that. More of the people that could be bothered to vote wanted to leave than stay on June 24th. You don't know if that is true of all people entitled to vote and you don't know if the same result would happen today.

As I said I chose to vote remain because I thought it was the safe option, but I'm not totally convinced it is ultimately bad for our economy.

The Remain option is the status quo. The Leave option was always looking like it was going to be worse for the economy in comparison Remain. Current events seem to be confirming that.

It's unethical to force remain on the majority of people in this county.

Even though Leave looks like being a train wreck?

If you add the vote of those that couldn't care less enough to vote, to the 52% you get a big majority that didn't vote remain.

I would argue that those who didn't vote are content with the status quo and so should be added to the Remain side.

I'm starting to think it's remain that isn't good for our country.

What?! Look at the state of the place. The country may not even exist in five years time as a result of this deeply stupid decision.

With the things I have seen and heard , and the unscrupulous suggestions banded about by some..... I seriously wonder I'd we are actually better off out.

What unscrupulous suggestions? More unscrupulous than saying we can spend an extra £350 million per week on the NHS and then reneging? More unscrupulous than running away from the mess you have caused like Nigel and Boris?

[jeremyp]

All that parliament agreed to do was to hold an advisory referendum - nothing more, nothing less. Any further stages toward actual brexit will require further parliamentary approval.

If you are correct, then the legal challenge will win, in which case we owe the people making it a debt of gratitude. It would be better to find out now before the PM triggers article 50 that doing so without parliamentary approval is illegal than afterwards.

Imagine the following scenario: Andrea Leadsom wins the leadership contest and immediately triggers article 50. We start negotiating with the EU but then a legal challenge happens it it is found she did it illegally. Could it be any worse?

[Gonnagle]

Dear Political overload,

Not to worry, Mark Carney has loadsadosh and Theresa May is on a submarine, finger on the button, ready to crush the Ruskies and defeat Daesh.

It's fun time all the way

Gonnagle.

[ProfessorDavey]

If you are correct, then the legal challenge will win, in which case we owe the people making it a debt of gratitude. It would be better to find out now before the PM triggers article 50 that doing so without parliamentary approval is illegal than afterwards.

I'm not entirely sure exactly what the legal challenge is. There isn't any doubt that legally and constitutionally that the referendum is advisory and that parliament is sovereign so parliament can chose to ignore the referendum result if it wishes.

Imagine the following scenario: Andrea Leadsom wins the leadership contest and immediately triggers article 50. We start negotiating with the EU but then a legal challenge happens it it is found she did it illegally. Could it be any worse?

Which I guess is the point, while parliament can legally and constitutionally ignore the referendum does the government or PM have the authority to trigger article 50 without the authority of parliament. That, I guess is what is being considered legally.

But there is also the politics of the matter - surely any PM triggering article 50 without approval of parliament where is was clear that were they to be asked they would not approve would be a dead man (or more likely woman) walking. And if it was clear that parliament did approve then surely ant sensible PM would strengthen their hand by getting parliamentary approval.

[jeremyp]

It's fun time all the way

I liked it better when it was boring.

[jeremyp]

I'm not entirely sure exactly what the legal challenge is. There isn't any doubt that legally and constitutionally that the referendum is advisory and that parliament is sovereign so parliament can chose to ignore the referendum result if it wishes.

Many people are of the opinion that the Prime Minister can use his or her prerogative powers to trigger article 50. Many other people are of the opinion that an act of parliament is required. This is the legal question.

Which I guess is the point, while parliament can legally and constitutionally ignore the referendum does the government or PM have the authority to trigger article 50 without the authority of parliament. That, I guess is what is being considered legally.

Exactly.

But there is also the politics of the matter - surely any PM triggering article 50 without approval of parliament where is was clear that were they to be asked they would not approve would be a dead man (or more likely woman) walking. And if it was clear that parliament did approve then surely ant sensible PM would strengthen their hand by getting parliamentary approval.

Certainly. However, in two or three months time, that approval might not be forthcoming. Parliament is generally pro-EU, but if asked today, would pass the motion because of the referendum. In two or three months with all the bad news washing over us and leading Leavers deserting the sinking ship like rats, parliament might vote down article 50.

[JP]

So, the government can hold a national referendum but if they (the political and social elite especially) do not like the result they can just ignore it?

You must ask yourselves, supposing the result had been to stay and the losers were wanting a re-run. What would your thoughts be?

[jeremyp]

So, the government can hold a national referendum but if they (the political and social elite especially) do not like the result they can just ignore it?

Yep.

You must ask yourselves, supposing the result had been to stay and the losers were wanting a re-run. What would your thoughts be?

Well, we would not be up shit creek without a paddle, so it's hard to tell.

I think, if it had been 52% to 48% the other way, we would have to accept that the Leavers would not be silenced.

[ProfessorDavey]

So, the government can hold a national referendum but if they (the political and social elite especially) do not like the result they can just ignore it?

If it is an advisory referendum, yes of course they can. The referendum is there to gain a snap-shot of the opinion of the electorate. If it is an advisory referendum, then parliament then needs to decide what course of action it should take in the best interests of the country. That is why parliament is sovereign - wasn't that one of the siren calls of the Brexiters, that the UK parliament is sovereign.

You must ask yourselves, supposing the result had been to stay and the losers were wanting a re-run. What would your thoughts be?

Well of course they were - don't forget that Farage pronounced that a 52/48 in favour of remain would be unfinished business.

But there is another point here, where there is a change and a no-change option. I think that there needs to be a greater requirement to be convinced that the change option is the clear and settled view of the electorate than the no change. This is why many organisations either have a higher threshold for change (e.g. 60%), or require the change option to be agreed by simple majority but in more than one place - e.g. acts of parliament requiring passing by both HofC and HofL.

So in this case, given that there was no higher than 50% threshold I think it holds true (given that this was an advisory referendum) that the change decision should be agreed by both the electorate in the referendum and also by parliament with each decision made independently.

And this is where the whole process has been the wrong way around. Parliament should have voted to leave, decided on the nature of that brexit settlement and then put that option to the electorate. That's the way around it is in most referendums, but not in this one where parliament didn't (and I suspect still doesn't) want to leave but is now boxed into a corner created by the ineptitude of our out-going PM.

[Bubbles]

All that matters is that they are entitled to use the courts. It's unethical to deny people legal redress.

Nonsense. If people were not allowed to overturn the result by any legal means, that would be undemocratic.
Everybody is entitled to a point of view.

You don't know that. More of the people that could be bothered to vote wanted to leave than stay on June 24th. You don't know if that is true of all people entitled to vote and you don't know if the same result would happen today.
The Remain option is the status quo. The Leave option was always looking like it was going to be worse for the economy in comparison Remain. Current events seem to be confirming that.

Even though Leave looks like being a train wreck?
I would argue that those who didn't vote are content with the status quo and so should be added to the Remain side.

What?! Look at the state of the place. The country may not even exist in five years time as a result of this deeply stupid decision.
What unscrupulous suggestions? More unscrupulous than saying we can spend an extra £350 million per week on the NHS and then reneging? More unscrupulous than running away from the mess you have caused like Nigel and Boris?

We don't even know who they are. They might not be eligible for a say.

 

[Bubbles]

Can't see how it is unethical to let people have a chance to change their minds.

We arn't giving them a chance to change their minds.

We can't keep voting until you get a result you agree with.

[Bubbles]

So glad these heroes are ensuring due process.

Who the unnamed ' clients' of the law firm, who we don't even know if the were entitled to a vote in the first place?

[Bubbles]

Didn't parliament agree to let the PM trigger article 50 when it passed the law that the referendum would happen by the end of 2016? If they agree to build an aircraft carrier do they have to pass a separate law before it can be used?


Because the majority think that it is worth sacrificing some economic gain in order to take back control of our country.

Exactly 

[Aruntraveller]

The fact is the terms of the referendum were wrong.

An actual alternative should have been laid before the British people.

As for your Unethical, undemocratic dishonourable diatribe - all this can be applied with much greater certainty to the Brexit side.

Unethical - they lied. So far, much more so than the Remain side have been proved to have done.

Undemocratic - we are changing someting that has been a major pillar of our economy on the say so of just 37% of voters - that my dear is undemocratic. It should have been a compulsory vote.

Dishonourable - let me count the ways, Et Tu Gove. Farage fandango - insulting the whole of the EU parliament including the guy sat behind him who was a Cardiac Surgeon (aka not a proper job). Bonking Boris running just as fast as he can to stay ahead of the you know what he has created.

You are going to have to come up with better reasons than the ones you have so far to convince me that there shouldn't at least be a confirmation of the decision by the British public.

[Bubbles]

You're appalled that some people haven't given up hope of saving the country from destruction?

I'm appalled at how undemocratic they are, and applaud attempts by faceless individuals to interfere by manipulating our system.

We don't know if the individuals and businesses even qualify for a say.

It might be none of their business.

They might not be British businesses.

Hence a very good reason for not standing up and being counted.