|
Post by michael on Sept 30, 2019 13:28:56 GMT
The real winners are likely to be the hedge funds, who have shorted a series of British businesses in the expectation of a no-deal Brexit.
Now, plenty of people will say there is no evidence that the hedge funds are doing anything they wouldn't normally do in the ordinary course of business, which is to short potentially distressed assets and go long on under-valued ones. That's being highly disingenuous.
When wealthy and powerful senior hedge fund managers like Crispin Odey are piling cash into the Tory party coffers and advising on Brexit strategy, then there is a strong stink of conflict of interest.
John Redwood. Prominent Brexiteer. Wealthy asset & investment manager
Jacob Rees-Mogg. Prominent Brexiteer. Wealthy investment & hedge fund manager
Yes, George Soros famously made a billion dollars shorting the pound in 1992. But he's an American of Hungarian origins.
Odey, Redwood, Rees-Mogg and friends. They are Brits. Never mind the free market economy - at what point do certain actions become treasonous?
I've heard that the many of those opposed to Brexit are of the legal profession as they can currently practice more easily in Europe. I dismissed this as cynical paranoia as I do the above. I think some people simply believe in a life outside the EU. To start throwing around words like treason seems a lot easier than making the effort to understand why people voted out on such a large scale. It helps neither side.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Sept 30, 2019 13:47:52 GMT
I think the real winners at the moment are the management consultants, seemingly provided (sadly) by large accountancy firms. Those arseholes are making me angry in a professional capacity. As I got older and worked as an accountant in commerce I found the big accountancy firms more and more annoying and parasitic across all their functions. Audit - an exercise in getting lots of fees whilst really not achieving anything important as fraudsters or charlatans will still get round any audit and the honest just get fucked over for money in fees. And ever increasing legal hoops to jump through that don't work. Tax - charging you a huge fees to sell you really clever tax saving schemes. Oh that they then charged you another whole load of money to unravel when they didn't give the savings expected (but at least I got lots of trips to Bermuda out of that one). Management Consultancy - dreaming up a new name for some management fad that they hope nobody remembers from last time round and charging you lots of money to sell it to you. Then when it fails, coming up with the next fad. And repeat at will.... Insolvency - legally sanctioned bayonetting of the wounded. We recently binned KPMG as our auditors (we went with them against my wishes) and would agree with the points above. Ref Jonny's post I don't think Odey, Redwood, etc are treasonous but I'd like to see their clear conflict of interest being exposed, especially since the current thrust from BoJo's mob appears to be some sort of 'people against the elite' campaign - ironic given the status of many of those behind the campaign
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 30, 2019 14:10:11 GMT
The real winners are likely to be the hedge funds, who have shorted a series of British businesses in the expectation of a no-deal Brexit.
Now, plenty of people will say there is no evidence that the hedge funds are doing anything they wouldn't normally do in the ordinary course of business, which is to short potentially distressed assets and go long on under-valued ones. That's being highly disingenuous.
When wealthy and powerful senior hedge fund managers like Crispin Odey are piling cash into the Tory party coffers and advising on Brexit strategy, then there is a strong stink of conflict of interest.
John Redwood. Prominent Brexiteer. Wealthy asset & investment manager
Jacob Rees-Mogg. Prominent Brexiteer. Wealthy investment & hedge fund manager
Yes, George Soros famously made a billion dollars shorting the pound in 1992. But he's an American of Hungarian origins.
Odey, Redwood, Rees-Mogg and friends. They are Brits. Never mind the free market economy - at what point do certain actions become treasonous?
I've heard that the many of those opposed to Brexit are of the legal profession as they can currently practice more easily in Europe. I dismissed this as cynical paranoia as I do the above. I think some people simply believe in a life outside the EU. To start throwing around words like treason seems a lot easier than making the effort to understand why people voted out on such a large scale. It helps neither side. You are not comparing apples with apples. And not for the first time.
We aren't fussed about practicing in Europe. We already have a large number of offices across continental Europe plus a large full-service office in Dublin. So that's broadly speaking nothing more than a mild irritant that we have to re-jig how we deliver EU advice, but it doesn't matter in many respects because the main need to advise in the UK on EU law is because it applies here.
You predictably object to throwing certain words around, and it was of course deliberately provocative by me because it at least sparks a debate. But do you not also object to the underlying behaviour to which I referred in "throwing" the offending word around? To dismiss it as "cynical paranoia" seems to me to be an extremely partisan position to take.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Sept 30, 2019 14:17:40 GMT
Do you have evidence that JRM is shorting the pound and that's his motive behind his desire to leave the EU? I think he simply doesn't like the EU. I've dismissed both leave and remain as being guilty of cynical paranoia, how much less partisan can you get?
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 30, 2019 14:43:06 GMT
Do you have evidence that JRM is shorting the pound and that's his motive behind his desire to leave the EU? I think he simply doesn't like the EU. I've dismissed both leave and remain as being guilty of cynical paranoia, how much less partisan can you get? I never suggested JRM (or anyone else) was shorting the pound so have no idea why you are asking for evidence that he is doing so.
As regards being partisan, perhaps I am wrong but since you like to remind us that you voted remain, I have to think that in your case it is not so much leave vs remain, as old-school right vs left.
If it was the hard left and Labour who were pushing Brexit, rather than the hard right and the Tories, would you really be quite so keen on promoting the implementation of the referendum result as a sacred democratic duty?
|
|
|
Post by michael on Sept 30, 2019 15:03:58 GMT
I never suggested JRM (or anyone else) was shorting the pound so have no idea why you are asking for evidence that he is doing so.
As regards being partisan, perhaps I am wrong but since you like to remind us that you voted remain, I have to think that in your case it is not so much leave vs remain, as old-school right vs left.
If it was the hard left and Labour who were pushing Brexit, rather than the hard right and the Tories, would you really be quite so keen on promoting the implementation of the referendum result as a sacred democratic duty?
What behaviour are you referring to then?
As to not being partisan, it's neither leave/remain or left/right*. I don't think Brexit is a left or right wing thing it's simply about delivering on the result of a referendum. If it was a hard left government so be it, it has been labelled as hard right simply because it's a conservative government implementing the result.
I think Brexit is the change that a lot of voters were looking for. If it isn't delivered what will change to benefit them? How will the EU change were we to remain? I bring this up again and again as I think that is what people across the continent want but is isn't happening and that's a big problem as it's clearly creating a great deal of tension between people and countries - surely that's the opposite of it's goal?
*I'll give whip to lash me with here, but you could argue that the 'right' side of my position in these terms. I believe in individual responsibility and I think we as a country made the decision and we as country need to implement it. To offer the referendum and then retract it because it was the wrong result is the epitome of big government and I dislike that.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 30, 2019 16:09:29 GMT
Hedge funds shorting stock in British companies. Which is damaging behaviour.
Ok, I will retract the comment on partisanship then. But your claim that Brexit has been labelled as hard right just because it is a conservative government in charge at present is nonsense. Without the incessant agitating of UKIP and the right-wing of the Tory party, there would never have been a referendum. It simply wasn't a big enough issue with the voting public at large.
On the responsibility point, I absolutely refuse to be ideological about this. It simply isn't helpful. Given the gravity of the situation, I fundamentally don't understand why we have this one single decision which, unlike all others, must be treated as absolutely sacrosanct and cannot be revisited no matter what. Everything else seems to be capable of being challenged, overturned, u-turned etc when the circumstances dictate that to the prudent course of action, and without the world coming to an end. That is the fundamental nature of democracy as distinct from majoritarianism. Why is Brexit the holy exception?
I agree that if you hold one referendum, it makes a mockery of it to simply immediately hold another one with no change in the facts if you don't like the result (as happened in other countries).
But that's not the territory we are in and it is simply wrong to suggest that it is. The referendum was over three years ago. Brexit has dominated politics ever since. Only the wilfully disinterested could claim to have not learnt much more about Brexit, its likely nature and its consequences than they knew in June 2016. There is no new fundamentally improved deal with the EU forthcoming by the looks of things. Parliament is hung and deadlocked. I'm almost certain a general election will not resolve that - it will just lead to another hung and deadlocked parliament. Which we get us nowhere on Brexit except possibly defenestrating one or both party leaders.
So there are really only two options:
(1) the democratic approach which is, given the stalemate in parliament, to put it back to the country in another referendum; or
(2) the undemocratic approach of forcing through Brexit by ignoring and sabotaging the rule of law, parliament and the separation of powers on which our constitution is based.
The second is not, and can never be, justified. For it to be the Conservative & Unionist Party threatening it is nothing short of gobsmacking.
So it must be a second referendum. There is apparently no other legitimate way or resolving this. There will be no way to argue that the result is not a thoroughly informed one and it will have to be respected. The only reason for not holding one can be that the Brexiteers in the Tory Party are, to use Mr Johnson's term, "frit" of the result not being the one they want.
And yet we are all told that the result would be the same as the first time around. If so, what is there to be frightened of?
And finally, to one of the bigger lies. Leaving on 31 October with or without a deal will not stop Brexit being the dominating force in our politics for years and probably decades to come. To claim otherwise is an outright whopper. Politicians persist with it because people long to think that a day will come soon when Brexit no longer dominates and you get short term wins by telling voters what they want to hear.
But at some point all these lies will come home to roost. And then what is going to happen?
|
|
|
Post by Stuntman on Sept 30, 2019 20:38:36 GMT
Does HM The Queen still have to give Royal Assent to any attempt by BoJo to leave without a deal? If so, there's a potential solution right there. If not, she can have him hanged for treason Once again I agree with Racing about the bonkers-ness of imbuing the result of the 2016 referendum with the status of a religious dogma, given how much more information we now have. I definitely want another say in what happens next, and if the country then votes to leave with no deal - absolutely fair enough.
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Sept 30, 2019 21:13:44 GMT
The 2016 referendum result has just over a year and a half before it becomes as old as a Government is allowed to be long. Regardless of all the other chaff surrounding the rights and wrongs of holding another referendum an election is essentially a referendum on the Government of the day - and there are lots of occasions when that has changed following an election. Therefore there is absolutely no issue whatsoever in holding another referendum on the subject some three and a half years on.
Anyone even half sane will have watched the scenes in the House of Commons recently and come to the decision that however mad, undemocratic, dictatorial, uncontrolled or expensive the EU is our own Parliament is clearly no better whether in or out of the EU.
[straight face mode] But that's assuming the vast majority of the 17.4 M Leave voters did so on the basis of political control. [/straight face mode]
[rolling on floor laughing because the votes in Labour constituencies proves the vote was xenophobic mode]
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 30, 2019 22:32:16 GMT
The referendum was stated as a binding one off. After Cameron failed to get what he wanted he threw his toys out of the pram and apparently called it an advisory referendum. Bovine basically and then the coward ran away.
No idea why 'the majority' of leave voters but it seems a lot of people who voted remain do know, how? No idea. Many reasons for voting leave and the fact is the referendum was voted on as a binding referendum. Spin that any way you want to but it comes out the same. I have mentioned my reasons for voting leave enough that I will not repeat them but the so called golden road was nowhere.
I equally do not know why the majority (Or anyone at all) voted remain and basically believe there are as many reason to vote remain as there are to vote leave. Is it possible to stop the patronising and condescending attitude and accept that this thing has been blown up out of all proportion. I had my rights as a citizen to vote as my conscience decree's and I made my mind up what I thought was important. I have not ridiculed the reasons of remain voters so do leave voters the same courtessy.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Oct 1, 2019 7:17:25 GMT
So it must be a second referendum. There is apparently no other legitimate way or resolving this. There will be no way to argue that the result is not a thoroughly informed one and it will have to be respected. The only reason for not holding one can be that the Brexiteers in the Tory Party are, to use Mr Johnson's term, "frit" of the result not being the one they want.
And yet we are all told that the result would be the same as the first time around. If so, what is there to be frightened of?
And finally, to one of the bigger lies. Leaving on 31 October with or without a deal will not stop Brexit being the dominating force in our politics for years and probably decades to come. To claim otherwise is an outright whopper. Politicians persist with it because people long to think that a day will come soon when Brexit no longer dominates and you get short term wins by telling voters what they want to hear.
But at some point all these lies will come home to roost. And then what is going to happen? You're basically outlining the way to frustrate the result of every vote in the future; Have a vote - you don't like the outcome and think it's wrong, delay the implementation of that vote for years, all the while sowing seeds of doubt, confusion, lies and scare tactics until you think the conditions are right for another go. If you still don't get the result you want, repeat. General Election? Incumbent party don't think they should be ousted? Remain in power claiming the result was flawed as the electorate didn't understand their policies or give them time to implement them fully. Claim you must remain in power as a Government of National Unity until conditions are right for another vote.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Oct 1, 2019 8:28:57 GMT
Once again I agree with Racing about the bonkers-ness of imbuing the result of the 2016 referendum with the status of a religious dogma, given how much more information we now have. I definitely want another say in what happens next, and if the country then votes to leave with no deal - absolutely fair enough. Nobody has imbued Brexit with such a status, many voters simply expect parliament to deliver what it promised. I'm not sure how much more information you've had that wasn't available before the referendum, either. I can't think of an instance where we've had a referendum that wasn't honoured so it's not unusual to think it's right that it would be.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Oct 1, 2019 8:32:14 GMT
Once again I agree with Racing about the bonkers-ness of imbuing the result of the 2016 referendum with the status of a religious dogma, given how much more information we now have. I definitely want another say in what happens next, and if the country then votes to leave with no deal - absolutely fair enough. Nobody has imbued Brexit with such a status, many voters simply expect parliament to deliver what it promised.
On those grounds then we've been fucked over every time we vote in a general election, no party has fully delivered on its manifesto promises.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Oct 1, 2019 9:22:58 GMT
Nobody has imbued Brexit with such a status, many voters simply expect parliament to deliver what it promised.
On those grounds then we've been fucked over every time we vote in a general election, no party has fully delivered on its manifesto promises. My point entirely.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Oct 1, 2019 9:24:50 GMT
So it must be a second referendum. There is apparently no other legitimate way or resolving this. There will be no way to argue that the result is not a thoroughly informed one and it will have to be respected. The only reason for not holding one can be that the Brexiteers in the Tory Party are, to use Mr Johnson's term, "frit" of the result not being the one they want.
And yet we are all told that the result would be the same as the first time around. If so, what is there to be frightened of?
And finally, to one of the bigger lies. Leaving on 31 October with or without a deal will not stop Brexit being the dominating force in our politics for years and probably decades to come. To claim otherwise is an outright whopper. Politicians persist with it because people long to think that a day will come soon when Brexit no longer dominates and you get short term wins by telling voters what they want to hear.
But at some point all these lies will come home to roost. And then what is going to happen? You're basically outlining the way to frustrate the result of every vote in the future; Have a vote - you don't like the outcome and think it's wrong, delay the implementation of that vote for years, all the while sowing seeds of doubt, confusion, lies and scare tactics until you think the conditions are right for another go. If you still don't get the result you want, repeat. General Election? Incumbent party don't think they should be ousted? Remain in power claiming the result was flawed as the electorate didn't understand their policies or give them time to implement them fully. Claim you must remain in power as a Government of National Unity until conditions are right for another vote. That's stretching a point and then some. But to develop that theme, wasn't one of the key point behind the recent Supreme Court ruling a concern that permitting Johnson's tactics around prorogation would set an extremely bad precedent for future governments to follow?
|
|
|
Post by michael on Oct 1, 2019 9:36:01 GMT
On those grounds then we've been fucked over every time we vote in a general election, no party has fully delivered on its manifesto promises. My point entirely. The difference here is that it was a referendum. Parliament handed over the decision and said it would enact it.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Oct 1, 2019 9:43:31 GMT
You're basically outlining the way to frustrate the result of every vote in the future; Have a vote - you don't like the outcome and think it's wrong, delay the implementation of that vote for years, all the while sowing seeds of doubt, confusion, lies and scare tactics until you think the conditions are right for another go. If you still don't get the result you want, repeat. General Election? Incumbent party don't think they should be ousted? Remain in power claiming the result was flawed as the electorate didn't understand their policies or give them time to implement them fully. Claim you must remain in power as a Government of National Unity until conditions are right for another vote. That's stretching a point and then some. But to develop that theme, wasn't one of the key point behind the recent Supreme Court ruling a concern that permitting Johnson's tactics around prorogation would set an extremely bad precedent for future governments to follow?
Yes, and that backs up my point (and not stretching it).
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Oct 1, 2019 9:44:30 GMT
The difference here is that it was a referendum. Parliament handed over the decision and said it would enact it. Hasn't the point been made above that each election is effectively a referendum on the policies put forward by the parties? When you vote for a party based on its policies, you are presumably expecting them to implement them. Yet they frequently don't, most often the realities of being in power collide with the fantasy wishlist they drew up during electioneering and/or opposition.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Oct 1, 2019 9:46:14 GMT
The difference here is that it was a referendum. Parliament handed over the decision and said it would enact it. Hasn't the point been made above that each election is effectively a referendum on the policies put forward by the parties? When you vote for a party based on its policies, you are presumably expecting them to implement them. Yet they frequently don't, most often the realities of being in power collide with the fantasy wishlist they drew up during electioneering and/or opposition. The point is that each election is not a referendum. You're voting for the policies that you want enacted which is quite different to making the decision of what the policy should be.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Oct 1, 2019 10:00:16 GMT
That's stretching a point and then some. But to develop that theme, wasn't one of the key point behind the recent Supreme Court ruling a concern that permitting Johnson's tactics around prorogation would set an extremely bad precedent for future governments to follow?
Yes, and that backs up my point (and not stretching it). So we can agree that there is intellectual incoherence between opposing the Supreme Court ruling and insisting that a second referendum would set bad precedent.
However, I don't think that cuts both ways.
The problem with the five week prorogation was that it patently interfered with normal democratic procedures in a way that was judged to be both justiciable and unlawful.
A decision to hold a second referendum nearly three and a half years after a first one is fundamentally not undemocratic and it is also hard to see what there is about it that could be properly deemed justiciable. People are free to vote how they wish, which would include whether or not to vote at all.
And, in any event, it is always conveniently overlooked the 2016 referendum is not the original word on the matter. That distinction goes to the 1975 referendum on remaining in the European Community (as it was then known), held two years after we entered, where the result was 67/33 for the status quo (ie remain).
So apparently it is agreed that 41 years between referendums on a topic is acceptable, but 3.5 years is not. Where do you draw the line? I'm pretty certain Nigel Farage and the Tory Brexiteers would have deemed it appropriate 3.5 years later to have a second referendum had he lost the first one 48/52. Farage said as much on the night before.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Oct 1, 2019 10:05:09 GMT
Hasn't the point been made above that each election is effectively a referendum on the policies put forward by the parties? When you vote for a party based on its policies, you are presumably expecting them to implement them. Yet they frequently don't, most often the realities of being in power collide with the fantasy wishlist they drew up during electioneering and/or opposition. The point is that each election is not a referendum. You're voting for the policies that you want enacted which is quite different to making the decision of what the policy should be. I'm not seeing the practical difference myself:
In the election, Party A proposes policy A and Party B propose policy B.
You vote for Party B because you want policy B enacted.
Ergo, you have made a decision about what you want the policy to be.
In a referendum you are asked to choose between policy A and policy B.
You vote for Policy B because you want policy B enacted.
Ergo, you have made a decision about what you want the policy to be.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Oct 1, 2019 10:11:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by michael on Oct 1, 2019 10:12:24 GMT
The point is that each election is not a referendum. You're voting for the policies that you want enacted which is quite different to making the decision of what the policy should be. I'm not seeing the practical difference myself:
In the election, Party A proposes policy A and Party B propose policy B.
You vote for Party B because you want policy B enacted.
Ergo, you have made a decision about what you want the policy to be.
In a referendum you are asked to choose between policy A and policy B.
You vote for Policy B because you want policy B enacted.
Ergo, you have made a decision about what you want the policy to be.
I don't agree they're the same. A referendum is binary unlike an election where you make a decisions based on a broad range of issues. Furthermore in an election you're voting for your local representative and not party as those who formed the Indy Group would like to tell you.
With regards to people voting in a second referendum how they liked then that's not quite true if (what is seen as a remain) parliament loads the question such that it's the deal vs. remain. There is an equally credible argument that the question should be deal vs. no deal.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Oct 1, 2019 10:35:11 GMT
I'm not seeing the practical difference myself:
In the election, Party A proposes policy A and Party B propose policy B.
You vote for Party B because you want policy B enacted.
Ergo, you have made a decision about what you want the policy to be.
In a referendum you are asked to choose between policy A and policy B.
You vote for Policy B because you want policy B enacted.
Ergo, you have made a decision about what you want the policy to be.
I don't agree they're the same. A referendum is binary unlike an election where you make a decisions based on a broad range of issues. Furthermore in an election you're voting for your local representative and not party as those who formed the Indy Group would like to tell you.
With regards to people voting in a second referendum how they liked then that's not quite true if (what is seen as a remain) parliament loads the question such that it's the deal vs. remain. There is an equally credible argument that the question should be deal vs. no deal.
I think plenty of people are single-issue voters. And personally, I've never voted based on my local representative in my life, which I don't think is unusual. There is the old saying that there are many Labour and Tory voters who would vote for a donkey if it was wearing the rosette of their chosen party.
On the second referendum, I agree that the question must be free and fair. But I also don't believe that parliament will load the question.
Personally I would be tempted to repeat the original question but the alternatives are set out here:
www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainers/second-referendum-brexit
These are the four options they set out and my thoughts on them:
1. Binary Leave / Remain question – major point is that it doesn’t resolve the Deal/No Deal issue;
2. First past the post with the three options (Deal, No Deal, Remain). I think this is unfair as it risks splitting the Leave Vote, so I would not support that.
3. Alternative vote: you state your first and second preference, with votes for the least popular option being re-allocated based on second preference. I think this is unfair as it would magnify the Leave Vote (whose first and second preferences for Deal and No Deal would amount to double-counting for Leave), so I could not support that.
4. Two questions: (a) Leave/Remain; and (b) Deal/No Deal. If Remain wins question (a), then the results of question (b) are redundant. If Leave wins question (a), then the results of question (b) determine whether the country sanctions No Deal or not. In practice it’s almost certainly a vote No Deal cannot survive, but that’s not to my mind unfair per se, as it will simply reflect that there is no majority opinion for No Deal. But I can see the Brexit-ultras objecting.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Oct 1, 2019 10:36:22 GMT
So apparently it is agreed that 41 years between referendums on a topic is acceptable, but 3.5 years is not. Where do you draw the line? I'm pretty certain Nigel Farage and the Tory Brexiteers would have deemed it appropriate 3.5 years later to have a second referendum had he lost the first one 48/52. Farage said as much on the night before.
I'm not sure how I cannot put this any clearer; the 2016 referendum has not been implemented, the 1975 one was. It's like passing your driving test and asking for your license only to be told 3.5 years later that you have to re-take your test.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Oct 1, 2019 11:14:37 GMT
So apparently it is agreed that 41 years between referendums on a topic is acceptable, but 3.5 years is not. Where do you draw the line? I'm pretty certain Nigel Farage and the Tory Brexiteers would have deemed it appropriate 3.5 years later to have a second referendum had he lost the first one 48/52. Farage said as much on the night before.
I'm not sure how I cannot put this any clearer; the 2016 referendum has not been implemented, the 1975 one was. It's like passing your driving test and asking for your license only to be told 3.5 years later that you have to re-take your test. In a democratic system, I don't see any validity to the implementation argument whatsoever. It is not written anywhere that decisions must be implemented before being revisited.
For it is also like passing a court sentence on a defendant and not allowing an appeal until the defendant has served their sentence. Patently wrong.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Oct 1, 2019 11:32:15 GMT
I'm not sure how I cannot put this any clearer; the 2016 referendum has not been implemented, the 1975 one was. It's like passing your driving test and asking for your license only to be told 3.5 years later that you have to re-take your test. In a democratic system, I don't see any validity to the implementation argument whatsoever. It is not written anywhere that decisions must be implemented before being revisited.
For it is also like passing a court sentence on a defendant and not allowing an appeal until the defendant has served their sentence. Patently wrong.
There was nothing written about the length of prorogation until last week.
In terms of your analogy I'd argue it was more like your defendant had been found innocent and was expected to remain incarcerated until the a case for appeal could be found.
|
|
|
Post by PG on Oct 1, 2019 11:38:42 GMT
The point is that each election is not a referendum. You're voting for the policies that you want enacted which is quite different to making the decision of what the policy should be. I'm not seeing the practical difference myself:
In the election, Party A proposes policy A and Party B propose policy B.
You vote for Party B because you want policy B enacted.
Ergo, you have made a decision about what you want the policy to be.
In a referendum you are asked to choose between policy A and policy B.
You vote for Policy B because you want policy B enacted.
Ergo, you have made a decision about what you want the policy to be.
I think you may be trying to have your cake and eat it, to coin a phrase. Some time ago we had a debate about representative v direct democracy. Are our MP's our one stage removed representatives - who can vote according to their knowledge and research - or are they are direct representative who should vote how their constituents tell them? I seem to recall that you were of the non-direct representative persuasion. Thus you support MP's using their knowledge to vote as they see fit on matters and not slavishly follow their constituents. But now you say that an election is the same as a referendum - in that we vote for policies we expect to be enacted. But that means that the MP's are the voters' direct representatives and should enact exactly what is in their manifesto and what the voters tell them. And that in actuality we vote for a party and not an MP. Of course we all know that is not really the case. We all are never wholly in favour of every policy in a manifesto, so we decide on balance - for those we like and dislike from all parties and take a balanced view. We may even vote for party x to stop party y being able to put their manifesto into effect. Therefore a referendum is obviously wholly different. MP's are saying this is a binary decision. Yes / No on a single issue. It is direct democracy in action.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Oct 1, 2019 14:40:54 GMT
In a democratic system, I don't see any validity to the implementation argument whatsoever. It is not written anywhere that decisions must be implemented before being revisited.
For it is also like passing a court sentence on a defendant and not allowing an appeal until the defendant has served their sentence. Patently wrong.
There was nothing written about the length of prorogation until last week.
In terms of your analogy I'd argue it was more like your defendant had been found innocent and was expected to remain incarcerated until the a case for appeal could be found.
Oh FFS.
1. Specious.
2. Utterly specious.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Oct 1, 2019 15:08:08 GMT
There was nothing written about the length of prorogation until last week.
In terms of your analogy I'd argue it was more like your defendant had been found innocent and was expected to remain incarcerated until the a case for appeal could be found.
Oh FFS.
1. Specious.
2. Utterly specious.
It's nothing of the sort, it's simply a more accurate version of your analogy. If the country voted to leave it's because it wants to leave. One would assume a defendant would not wish to be imprisoned and so would assume they would prefer freedom.
But you form the analogy as you did because you view this entirely through the prism of remain and in doing so reject the views of the majority of voters on this issue. Until they're on board, or even considered, the matter won't begin to be resolved.
|
|