BREXIT: Revocation

[mindlight]

The last thread seems to have been closed by mods but this is still a live issue. But please keep things civil.

So new question:

Would the revocation of Britains intention to leave the EU be undemocratic?

Should it happen or not?

Got this email from government this morning:

This Government will not revoke Article 50. We will honour the result of the 2016 referendum and work with Parliament to deliver a deal that ensures we leave the European Union. It remains the Government’s firm policy not to revoke Article 50. We will honour the outcome of the 2016 referendum and work to deliver an exit which benefits everyone, whether they voted to Leave or to Remain. Revoking Article 50, and thereby remaining in the European Union, would undermine both our democracy and the trust that millions of voters have placed in Government. The Government acknowledges the considerable number of people who have signed this petition. However, close to three quarters of the electorate took part in the 2016 referendum, trusting that the result would be respected. This Government wrote to every household prior to the referendum, promising that the outcome of the referendum would be implemented. 17.4 million people then voted to leave the European Union, providing the biggest democratic mandate for any course of action ever directed at UK Government. British people cast their votes once again in the 2017 General Election where over 80% of those who voted, voted for parties, including the Opposition, who committed in their manifestos to upholding the result of the referendum. This Government stands by this commitment. Revoking Article 50 would break the promises made by Government to the British people, disrespect the clear instruction from a democratic vote, and in turn, reduce confidence in our democracy. As the Prime Minister has said, failing to deliver Brexit would cause “potentially irreparable damage to public trust”, and it is imperative that people can trust their Government to respect their votes and deliver the best outcome for them.

 

[HTacianas]

The last thread seems to have been closed by mods but this is still a live issue. But please keep things civil.

So new question:

Would the revocation of Britains intention to leave the EU be undemocratic?

Should it happen or not?

Got this email from government this morning:

This Government will not revoke Article 50. We will honour the result of the 2016 referendum and work with Parliament to deliver a deal that ensures we leave the European Union. It remains the Government’s firm policy not to revoke Article 50. We will honour the outcome of the 2016 referendum and work to deliver an exit which benefits everyone, whether they voted to Leave or to Remain. Revoking Article 50, and thereby remaining in the European Union, would undermine both our democracy and the trust that millions of voters have placed in Government. The Government acknowledges the considerable number of people who have signed this petition. However, close to three quarters of the electorate took part in the 2016 referendum, trusting that the result would be respected. This Government wrote to every household prior to the referendum, promising that the outcome of the referendum would be implemented. 17.4 million people then voted to leave the European Union, providing the biggest democratic mandate for any course of action ever directed at UK Government. British people cast their votes once again in the 2017 General Election where over 80% of those who voted, voted for parties, including the Opposition, who committed in their manifestos to upholding the result of the referendum. This Government stands by this commitment. Revoking Article 50 would break the promises made by Government to the British people, disrespect the clear instruction from a democratic vote, and in turn, reduce confidence in our democracy. As the Prime Minister has said, failing to deliver Brexit would cause “potentially irreparable damage to public trust”, and it is imperative that people can trust their Government to respect their votes and deliver the best outcome for them.

The government sent a letter to everyone in Britain promising that they would really, really, pinky swear really do what the people tell them to do?

That reminds me of a state lottery initiative where a bunch of politicians ganged up and *signed a contract* promising that the lottery money would really, really, pinky swear really go to education.

When politicians resort to promising things in writing it is a sure sign they have lost the trust of the people.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

We will honour the outcome of the 2016 referendum and work to deliver an exit which benefits everyone, whether they voted to Leave or to Remain.

Talk about optimism.

I do not think government is forced to do this. The vote was close enough and there was plenty of disinformation going around to affect the voters.

If people had to vote on these they really should first be required to do some reading package then answer some questions about the info with 80% correct answers required before getting a right to cast at least somewhat informed vote.

Using Churchill`s speeches and stirring up people does not bring the good ol days of the Empire back nor even make that foreigner across the street with funny smelling food to move away no matter how much someone wished it.

 

[trophy33]

I think that the UK people are very suprised that other 27 countries are so unified and quickly found a common position, while the UK gov and parliament have been unable to make any progress in 2 years.

 

[mark kennedy]

It's going to happen but I think people are coming to the realization is setting in, it's not as simple as putting it on a ballot. England didn't get into the EU easily and they won't exit easily. Obama made the point that this will leave us without a treaty for them, the complications they will face with the rest of Europe are going to be just as complicated.

I wish them well and I'm sure they will manage somehow but nothing is ever gained that something isn't lost. I guess the lesson here is you can't eat your cake and then expect to have it. As somber as that reality is there is still something to be said for national sovereignty and independence, it just comes at a cost.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[sfs]

Would the revocation of Britains intention to leave the EU be undemocratic?

Not if the revocation comes from the democratically elected government. The government is under no obligation to base their actions on a non-binding referendum.

 

[Silverback]

The last thread seems to have been closed by mods but this is still a live issue. But please keep things civil.

So new question:



Would the revocation of Britains intention to leave the EU be undemocratic?

Should it happen or not?

Got this email from government this morning:

This Government will not revoke Article 50. We will honour the result of the 2016 referendum and work with Parliament to deliver a deal that ensures we leave the European Union. It remains the Government’s firm policy not to revoke Article 50. We will honour the outcome of the 2016 referendum and work to deliver an exit which benefits everyone, whether they voted to Leave or to Remain. Revoking Article 50, and thereby remaining in the European Union, would undermine both our democracy and the trust that millions of voters have placed in Government. The Government acknowledges the considerable number of people who have signed this petition. However, close to three quarters of the electorate took part in the 2016 referendum, trusting that the result would be respected. This Government wrote to every household prior to the referendum, promising that the outcome of the referendum would be implemented. 17.4 million people then voted to leave the European Union, providing the biggest democratic mandate for any course of action ever directed at UK Government. British people cast their votes once again in the 2017 General Election where over 80% of those who voted, voted for parties, including the Opposition, who committed in their manifestos to upholding the result of the referendum. This Government stands by this commitment. Revoking Article 50 would break the promises made by Government to the British people, disrespect the clear instruction from a democratic vote, and in turn, reduce confidence in our democracy. As the Prime Minister has said, failing to deliver Brexit would cause “potentially irreparable damage to public trust”, and it is imperative that people can trust their Government to respect their votes and deliver the best outcome for them.

It sure seems like a lot of time is being wasted, just to keep Arab refugees, an Eastern European Gypsies out of the UK.

 

[mindlight]

The votes today in the British parliament were negative on every positive way forward. Interestingly the option that got the most votes and far more than the governments BREXIT deal was a call for a second referendum.

 

[mindlight]

The government sent a letter to everyone in Britain promising that they would really, really, pinky swear really do what the people tell them to do?

That reminds me of a state lottery initiative where a bunch of politicians ganged up and *signed a contract* promising that the lottery money would really, really, pinky swear really go to education.

When politicians resort to promising things in writing it is a sure sign they have lost the trust of the people.

I thought I should laugh at this but maybe I should cry. There is a crisis of governance in the UK and neither parliament or the government seem to be part of the solution right now. As to what the people believe having witnessed this mess the last 3 years maybe it is time to ask them whether by general election or referendum.

 

[mindlight]

Talk about optimism.

I do not think government is forced to do this. The vote was close enough and there was plenty of disinformation going around to affect the voters.

If people had to vote on these they really should first be required to do some reading package then answer some questions about the info with 80% correct answers required before getting a right to cast at least somewhat informed vote.

Using Churchill`s speeches and stirring up people does not bring the good ol days of the Empire back nor even make that foreigner across the street with funny smelling food to move away no matter how much someone wished it.

Parliament and the government do not seem able to agree on a positive solution to an urgent dilemma. Personally I think ask the voter what he thinks in the light of the failure of his parliament to find a legitimate way to do BREXIT is democratic.

Should we do this as agreed with the EU, a completely different way or just call the whole thing off?

Churchill quote:
" At the bottom of all the tributes paid to democracy is the little man, walking into the little booth, with a little pencil, making a little cross on a little bit of paper—no amount of rhetoric or voluminous discussion can possibly diminish the overwhelming importance of that point."

 

[mindlight]

I think that the UK people are very suprised that other 27 countries are so unified and quickly found a common position, while the UK gov and parliament have been unable to make any progress in 2 years.

That the European elites have been able to cohere around a singular approach to BREXIT despite the immense differences of perspectives in their voting publics might indicate a democratic deficit of its own. But it does seem to have been more effective than the British governments approach.

 

[mindlight]

It's going to happen but I think people are coming to the realization is setting in, it's not as simple as putting it on a ballot. England didn't get into the EU easily and they won't exit easily. Obama made the point that this will leave us without a treaty for them, the complications they will face with the rest of Europe are going to be just as complicated.

I wish them well and I'm sure they will manage somehow but nothing is ever gained that something isn't lost. I guess the lesson here is you can't eat your cake and then expect to have it. As somber as that reality is there is still something to be said for national sovereignty and independence, it just comes at a cost.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Absolutely nothing is written on the wall as yet. Neither the doom of the kingdom nor its salvation. The uncertainty is quite draining.

 

[mindlight]

Not if the revocation comes from the democratically elected government. The government is under no obligation to base their actions on a non-binding referendum.

Revocation was firmly rejected by parliament today in its current configuration. I believe the feeling is that doing this without first referring to the people would erode public trust in our democracy. But even though parliament and the government have the right to make the decision the fact that they seem unable to do so may indicate that it is time to give it back to the people in a referendum or general election

 

[Nithavela]

I think the house of commons being unable to agree on ANY option is the most hilarious thing I have ever seen.

 

[mindlight]

It sure seems like a lot of time is being wasted, just to keep Arab refugees, an Eastern European Gypsies out of the UK.

Most of my family voted remain. The one who did not says sovereignty was the key issue rather than an aversion to immigrants.

 

[Goonie]

It sure seems like a lot of time is being wasted, just to keep Arab refugees, an Eastern European Gypsies out of the UK.

There are some very misinformed leave supporters in regard to immigration. For one thing the UK has never been part of the Schengen Agreement and maintained its border controls.
Schengen Area - Wikipedia

 

[mindlight]

I think the house of commons being unable to agree on ANY option is the most hilarious thing I have ever seen.

The British parliamentary system has generated strong government for most of its history. But this is not an example of that and is one of the saddest moments of my nations political existence.

 

[Goonie]

Most of my family voted remain. The one who did not says sovereignty was the key issue rather than an aversion to immigrants.

Yep, same amongst those I’ve talked to, sovereignty and the idea of being in control were key arguments.

 

[Nithavela]

The British parliamentary system has generated strong government for most of its history. But this is not an example of that and is one of the saddest moments of my nations political existence.

You guys might wanna try monarchy again for a decade or two.

 

[mindlight]

You guys might wanna try monarchy again for a decade or two.

Coming from a German that is actually quite funny.

Grundgesetz
Artikel 20
(1) Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland ist ein demokratischer und sozialer Bundesstaat.