Brexit: Should the UK stay or go?

so they gave people the vote for brexit expecting them to vote stay and because the vote didnt go as planned they are doing everything they can to get out of it. is there a country left in the world where the votes of the people mean something.

Jeremy *bleep* hunt is the new foreign secretary

Guy who single handedly destroyed the NHS is going to deal with foreign affairs. What a time to be alive

Brexit won't die without a second referendum, which is unlikely to take place, because it would be so laughable to vote on it twice.

What I hope dies is Boris Johnson's political career, because he's never anything else but a self-promoting career politician for whom the UK people matter f-all, he's all about making a career in politics for himself.

Hopefully the Tories stay behind May and this soft Brexit she has proposed will become reality.

Art Morte wrote:Brexit won't die without a second referendum, which is unlikely to take place, because it would be so laughable to vote on it twice.

What I hope dies is Boris Johnson's political career, because he's never anything else but a self-promoting career politician for whom the UK people matter f-all, he's all about making a career in politics for himself.

Hopefully the Tories stay behind May and this soft Brexit she has proposed will become reality.

tbh that could be said about every politician in the world.

Unique wrote:

Art Morte wrote:Brexit won't die without a second referendum, which is unlikely to take place, because it would be so laughable to vote on it twice.

What I hope dies is Boris Johnson's political career, because he's never anything else but a self-promoting career politician for whom the UK people matter f-all, he's all about making a career in politics for himself.

Hopefully the Tories stay behind May and this soft Brexit she has proposed will become reality.

tbh that could be said about every politician in the world.

Yeah but no. You subscribe into that sort of sceptical thinking and you might as well say that monarchy was better than democracy.

Art Morte wrote:

Unique wrote:

Art Morte wrote:Brexit won't die without a second referendum, which is unlikely to take place, because it would be so laughable to vote on it twice.

What I hope dies is Boris Johnson's political career, because he's never anything else but a self-promoting career politician for whom the UK people matter f-all, he's all about making a career in politics for himself.

Hopefully the Tories stay behind May and this soft Brexit she has proposed will become reality.

tbh that could be said about every politician in the world.

Yeah but no. You subscribe into that sort of sceptical thinking and you might as well say that monarchy was better than democracy.

all politicians come from well to do familys that were private schooled and dont live in the same world as 80% of the people. the things most people in the country worry about is jobs. housing. schooling and health care they dont have to worry about any of that. when rich people tell average/poor people how to live it never works out bad for the rich guys.

Unique wrote:

Art Morte wrote:

Unique wrote:
tbh that could be said about every politician in the world.

Yeah but no. You subscribe into that sort of sceptical thinking and you might as well say that monarchy was better than democracy.

all politicians come from well to do familys that were private schooled and dont live in the same world as 80% of the people. the things most people in the country worry about is jobs. housing. schooling and health care they dont have to worry about any of that. when rich people tell average/poor people how to live it never works out bad for the rich guys.

You know that anyone can run in elections, right? It's up to the people to vote the right candidates to power. You can't complain that "all politicians are rich kids" when in a proper democracy anyone can put themselves forward and it's the voters' responsibility to vote the good ones in.

If the ordinary people vote the Oxbridge guys in, it's not the fault of the Oxbridge guys, it's the fault of the voters if they don't think enough about their vote.

Art Morte wrote:Brexit won't die without a second referendum, which is unlikely to take place, because it would be so laughable to vote on it twice.

That's not a good enough reason not to hold a 2nd referendum. We're 1.5 years after article 50 was invoked and no progress whatsoever has been made. The people should vote on whether they really want a no-deal exit.

Art Morte wrote:

Unique wrote:

Art Morte wrote:


Yeah but no. You subscribe into that sort of sceptical thinking and you might as well say that monarchy was better than democracy.

all politicians come from well to do familys that were private schooled and dont live in the same world as 80% of the people. the things most people in the country worry about is jobs. housing. schooling and health care they dont have to worry about any of that. when rich people tell average/poor people how to live it never works out bad for the rich guys.

You know that anyone can run in elections, right? It's up to the people to vote the right candidates to power. You can't complain that "all politicians are rich kids" when in a proper democracy anyone can put themselves forward and it's the voters' responsibility to vote the good ones in.

If the ordinary people vote the Oxbridge guys in, it's not the fault of the Oxbridge guys, it's the fault of the voters if they don't think enough about their vote.

sure anyone can run in elections. the same way anyone can run in the marathon but only a few can win it.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

Art Morte wrote:Brexit won't die without a second referendum, which is unlikely to take place, because it would be so laughable to vote on it twice.

That's not a good enough reason not to hold a 2nd referendum. We're 1.5 years after article 50 was invoked and no progress whatsoever has been made. The people should vote on whether they really want a no-deal exit.

Becomes too complicated. You can't hold a referendum on "on a scale from 0 to 5, how hard a Brexit you'd like?"

A general election might take place, although I doubt it, but you cannot reduce parliament's role to holding referendums to narrow down exactly the sort of Brexit it should be.

Unique wrote:

Art Morte wrote:

Unique wrote:
all politicians come from well to do familys that were private schooled and dont live in the same world as 80% of the people. the things most people in the country worry about is jobs. housing. schooling and health care they dont have to worry about any of that. when rich people tell average/poor people how to live it never works out bad for the rich guys.

You know that anyone can run in elections, right? It's up to the people to vote the right candidates to power. You can't complain that "all politicians are rich kids" when in a proper democracy anyone can put themselves forward and it's the voters' responsibility to vote the good ones in.

If the ordinary people vote the Oxbridge guys in, it's not the fault of the Oxbridge guys, it's the fault of the voters if they don't think enough about their vote.

sure anyone can run in elections. the same way anyone can run in the marathon but only a few can win it.

Comparing democracy to a marathon = a strong argument? Okay, you believe in that, then.

That's not what the 2nd referedum question should be though, it should be a yes/no on the final deal agreed with the EU.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:That's not what the 2nd referedum question should be though, it should be a yes/no on the final deal agreed with the EU.

Still don't see how it could be justified. If the answer is 'no' what would happen? Remaining in the EU? The first ref was for nothing? Re-negotiating? Exactly what kind of a deal? No, for me, the whole idea of a 2nd referendum makes it too complicated and you wouldn't hear the end of it.

Art Morte wrote:

Unique wrote:

Art Morte wrote:


You know that anyone can run in elections, right? It's up to the people to vote the right candidates to power. You can't complain that "all politicians are rich kids" when in a proper democracy anyone can put themselves forward and it's the voters' responsibility to vote the good ones in.

If the ordinary people vote the Oxbridge guys in, it's not the fault of the Oxbridge guys, it's the fault of the voters if they don't think enough about their vote.

sure anyone can run in elections. the same way anyone can run in the marathon but only a few can win it.

Comparing democracy to a marathon = a strong argument? Okay, you believe in that, then.

come on man you have to know that a working class man/women has no chance of being PM.

It's too late now, but if you really think about it, it was utterly ridiculous to have that referendum without some qualifiers, like minimum participation, or margin of victory.

Torpedoing Britain's most important alliances in the world with like 51% of the vote, with a metric shit-ton of people claiming (idiotically, I admit) they just voted "leave" to f*ck with Cameron, is insane.

Art Morte wrote:

BarrileteCosmico wrote:That's not what the 2nd referedum question should be though, it should be a yes/no on the final deal agreed with the EU.

Still don't see how it could be justified. If the answer is 'no' what would happen? Remaining in the EU? The first ref was for nothing? Re-negotiating? Exactly what kind of a deal? No, for me, the whole idea of a 2nd referendum makes it too complicated and you wouldn't hear the end of it.

It's either accept or reject. No in betweens.

The justification is that the british public didn't know what they were going to get, a yes/no on the final deal makes complete sense given the lies told by both sides of the campaign last time around.

Unique wrote:

Art Morte wrote:

Unique wrote:
sure anyone can run in elections. the same way anyone can run in the marathon but only a few can win it.

Comparing democracy to a marathon = a strong argument? Okay, you believe in that, then.

come on man you have to know that a working class man/women has no chance of being PM.

Sorry, I simply cannot subscribe to that. In my country, Finland, there have been numerous "working class" people in the Parliament and are currently. The whole idea of democracy is that anyone can stand for election and it's up to the people to vote the right ones in. I do believe in that, even in the UK.

The people have to bear some responsibility, you cannot simply curse the politicians to hell because you don't like. In any properly functioning democracy it is the people who vote politicians into power or out of power.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:The justification is that the british public didn't know what they were going to get

I actually agree with this. Sure, it was dumb to believe them, but the Leavers did tell everyone and their mums that Britain would be able to leave the EU, but keep all of it's benefits, which is obviously a lie, and impossible.

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

Art Morte wrote:

BarrileteCosmico wrote:That's not what the 2nd referedum question should be though, it should be a yes/no on the final deal agreed with the EU.

Still don't see how it could be justified. If the answer is 'no' what would happen? Remaining in the EU? The first ref was for nothing? Re-negotiating? Exactly what kind of a deal? No, for me, the whole idea of a 2nd referendum makes it too complicated and you wouldn't hear the end of it.

It's either accept or reject. No in betweens.

The justification is that the british public didn't know what they were going to get, a yes/no on the final deal makes complete sense given the lies told by both sides of the campaign last time around.

No, that doesn't work. How could any negotiation team work if they knew the result was put up to a referendum? It's proving to be difficult enough for the UK to negotiate with a government behind the negotiations, but a referendum? "Errr, okay, maybe we can do this, maybe not, we'll see what a referendum says." You simply cannot negotiate a hugely complex deal like this with the end result put in the mercy of the people.

As far as I know, not even Labour - who are in a difficult situation themselves, because a lot of their voters are pro-Brexit - have been calling for a 2nd referendum. The way I see it, it simply cannot take place.

Art Morte wrote:

Unique wrote:

Art Morte wrote:


Comparing democracy to a marathon = a strong argument? Okay, you believe in that, then.

come on man you have to know that a working class man/women has no chance of being PM.

Sorry, I simply cannot subscribe to that. In my country, Finland, there have been numerous "working class" people in the Parliament and are currently. The whole idea of democracy is that anyone can stand for election and it's up to the people to vote the right ones in. I do believe in that, even in the UK.

The people have to bear some responsibility, you cannot simply curse the politicians to hell because you don't like. In any properly functioning democracy it is the people who vote politicians into power or out of power.

i agree with all of that but the sad thing is in britain that will never happen.

VivaStPauli wrote:

BarrileteCosmico wrote:The justification is that the british public didn't know what they were going to get

I actually agree with this. Sure, it was dumb to believe them, but the Leavers did tell everyone and their mums that Britain would be able to leave the EU, but keep all of it's benefits, which is obviously a lie, and impossible.

In a democracy it's ultimately the people's responsibility to know what they're voting for.

Art Morte wrote:

BarrileteCosmico wrote:

Art Morte wrote:

BarrileteCosmico wrote:That's not what the 2nd referedum question should be though, it should be a yes/no on the final deal agreed with the EU.

Still don't see how it could be justified. If the answer is 'no' what would happen? Remaining in the EU? The first ref was for nothing? Re-negotiating? Exactly what kind of a deal? No, for me, the whole idea of a 2nd referendum makes it too complicated and you wouldn't hear the end of it.

It's either accept or reject. No in betweens.

The justification is that the british public didn't know what they were going to get, a yes/no on the final deal makes complete sense given the lies told by both sides of the campaign last time around.

No, that doesn't work. How could any negotiation team work if they knew the result was put up to a referendum? It's proving to be difficult enough for the UK to negotiate with a government behind the negotiations, but a referendum? "Errr, okay, maybe we can do this, maybe not, we'll see what a referendum says." You simply cannot negotiate a hugely complex deal like this with the end result put in the mercy of the people.

As far as I know, not even Labour - who are in a difficult situation themselves, because a lot of their voters are pro-Brexit - have been calling for a 2nd referendum. The way I see it, it simply cannot take place.

The negotiating team should definitely operate under the belief that they should get the best, most reasonable deal they can because there's a good chance it will be what takes place. The referendum makes no difference as it's take it or leave it, the negotiations do not depend on a prospective referendum.

Art Morte wrote:

VivaStPauli wrote:

BarrileteCosmico wrote:The justification is that the british public didn't know what they were going to get

I actually agree with this. Sure, it was dumb to believe them, but the Leavers did tell everyone and their mums that Britain would be able to leave the EU, but keep all of it's benefits, which is obviously a lie, and impossible.

In a democracy it's ultimately the people's responsibility to know what they're voting for.

But it's not a direct democracy, it's a representative republic. The referendum was never binding and frankly the politicians should not be acting as cowards if they don't believe brexit is in their best interest (as many apparently do behind closed doors).

Art Morte wrote:

VivaStPauli wrote:

BarrileteCosmico wrote:The justification is that the british public didn't know what they were going to get

I actually agree with this. Sure, it was dumb to believe them, but the Leavers did tell everyone and their mums that Britain would be able to leave the EU, but keep all of it's benefits, which is obviously a lie, and impossible.

In a democracy it's ultimately the people's responsibility to know what they're voting for.

but democracy means you get to vote for this guy or that guy. not the guy you want. america had to pick trump or clinton. they picked trump they saw him as the best bet out of 2 people that had a chance of winning. sometimes it looks like you are the one that choses your government when in reality your government has been chosen for you. you dont get to say i want this guy to run the country they tell you to pick witch one of these do you want to be your government. its not the same thing. well not in the USA and britain anyway.

Unique wrote:

Art Morte wrote:

VivaStPauli wrote:

I actually agree with this. Sure, it was dumb to believe them, but the Leavers did tell everyone and their mums that Britain would be able to leave the EU, but keep all of it's benefits, which is obviously a lie, and impossible.

In a democracy it's ultimately the people's responsibility to know what they're voting for.

but democracy means you get to vote for this guy or that guy. not the guy you want. america had to pick trump or clinton. they picked trump they saw him as the best bet out of 2 people that had a chance of winning. sometimes it looks like you are the one that choses your government when in reality your government has been chosen for you. you dont get to say i want this guy to run the country they tell you to pick witch one of these do you want to be your government. its not the same thing. well not in the USA and britain anyway.

Even though I think both the US and the UK could really do with more political parties, in your example both Trump and Clinton were voted into the final race in primaries. I agree, Trump vs Clinton was a very polarising election, but they were chosen from several previous options.

the way it works now is like this and i know you dont like these analogies but here goes. if i invite you round for dinner and i ask you what you want to eat then you truly have a choice. but if i invite you round for dinner and tell you to choose between fish or beef in theory you have made a choice. but in reality i have already made the choice for you.

Well how about you make me whatever you want while I have your wife, would that make you feel better about democracy?