snap general election?

rick_chasey

FocusZing wrote:

No! People had long enough to decide good or bad, you can't keep changing the boundaries till you get the answer you want.

So why after the original European vote in the '70s do we have another?

rolf_f

Rick Chasey wrote:

What?

A vote on the outcome of Brexit negotiations is a failure of democracy? How does that work?

Because the definition of democracy is that once you've voted for something, and the outcome is that which you desired, nobody should ever again be given the opportunity to vote again on that subject.

A sub clause to that definition is of course that once you've voted for something, and the outcome is not that which you desired, you should be repeatedly given the opportunity to vote again on that subject.

Really Rick, I'm surprised at your limited understanding of democracy.......

FocusZing

Because that option was available as part of the contract.

milton50

Jez mon wrote:

Also how is another vote somehow failing democracy, a vote on the end deal seems entirely sensible

Does anyone know what the legal position is at the end of the two years with regards to having to re-apply?

Because as I understand it any vote at the end of the two years would be between having no deal at all or re-applying to join the EU and accepting the Euro etc.

kingstongraham

Milton50 wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Also how is another vote somehow failing democracy, a vote on the end deal seems entirely sensible

Does anyone know what the legal position is at the end of the two years with regards to having to re-apply?

Because as I understand it any vote at the end of the two years would be between having no deal at all or re-applying to join the EU and accepting the Euro etc.

From the Greece experience, it is clear that all the rules are unyielding and cannot be broken, except when there is a benefit to the EU in them being flexible.

Jez mon

KingstonGraham wrote:

Milton50 wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Also how is another vote somehow failing democracy, a vote on the end deal seems entirely sensible

Does anyone know what the legal position is at the end of the two years with regards to having to re-apply?

Because as I understand it any vote at the end of the two years would be between having no deal at all or re-applying to join the EU and accepting the Euro etc.

From the Greece experience, it is clear that all the rules are unyielding and cannot be broken, except when there is a benefit to the EU in them being flexible.

Yea, I think within reason, the EU may budge and let us back in*

*Although if we continue on the hard line negotiating position this may change...

I do realise there are some problems with this approach, but calling a second vote an outright failure of democracy seems bizzare

FocusZing

What about the Scotland independence vote!? Should that have been retaken straight away!?

FocusZing

Jez mon wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

Milton50 wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Also how is another vote somehow failing democracy, a vote on the end deal seems entirely sensible

Does anyone know what the legal position is at the end of the two years with regards to having to re-apply?

Because as I understand it any vote at the end of the two years would be between having no deal at all or re-applying to join the EU and accepting the Euro etc.

From the Greece experience, it is clear that all the rules are unyielding and cannot be broken, except when there is a benefit to the EU in them being flexible.

Yea, I think within reason, the EU may budge and let us back in*

*Although if we continue on the hard line negotiating position this may change...

I do realise there are some problems with this approach, but calling a second vote an outright failure of democracy seems bizzare

That's obvious, how many time do you retake it? If Corbyn wins do we do the election again because the banks empty?

kingstongraham

FocusZing wrote:

What about the Scotland independence vote!? Should that have been retaken straight away!?

No, but I don't see a problem with it being asked again if circumstances change which causes a shift in public opinion.

This is if you are going to have referenda to decide these things.

coopster_the_1st

Rick Chasey wrote:

If anything, given how most of the electorate feel they were misled about what Brexit would mean, surely a vote on the outcome would be welcome by Brexiters?

Surely the people having a say on what it looks like is important?

Why are Brexiters so worried about that?

The Brexiters are not worried.

They know that had the result been remain that there would be no chance that the remain camp would be calling for another referendum to check that the 'country made the correct decision'.

If there was to be a vote on the outcome of the negotiations, the options should be 'leave on WTO terms' or 'accept the negotiation'. I'm sure you would support that second referendum question :roll:

I trust the parliament can take the above decision as the important question has already been answered.

veronese68

Stevo 666 wrote:

FocusZing wrote:

^Hey!? Hardly a comparable!

It's a legitimate question, who would you prefer?

Yep, easy question. Give it a try Rick, its not a trick question like some political types try to pull

May or Corbyn?

He answered two posts above that post.

Rick Chasey wrote:

FocusZing wrote:

^Hey!? Hardly a comparable!

It's a legitimate question, who would you prefer?

They're both Brexiters.

Corbyn wouldn't be able to do much and might get a softer Brexit.

May is a parochial little englander who can't foster relationships and will fall into a hard Brexit because of her inability to lead beyond her narrow little England remit. In reality she'd be as bad as Corbyn on the economy because he wouldn't be able to do much harm as his party wouldn't let him.

They're both as bad as each other. It's a travesty that they are the likeliest two leaders.

I'd probably side Corbyn but only on the premise he wouldn't be able to do much, and there are more people within his party who I would support than in the Tories.

FocusZing

KingstonGraham wrote:

FocusZing wrote:

What about the Scotland independence vote!? Should that have been retaken straight away!?

No, but I don't see a problem with it being asked again if circumstances change which causes a shift in public opinion.

This is if you are going to have referenda to decide these things.

Isn't that just decision making, circumstances will inherently always change. If you keep flipping direction every minute nothing would get done.

kingstongraham

Coopster the 1st wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

If anything, given how most of the electorate feel they were misled about what Brexit would mean, surely a vote on the outcome would be welcome by Brexiters?

Surely the people having a say on what it looks like is important?

Why are Brexiters so worried about that?

The Brexiters are not worried.

They know that had the result been remain that there would be no chance that the remain camp would be calling for another referendum to check that the 'country made the correct decision'.

If there was to be a vote on the outcome of the negotiations, the options should be 'leave on WTO terms' or 'accept the negotiation'. I'm sure you would support that second referendum question :roll:

I trust the parliament can take the above decision as the important question has already been answered.

Sure, if that's what's on offer.

Jez mon

FocusZing wrote:

KingstonGraham wrote:

FocusZing wrote:

What about the Scotland independence vote!? Should that have been retaken straight away!?

No, but I don't see a problem with it being asked again if circumstances change which causes a shift in public opinion.

This is if you are going to have referenda to decide these things.

Isn't that just decision making, circumstances will inherently always change. If you keep flipping direction every minute nothing would get done.

Isn't there a balance to be made? We are allowed to change government every 5 years, even sooner if we have a strong and stable leader.

We voted on a situation when a number of people thought we were gonna give x amount of money to the NHS, and a number of leading members of the Out movement claimed we were gonna stay in the single market. These circumstances have now changed.

Making a decision and ploughing on with it when it's clearly the wrong decision is really not a good way of leading IMO.

veronese68

Coopster the 1st wrote:

The Brexiters are not worried.

They know that had the result been remain that there would be no chance that the remain camp would be calling for another referendum to check that the 'country made the correct decision'.

So when Farage said before the referendum that if the vote was close and only a few percent either way there would be unfinished business and he would carry on campaigning you obviously thought he was wrong. The petition for a second referendum was started by a leave campaigner that thought they would lose. So get off your high horse for a change the altitude appears to be going to your head.

coopster_the_1st

Veronese68 wrote:

Coopster the 1st wrote:

The Brexiters are not worried.

They know that had the result been remain that there would be no chance that the remain camp would be calling for another referendum to check that the 'country made the correct decision'.

So when Farage said before the referendum that if the vote was close and only a few percent either way there would be unfinished business and he would carry on campaigning you obviously thought he was wrong. The petition for a second referendum was started by a leave campaigner that thought they would lose. So get off your high horse for a change the altitude appears to be going to your head.

I'm sure future election results would have indicated the electorates feeling for having a second referendum.

Oh look, we are having a national election today. The party calling for a second referendum may not gain any additional seats and there is a chance their party leader will not get re-elected.

Demonstrates how the country feels towards a second referendum. Suck it up!

surrey_commuter

Good to see Wetherspoons has Wifi

Can somebody explain what the point of a vote on the outcome of the negotiations?

I am in the camp that Corbyn would do less damage because he would not be able to enact his craziest ideas.

I would quite like May to be forced out but not sure who I would want in her place - maybe Hammond

mr_goo

Spoke to my mother this morning who was about to go off to the polling station in Bournemouth. Said she was putting a tick in the Blue box as she didn't want the Communists getting in. Daft old codger.
But does beg the question of the olduns. Do they vote Tory because they still feel that Labour are tainted by the Hammer and Sickle times of the Wilson era.

FocusZing

I don't think so because of new Labour. People may vote against Corbyns old 70s style Labour though due to memories.

Jez mon

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Good to see Wetherspoons has Wifi

Can somebody explain what the point of a vote on the outcome of the negotiations?

I am in the camp that Corbyn would do less damage because he would not be able to enact his craziest ideas.

I would quite like May to be forced out but not sure who I would want in her place - maybe Hammond

To allow the populace to make a decision on our EU relationship based on facts rather than the posturing of BoJo/Gove/Farage?

Within the Tory party I'm not sure who offers a better option than May, it feels like the (slightly) more progressive end that Cameron/Osborne fronted has totally disappeared.

bompington

Mr Goo wrote:

Spoke to my mother this morning who was about to go off to the polling station in Bournemouth. Said she was putting a tick in the Blue box as she didn't want the Communists getting in. Daft old codger.
But does beg the question of the olduns. Do they vote Tory because they still feel that Labour are tainted by the Hammer and Sickle times of the Wilson era.

Well, sidekick McDonnell has actually been pictured happily standing with hammer-and-sickle waving Stalinists at rallies. I don't think Wilson, for all his faults, was as left-wing as that...

Stevo_666

Veronese68 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

FocusZing wrote:

^Hey!? Hardly a comparable!

It's a legitimate question, who would you prefer?

Yep, easy question. Give it a try Rick, its not a trick question like some political types try to pull

May or Corbyn?

He answered two posts above that post.

Rick Chasey wrote:

FocusZing wrote:

^Hey!? Hardly a comparable!

It's a legitimate question, who would you prefer?

They're both Brexiters.

Corbyn wouldn't be able to do much and might get a softer Brexit.

May is a parochial little englander who can't foster relationships and will fall into a hard Brexit because of her inability to lead beyond her narrow little England remit. In reality she'd be as bad as Corbyn on the economy because he wouldn't be able to do much harm as his party wouldn't let him.

They're both as bad as each other. It's a travesty that they are the likeliest two leaders.

I'd probably side Corbyn but only on the premise he wouldn't be able to do much, and there are more people within his party who I would support than in the Tories.

So he has. Well waddaya know - Rick is a leftie

Wrong answer as well

Stevo_666

Mr Goo wrote:

Spoke to my mother this morning who was about to go off to the polling station in Bournemouth. Said she was putting a tick in the Blue box as she didn't want the Communists getting in. Daft old codger.
But does beg the question of the olduns. Do they vote Tory because they still feel that Labour are tainted by the Hammer and Sickle times of the Wilson era.

Your mother has a point given the true political colours of Corbyn and McDonnell.

surrey_commuter

Jez mon wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Good to see Wetherspoons has Wifi

Can somebody explain what the point of a vote on the outcome of the negotiations?

I am in the camp that Corbyn would do less damage because he would not be able to enact his craziest ideas.

I would quite like May to be forced out but not sure who I would want in her place - maybe Hammond

To allow the populace to make a decision on our EU relationship based on facts rather than the posturing of BoJo/Gove/Farage?

Within the Tory party I'm not sure who offers a better option than May, it feels like the (slightly) more progressive end that Cameron/Osborne fronted has totally disappeared.

But it would be too late. The vote would be on a bad deal or no deal. There is now way the EU would just let us rejoin and risk it sttarting again in six month. Surely they would make us sign up for 10-20 years with an equation fixed for the Brexit bill.

This also applies to a Parliamentary vote

ben@31

Mr Goo wrote:

Spoke to my mother this morning who was about to go off to the polling station in Bournemouth. Said she was putting a tick in the Blue box as she didn't want the Communists getting in. Daft old codger.
But does beg the question of the olduns. Do they vote Tory because they still feel that Labour are tainted by the Hammer and Sickle times of the Wilson era.

Stevo_666

ben@31 wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Spoke to my mother this morning who was about to go off to the polling station in Bournemouth. Said she was putting a tick in the Blue box as she didn't want the Communists getting in. Daft old codger.
But does beg the question of the olduns. Do they vote Tory because they still feel that Labour are tainted by the Hammer and Sickle times of the Wilson era.

RichN95.

bompington wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Spoke to my mother this morning who was about to go off to the polling station in Bournemouth. Said she was putting a tick in the Blue box as she didn't want the Communists getting in. Daft old codger.
But does beg the question of the olduns. Do they vote Tory because they still feel that Labour are tainted by the Hammer and Sickle times of the Wilson era.

Well, sidekick McDonnell has actually been pictured happily standing with hammer-and-sickle waving Stalinists at rallies. I don't think Wilson, for all his faults, was as left-wing as that...

Yes, Corbyn and McDonnell were part of the hard left minority of the Labour party that tried to overthrow the Foot/Healey leadership in the early 80s.

I also think people will wonder if a person who has avoided taking any political job of responsibility beyond back bench MP in 32 years in the House is the best person to lead a country. (Not that May will be any good either, but at least she has a grasp on how things work)

(I voted for neither btw)

mamba80

i dont want to p1ss on your fire but that stalin pic looks like a very badly done cut n paste, is it?

mamba80

RichN95 wrote:

bompington wrote:

Mr Goo wrote:

Spoke to my mother this morning who was about to go off to the polling station in Bournemouth. Said she was putting a tick in the Blue box as she didn't want the Communists getting in. Daft old codger.
But does beg the question of the olduns. Do they vote Tory because they still feel that Labour are tainted by the Hammer and Sickle times of the Wilson era.

Well, sidekick McDonnell has actually been pictured happily standing with hammer-and-sickle waving Stalinists at rallies. I don't think Wilson, for all his faults, was as left-wing as that...

Yes, Corbyn and McDonnell were part of the hard left minority of the Labour party that tried to overthrow the Foot/Healey leadership in the early 80s.

I also think people will wonder if a person who has avoided taking any political job of responsibility beyond back bench MP in 32 years in the House is the best person to lead a country. (Not that May will be any good either, but at least she has a grasp on how things work)

(I voted for neither btw)

May hasnt a grasp on anything, her party or her manifesto, i m not sure that sticking with the same old ways of doing things has particularly helped the UK.

RichN95.

mamba80 wrote:

i dont want to p1ss on your fire but that stalin pic looks like a very badly done cut n paste, is it?

No, it's an insert. It's taken from another picture at the same rally.