Court Ruling Goes Against Johnson

[andyofborg]

9 minutes ago, Waldo said:

I'm ****** that some MP's (looking at you Lib Dems) are set on overturning the referendum result. While it seems there is no legal basis for my grievence; it still feels very wrong to me, and does not match up well with what my (albeit uneducated in such matters) mind considers Democracy means.

they are quite open about this policy (and it's not one i particularly agree with) and it can only be enacted if they are in a position to form a majority government, which means an awful lot of people will have to vote for them. 

 

democracy must include the right to change your mind, if it didn't then the 2016 referendum wouldn't have happened. 

 

[Top Cats Hat]

1 minute ago, Waldo said:

Please feel free to continue misrepresenting me as a Brexiteer.

You self-define yourself as a Brexiteer by supporting the UK leaving the EU. 

 

No misrepresentation on my part.

[Waldo]

8 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

You self-define yourself as a Brexiteer by supporting the UK leaving the EU. 

 

No misrepresentation on my part.

I think you need more granularity though, it's not a simple affair.

 

For example, a person (a) can think leaving the EU is a very bad idea; but that we should follow the expressed will of the people (result of the referendum).

 

Such an individual is very different to someone (b) who thinks leaving the EU is a good idea.

 

I would not consider the former (a) to be a Brexiteer. The later (b) I would very much consider a Brexiteer.

 

Also, if someone is a Brexiteer; I would not lump them together with all other Brexiteers and label them all thick en' mass, or think they have no legitimate points etc. I would hope to listen to and consider the merit of each point on it's indivudual merit.

Edited September 24, 2019 by Waldo

[Top Cats Hat]

2 minutes ago, Waldo said:

For example, a person (a) can think leaving the EU is a very bad idea; but that we should follow the expressed will of the people (result of the referendum)..

The 2016 obliged nobody to do anything.

 

Thinking that leaving that the UK should leave the EU is a bad idea but should still  be pursued because of an out of date, largely discredited referendum which does not reflect the wishes of UK citizens in late 2019, is exactly the kind of confused thinking I am talking about.

[tinfoilhat]

2 hours ago, makapaka said:

He should resign - but he probably won’t.

He's going to double down. If caught lying, keep lying, them blame everyone else, preferably foreigners.

 

He won't take any responsibility.

[tinfoilhat]

1 hour ago, Waldo said:

 

It's a throwaway BS statement that lumps all Brexiteers together, and suggests they have no possible valid or legitimate points.

 

No, no, no you can't have that one I'm afraid. You brexitèers are always lumping 17.4m as a solid immovable mass that spoke as one. Now the fruitcakes are really coming youre going to have to stick together and own it.

[Waldo]

25 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

The 2016 obliged nobody to do anything.

 

Thinking that leaving that the UK should leave the EU is a bad idea but should still  be pursued because of an out of date, largely discredited referendum which does not reflect the wishes of UK citizens in late 2019, is exactly the kind of confused thinking I am talking about.

You raise an interesting philosophical point for reflection, Top Cats Hat.

 

What do you (anyone) place more value on ... pragmatism or principles?

 

5 minutes ago, CaptainSwing said:

You mean in that badly designed opinion poll that we had in 2016?  [Any first year Stats student would have failed their Survey Methods course if they'd come up with that as a method for determining the majority opinion.]

 

Even if 49/51 was a true reflection, it's hardly "the will of the people", is it?  More like the will of slightly more than half of the people.

 

Incidentally, all this "will of the people" talk is in fact channelling fascist ideology*, and should have gone out with Giovanni Gentile.

 

*Unwittingly for most people (I assume), which makes it worse.

It was just a question. I can't remember what the exact split was, but IIRC, it was closer to 49/51 than 50/50.

 

Also, I'm curious, what how big a % majority would you deem necessary for the outcome to be considered the "will of the people"? (oops, there I go again).

Edited September 24, 2019 by Waldo

[RJRB]

5 minutes ago, Waldo said:

You raise an interesting philosophical point for reflection, Top Cats Hat.

 

What do you (anyone) place more value on ... pragmatism or principles?

I think it’s obvious that our elected representatives have largely gone for pragmatism.

Whether this is for the good of the country or for their own political futures is a reasonable question.

I suspect that most of us at some time have had to choose the pragmatic option.

[tinfoilhat]

13 minutes ago, Waldo said:

You raise an interesting philosophical point for reflection, Top Cats Hat.

 

What do you (anyone) place more value on ... pragmatism or principles?

 

 

That's a good question. Principles are alright when you're messing about with other peoples lives from a place of safety.

 

It's also interesting you talk about principles where the prime minister and several cabinet members have been caught lying to the queen.

[Top Cats Hat]

14 minutes ago, Waldo said:

Also, I'm curious, what how big a % majority would you deem necessary for the outcome to be considered the "will of the people"? (oops, there I go again).

At a very minimum it would have to be at least 50% of the electorate.

 

I would go further and say 50% of all those over 16. If you can work, get married, pay tax and have sex you should certainly have a democratic say in the running of the country.