U.K. Politics: Gary Lineker v the BBC

[jio]

Your politicians are currently your only enemy. They hold the whole UK a hostage to EU and the people of UK because they haven't been able to work out the deal in 3 years.

And I am not from or in the UK btw. I am a non-British EU citizen. But if that means that my english are so good that you thought I am British thank you for the compliment even if it's not true

[AlphaMale]

Sure but would it be more or less than what we have to pay?

I don't understand your question...

[jio]

I don't understand your question...

I mean the UK will pay to leave. We (meaning Portugal/Greece/Cyprus/Ireland) will be essentially paying back the huge debts we amassed in order not to be kicked out. Plus we will have to bring our debt down to 60% of gdp because we are in the Eurozone which basically means that for years a huge chunk of our income will be going to re-paying northern Europe. That means that our living standards are likely to not grow as fast as other richer countries. This is the cost for staying.

[Wayne]

[MENTION=23671]jio[/MENTION] my dear - please change your avatar to one that meets the system requirements of 150 x 150 pixels.

[AlphaMale]

True! [MENTION=23671]jio[/MENTION]

[beredy]

[MENTION=23671]jio[/MENTION] why would I ask? I usually never ask if the other parties aren't willing to disclose or elaborate by themselves. I don't want to waste time forcing a conversation where there isn't one. And it's not about your English skills. I assumed you were from the UK based on your opinions.

[jio]

[MENTION=23671]jio[/MENTION] my dear - please change your avatar to one that meets the system requirements of 150 x 150 pixels.

How do I do that???

[jio]

[MENTION=23671]jio[/MENTION] why would I ask? I usually never ask if the other parties aren't willing to disclose or elaborate by themselves. I don't want to waste time forcing a conversation where there isn't one. And it's not about your English skills. I assumed you were from the UK based on your opinions.

Because I always assume that opinions which are not close to ours are more interesting. But that's just me...

[beredy]

How do I do that???

Unless you figure it out by April 12th, [MENTION=11323]Wayne[/MENTION] is gonna do it for you and you get what you get (probably Celine).

[Wayne]

How do I do that???

The same way you uploaded one? Lol.

Settings > Edit Avatar

Websites like Pic Resize or Be Funky have a resize tool or feel free to use one of the preset avatars on the avatar page.

[jio]

Unless you figure it out by April 12th, [MENTION=11323]Wayne[/MENTION] is gonna do it for you and you get what you get (probably Celine).

Oh no... so I will do it within the next few days then but not today pls

[Wayne]

Oh no... so I will do it within the next few days then but not today pls

Do it today please.

Or I can upload one for you?

[Parkelife]

The UK is definitely leaving the EU, with or without a deal.

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.

Department for Exiting the European Union.

[Kpop]

The UK is definitely leaving the EU, with or without a deal.

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 GovernmentÂ’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.

Department for Exiting the European Union.

The result of the 2017 G.E was not indicitive of support for Brexit; although that was the reason the Maybot called it. The result was if anything the opposite of what the hapless Maybot desired because the Conservatives lost their majority. She then had to shake the magic money tree and bung 1 billion pounds to the DUP to prop up her Government. If she had not called the G.E the Maybot would have had a majority Government to help push her deal through by now. Look at the liar Jacob Rees-Mogg who has said he is prepared to back the Maybot's deal if the DUP does. And this is from the man who said that the Maybot's deal would turn the UK into a "Slave state" and that her deal is worse than staying in the EU.

https://www.thejournal.ie/british-pr...46391-Apr2017/

[Artoo]

So the online petition will be debated in parliament on April’s Fools Day

[heppolo]

So the online petition will be debated in parliament on April’s Fools Day

I wonder how many from Gibraltar has signed it

[jio]

An online petition cannot possibly overturn a referendum (unless you are Greece of course)...

[beredy]

An online petition cannot possibly overturn a referendum (unless you are Greece of course)...

Except referendum on Brexit wasn't legally binding to begin with. What is binding is Article 50 which UK politicians voted for and nobody put a gun to their head to do it. The referendum was just a more official version of an online petition.

[jio]

Except referendum on Brexit wasn't legally binding to begin with. What is binding is Article 50 which UK politicians voted for and nobody put a gun to their head to do it. The referendum was just a more official version of an online petition.

Sure. Also an online petition could overturn a referendum if the parliament decides so in the narrow legal sense but I mean it would be democratically awkward and raise all kinds of questions in the future (similar to what the future will say about the EU-Turkey agreement or about Greece's latest bailout I suppose) and nobody should be supporting such moves IMO. A referendum can be overturned legitimately only by another referendum but that's not an option right now. Also I have to say that it's also awkward and wrong IMO for parliament to take over executive responsibilities because it goes against the separation of powers in a democratic society.

Bottom line of all this is that in the EU we have reached a point that no further integration as usual is possible without hurting democracy and thus jeopardizing the whole European unity dream. That's my point all along

[beredy]

You're mixing so many things. Just because there's an idea of a perfect democratic society, doesn't mean that the actual realization of it is perfect. And every democratic society is different.

UK has a system which you might like or not. In UK it is not the truth that a referendum can be only overturned by another referendum as referendum in the UK is not legally, politically or in any other way binding to begin with. No matter what the result of the referendum in the UK is, the Government and the Parliament can still do it the way they want to. So if they decide to revoke Article 50 and stay in the EU, they don't need another referendum. They didn't need the referendum to vote for Article 50 and Brexit to begin with. It was just an excuse to push a narrative that people chose it, but the seeds have been sown by British politicians for Euro skepticism long time ago. It just so happened that the tides have been perfect for getting the majority on leave EU at that point in time.

It's funny that you end up concluding EU is hurting the democracy, when in actuality it's closer to the ideal concept of democracy than UK is (and some other member countries).

[jio]

But you are talking legalities and you are right. But you have to remember that laws are there to serve a purpose and in a democracy the purpose is to serve the will of the people. The thing with referendums is that there is no other instrument where the will of the people is expressed so clearly so yes it might be legally possible to ignore it but it's absolutely not democratically possible to ignore. The only example I know where a referendum was completely ignored as if it never happened was in Greece and that move damaged whatever respect had been left for the rule of law and democracy in the country. You can argue (and I would agree with you) that lots of times is counterproductive to call referendums but once you call it you have to respect it no matter what the law says.

The EU itself is not based on the idea of democracy at all. It's based on a very different concept that has been tried many times in history and always failed. The concept is that of a scientifically educated logically-thinking elite benefiting governments by reducing their natural affection to populism. It's basically elitism. In EU institutions there is not any basic characteristic of a democratic society present (and I can explain to you why if you want although it ain't that easy). Despite that an ever closer union could lead to democratic reforms on the EU level but that has not happened so far.

[heppolo]

But you are talking legalities and you are right. But you have to remember that laws are there to serve a purpose and in a democracy the purpose is to serve the will of the people. The thing with referendums is that there is no other instrument where the will of the people is expressed so clearly so yes it might be legally possible to ignore it but it's absolutely not democratically possible to ignore. The only example I know where a referendum was completely ignored as if it never happened was in Greece and that move damaged whatever respect had been left for the rule of law and democracy in the country. You can argue (and I would agree with you) that lots of times is counterproductive to call referendums but once you call it you have to respect it no matter what the law says.

The EU itself is not based on the idea of democracy at all. It's based on a very different concept that has been tried many times in history and always failed. The concept is that of a scientifically educated logically-thinking elite benefiting governments by reducing their natural affection to populism. It's basically elitism. In EU institutions there is not any basic characteristic of a democratic society present (and I can explain to you why if you want although it ain't that easy). Despite that an ever closer union could lead to democratic reforms on the EU level but that has not happened so far.

In March, 1991 a referendum in 9 of 15 Soviet Union states showed 77% support for keeping it as a sovereign federation of republics.
However, till the end of 1991 in each of those republics there were new independence referendums which showed overwhelming support for the independence.
This meant that during one year people voted overwhelmingly for two contrary issues.

Referendums is a nice tool but those can be framed (question-wise) and hijacked by populists and extemists who may look and sound convincing at first glance even more than the general elections ever since the choice is binary most of the time.

[jio]

Thank you for that example that I didn't know heppolo and I do agree with your point (I did say you could argue it's counterproductive...) However I insist referendums should not be ignored no matter what the reasons people voted as they did because then you make a mockery of democracy and that's somewhere nobody should be going.

That said in the case of the UK that argument (hijacked by populists) is rather thin since the UK was historically ambivalent towards EU membership. Also I have a problem with the term "populist" itself as it is given freely to whoever is against the EU without examining if their arguments are valid or not. It's as if we consider the EU the new gospel or something and is above criticism lol.

[Kpop]

But you are talking legalities and you are right. But you have to remember that laws are there to serve a purpose and in a democracy the purpose is to serve the will of the people. The thing with referendums is that there is no other instrument where the will of the people is expressed so clearly so yes it might be legally possible to ignore it but it's absolutely not democratically possible to ignore. The only example I know where a referendum was completely ignored as if it never happened was in Greece and that move damaged whatever respect had been left for the rule of law and democracy in the country. You can argue (and I would agree with you) that lots of times is counterproductive to call referendums but once you call it you have to respect it no matter what the law says.

The EU itself is not based on the idea of democracy at all. It's based on a very different concept that has been tried many times in history and always failed. The concept is that of a scientifically educated logically-thinking elite benefiting governments by reducing their natural affection to populism. It's basically elitism. In EU institutions there is not any basic characteristic of a democratic society present (and I can explain to you why if you want although it ain't that easy). Despite that an ever closer union could lead to democratic reforms on the EU level but that has not happened so far.

Let's get things clear: the result of the 2016 Referendum has not been ignored. The Government has twice tried to get it through and failed miserably. But try it did. Parliament is sovereign despite what the right wing media and lying Brexiteers said. A MP's duty is to act in the best interests of their constituency. That's why the Maybot's deal has not passed: it's a rubbish deal and therefore not in the interests of the UK.

Although the 2016 Ref was not legally binding which was a deliberate decision, a 2nd Ref could be made legally binding.

[jio]

But the referendum did not come in support of Maybot's deal. It supported Brexit. So if Maybot's deal is crap then throw it away and come up with something else but respect Brexit which is the will of the people. Doing endless referendums until we get the result we want (under coercion that is since the only reason people might be voting differently is fear about their future) may be the EU way but it also makes a mockery of democracy.