Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Rotation Advertisements



We hope you enjoy your visit to this forum.


If you are reading this then it means you are currently browsing the forum as a guest, we don’t limit any of the content posted from guests however if you join, you will have the ability to join the discussions! We are always happy to see new faces at this forum and we would like to hear your opinion, so why not register now? It doesn’t take long and you can get posting right away.


Click here to Register!

If you are having difficulties validating your account please email us at admin@dbzf.co.uk


If you're already a member please log in to your account:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3
So we don't really have a government right now?
Topic Started: Jun 26 2016, 04:26 PM (1,311 Views)
* Yu Narukami
Default Avatar
Izanagi!

Hopefully Parliament will see some sense and ignore the referendum. They've got advisors and experts to consult about what a post-Brexit UK would look like and, unlike a lot of the Leave campaign, will listen to them.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
+ Pelador
Member Avatar
Crazy Awesome Legend

They can't ignore the referendum nor should they. That would be wholly undemocratic. We had a vote and people need to accept the result. It's not the same as what I suggested where they give it some time to really assess what kind of damage it might do. Because there is a chance the brexiters were correct and things could turn out better in the long term. If things get really bad with no sign of recovery then I think we should consider renegotiations.


Posted Image

http://www.youtube.com/user/jonjits
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
* Yu Narukami
Default Avatar
Izanagi!

Pelador
Jun 27 2016, 06:54 PM
They can't ignore the referendum nor should they. That would be wholly undemocratic. We had a vote and people need to accept the result. It's not the same as what I suggested where they give it some time to really assess what kind of damage it might do. Because there is a chance the brexiters were correct and things could turn out better in the long term. If things get really bad with no sign of recovery then I think we should consider renegotiations.
It was an advisory referendum, so they've got no legal obligation to follow it.

The best thing for them to do would be to debate the issue thoroughly, gather a portfolio of evidence and then present it to the House. Then they have a vote and see how it goes.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
+ Sandy Shore
Default Avatar


Everyone was told that the referendum means in or out; the issue was debated thoroughly, and the the people voted out.

Giving the finger to democracy really isn't something you should be advocating just because you didn't get the result you wanted. I'd say the same if it were the other way around.

I get the negativity, but the near hysteria is a little much. Suddenly England is going to be left all alone, with no allies, and in two warring halves; the old will be massacred by the young; and the economy will be irreparable.

To be fair, though, the old are going to die soon, anyway. No worries there.

Darkness Flame
 
If you knew what my friend has been showing me you'd see why I'm worried for the worst.
Armageddon. Come, armageddon. Come, armageddon - come!
Edited by Sandy Shore, Jun 27 2016, 07:07 PM.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
+ Pelador
Member Avatar
Crazy Awesome Legend

But they need to give it time. It's much too soon to judge if it was a truly terrible decision.


Posted Image

http://www.youtube.com/user/jonjits
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
* Yu Narukami
Default Avatar
Izanagi!

Pelador
Jun 27 2016, 07:06 PM
But they need to give it time. It's much too soon to judge if it was a truly terrible decision.
Yeah, we'll give it time and, if it was a terrible decision, we'll join back up with the EU (if they'll let us), accepting the Euro, being part of the Schengen Zone and paying in just to have access to the Single Market.

I mean, the vast majority of experts were against Brexit and said that it would likely have negative effects on the British Economy and public

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/may/28/economists-reject-brexit-boost-cameron

This whole referendum was entirely mismanaged. For such an important decision, is breaking 50% really the bar we want to set? Personally, I think that a Supermajority should've been required for a result to be reached, but that may just be me.

Also, there's no plan at the moment for Brexit. Cameron really screwed the pooch, but he's royally ****ed over whoever's coming after him.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
+ Sandy Shore
Default Avatar


Nagito Komaeda
Jun 27 2016, 07:17 PM
Yeah, we'll give it time and, if it was a terrible decision, we'll join back up with the EU (if they'll let us), accepting the Euro, being part of the Schengen Zone and paying in just to have access to the Single Market.
Then I guess the UK will just have to do everything it can to make leaving work.

Quote:
 
I mean, the vast majority of experts were against Brexit and said that it would likely have negative effects on the British Economy and public
Negative effects on the economy were predicted, and negative effects have occurred, yes. It doesn't mean this is the end of the UK, or that it couldn't be an opportunity in the long run. Some predicted that the pound could fall by as much as 30%, but so far it's stopped short of 10.

Sure, there were and are negatives to leaving, but plenty of people saw negatives in staying. The majority, as it were.

Quote:
 
This whole referendum was entirely mismanaged. For such an important decision, is breaking 50% really the bar we want to set? Personally, I think that a Supermajority should've been required for a result to be reached, but that may just be me.
It was mismanaged because you didn't get the result you wanted, right? The Remain camp had much more going for it. Especially fear and the status quo.

I'm sure most people in favour of remain were pretty damn confident it was going to go their way.

Also, demanding a supermajority would have meant that if either side fail to reach that then the Remain camp would have won automatically. You can't rightly call that democratic.

Quote:
 
Cameron really screwed the pooch, but he's royally ****ed over whoever's coming after him.
Yes, Dave is being a prick.

Edit:- he's not being a prick, he is a prick.
Edited by Sandy Shore, Jun 27 2016, 07:50 PM.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Copy_Ninja
Member Avatar
Novacane for the pain

I do get Cameron's logic in the sense that he openly advocated to stay so he's not really the right person to negotiate the process. But he maintained that he'd trigger article 50 shortly after the referendum, now he's saying he won't do it and leave it to the next PM, who won't be in office for a few months? That just leaves everyone in limbo and create even more uncertainty during a process that was always going to be immensely difficult. Plus, now you're just going to have senior Conservative MP's who fancy the job basically campaigning until a decision is made which will inevitably draw focus that should be directed elsewhere. And with Labour having their own problems, pretty much the entire lower house is in shambles.

I mean, come on guys. The people have spoken and they trust the government to sort it out not make things worse.

Posted ImageWe'll never be those kids again
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
* Mitas
Member Avatar
It truly was a Shawshank redemption

There are a lot of issues with how it was handled. I honestly don't feel like a decision as momentous as that should have been made by the public, and at the very least should have had some sort of basic test before voting (possibly undemocratic to deny people a vote, but it's an important decision). A larger margin of majority would have made things feel a lot more complete, but Lazuli brings up a good point about it giving 'remain' an unfair advantage. And yeah, I think I said it earlier, the government's preparation is completely unacceptable. There should have been plans in place for either outcome, not just 'oh....it happened.....s***, what do we do now?'. I think a lot of people would feel a lot more at ease if the government appeared to know what they were doing.
Posted Image
"Then you've got the chance to do better next time."
"Next time?"
"Course. Doing better next time. That's what life is."
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
* Yu Narukami
Default Avatar
Izanagi!

How many of those criticisms were legitimate, though? If it wasn't immigration or the NHS, the most-cited argument I've seen by far (totally anecdotal, I know) is the fact that the EU is apparently undemocratic. Totally ignoring Ordinary Legislative Procedure and the fact that UKIP MEPs didn't show up almost 40% of the time (attending more could've led to more positives, but that wouldn't fit UKIP's narrative).

No, I'm not saying that because I didn't get the result I wanted. Changes that can have devastating effects on a country shouldn't be left to a simple majority vote any time, in my opinion. You can infer that I'm biased and bitter as much as you want, and it's probably totally true, but 50% isn't a high bar for such a huge change, regardless of the overall consequences later down the line.

The Leave campaign have been criticising No.10 for not having an exit plan while, in all seriousness, they should've had a plan set out for themselves. Boris is talking about having good relations with the EU, where we still enjoy all the benefits of a Member State without having certain restrictions imposed on us, but the EU just shut him down in an instant. It's in total shambles at the moment, tbh.
Member Offline View Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
0 users reading this topic
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Free Forums. Reliable service with over 8 years of experience.
Learn More · Register for Free
« Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic »
Add Reply
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 3

Theme Designed by McKee91