astera

And the UK doesn't?

EU: 1 nation, 1 vote.

UK: England should be able to force brexit even if everyone in Scotland, NI and Wales voted remain simply because England is BIGGER.

Surely you can see the difference, right?

People were voting on the premise that we would be better off, not worse, that we would be more prosperous, that there would be huge savings and lots more money to spend, etc. "The Golden Age." Even if they somehow linked far-away migration of Muslims to remaining in the EU (a very strange way to look at things indeed as I don't recall any EU nation being Muslim), nobody voted to be hit financially. And since the quitters' smokescreen of prosperity no longer applies and the truth is very different, the gov't should ask the people again.

If I agree to a surgical procedure that will improve things, then let's go through with it. But if the doctor later discovers that this will in fact make things WORSE, then he or she has an obligation to present this information to me and ask me again. That's their frigging job for crying out loud.

Of course the quitters were all preparing a referendum 2.0 even before the result was known, but now they're $h!t scared the result of a second referendum will go against them because all their lies have been unmasked and won't work the next time around. Oh the hypocrisy...

Garbatellamike

Astera, Astera, Astera, you do realize that the UK is a nation state not a federation of 4 countries don't you?

Are you perhaps confusing the UK constitutional model with Belgium's?

We had a referendum and everybody who could be bothered to vote voted - this concept was invented by Greek philosophers and is called democracy.

Just because you don't like the result doesn't mean you can unilaterally redesign the constitutional model to get the result you want.

The UK voted to leave - if Scotland wants to separate in due course it can and it can then decide to join the EU once it becomes a nation state in it's own right.

Slow me down if I'm moving too quickly for you........

astera

She seems to be the definition of common sense nowadays in UK politics and she certainly has more "balls" than any main government representative of the male species. I mean Boris Johnson? David Davis? Really? Are we running a country or a circus?

I don't think it's even fair to compare the two as you're making it appear that both sides were dispersing lies equally, which was definitely not the case. One side played on the lowest of emotions and instilled hate in people, at the same time promising them la-la-land the riches beyond belief. The other simply focused on the bleak outlook of such a decision and what consequences it entails. If you want to jump off a roof and someone tells you that you are likely to break some bones, possibly end up an invalid, and it will definitely be a big mistake and it will HURT... is that lying and worthy of labeling it 'project fear'? Or maybe we ought to replace the word "fear" simply with "reality?"

Garbatellamike

That's because both sides were dispersing lies equally

astera

Scotland is a country that is part of the UK, even if the UK is treated as a sovereign entity/state. Heck, it even has its own football team (unlike Belgium ) - though admittedly not as good as the UK's finest by a lightyear: Wales.

Are you saying Scotland's vote should count less than England's or that England's vote should be more important than the rest of the UK combined simply because it's more populous? Not exactly very united or very democratic even...

If you want to look at the legal side only then we can always revert to the referendum being non-binding in a legal sense - but I take it that doesn't suit your agenda. The government doesn't HAVE to make a decision according to the referendum. It CAN take it into account, but it doesn't need to.

Are you confusing both terms perhaps? Because if a referendum was supposed to be legally-binding then it would have been construed that way.

Let me ask you ONE question: should the gov't enact a second referendum if Teresa May and her government are presented with (current) information that leaving the EU will have negative economic consequences?

P.S. On a side note, whereas all Belgium would be supporting their team, Wales were celebrating beyond belief when England got knocked out by footballing superpower Iceland at the Euros. So yeah... nation state... but still very separate indeed.

mrken30

Scotland was a country that was occupied by force, not very democratic.

Garbatellamike

Oh my dear boy I'm saying nothing of the sort surely even you can see that.

Football is actually the tiniest bit different from the constitutional bit we were debating and that's a bit of a rabbit hole.

What agenda am I supposed to have?

One of us is confused for sure and it may be the one who thinks only 4 of the 45 million voters get a vote in the referendum......

astera

You seem to be deflecting the issue and steering clear of anything inconvenient to you. So without further ado:

1. Should Scotland's vote should count less than England's or that England's vote should be more important than the rest of the UK combined simply because it's more populous?

In other words, if all of England votes a certain way then that automatically has to happen (even if all of Scotland/Wales/NI disagree) and that's the way it should be?

2. Should the gov't enact a second referendum if Teresa May and her government are presented with (current) information that leaving the EU will have negative economic consequences?

Garbatellamike

Doh - Scotland doesn't have a vote - 45 million people have a vote and most used it..... Your fantasy situation isn't relevant. Over one million Scots voted to leave with 350 000 Northern Irish, 855 000 Welsh and 15.1 million English - together they got what is called a majority.

Your 2nd question is hypothetical and if it becomes a real situation I would judge it on its merits at the time but it is hypothetical...

paulry

That would be reasonable only if it is clear that people voted "Leave" in order to secure a better financial future. But we all know they didn't. They voted for home rule and the ability to control all immigration.

Garbatellamike

I'm not sure reason is his strong suit.....

astera

As I suspected you're simply skating around the issue and offering non-answers.

I provided a very simple question: whether any vote in the UK should allow England to have a deciding share of votes over everyone else simply because it is BIGGER. So if all of England decides on something then the rest of the votes in the UK become irrelevant under this system.

So just provide an answer, plain and simple: is this how democracy should work in the UK? That if all of England votes a certain way then all votes in Scotland/Wales/NI are then meaningless?

As for #2, once again it was the simplest of questions: should the gov't enact a second referendum if Teresa May and her government are presented with (current) information that leaving the EU will have negative economic consequences?

Don't deflect the issue with yet another meaningless non-response (like ooooh... I'll think about it if it happens) but just give a plain and simple answer.

Garbatellamike

Ok for the fourteenth time - democracy in the UK works by an electorate of 45 odd million having a vote each - it's called one man one vote

question 2 is hypothetical can you provide some detail of your new evidence to inform my deliberations - I can't just guess based on the information you have not provided.

Simples really

astera

They were all promised greater prosperity, golden times ahead, and great money to be freed and spent on the NHS for instance. Not a single clown arguing for brexit mentioned that they would be hit financially - quite the contrary, it was portrayed as a bright future for all.

Immigration was just a handy subject, like a side-dish to accompany economic prosperity. Like a win-win situation for the sheep to believe in.

The UK already controls most immigration which still comes in from outside the EU year in, year out. And EU immigration happens to be the most beneficial to the country, so it's not exactly a logical area to focus on.

Which brings up the notion that brexit was a complete load of bull. Zero logic, all bs...

Garbatellamike

Yes that's true

Lots of lies from both sides though surely you don't agree that one side told only lies and the other only the truth? That's EMIR logic and you must be smarter than him?