The People's Vote March is safely and deservedly a major event in British History, and makes the return of sanity to British political discourse that much more likely.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Congratulations to the British People
- Thread starter LuisDantas
- Start date
He comments in the first video that democracy means being able to try things out and change your mind a few years later, but that isn't what has happened here. What has happened is that people voted to leave but were ignored. Now this new referendum is acting as a rubber stamp on that. It appears actually that there was no democracy and never a choice. The UK and EU controlled media constantly droned on that Brexit was a disaster and refused to accept the decision citing delays and excuses. No democracy here.
So this march represents the will of the British people more than the results of the referendum?
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
I don't know. It certainty didn't help me make heads from tails over what exactly all is going on, might be going on, perhaps will go on, or just nobody knows what will go on over Brexit. Still a bunch of insanity, IMO.
Augustus
…
About as major and impactful an event as the million who marched against the Iraq War.
The first referendum was inherently unworkable, and frankly was an irresponsible bluff from David Cameron. It was both technically non-binding and politically binding, and it failed to as much as mention, let alone establish parameters, on entirely unavoidable matters such as the Irish border, the possibility of a Customs Union, or the desired status regarding the Single Market.
In essence, it was a populist bait, offered for very questionable reasons due to even more questionable motivations.
Even leaving that aside, I fail to see how the 2016 referendum can be considered democratic while proposal of a second referendum, so plainly necessary given the political impasse and the sobering up since, is surprisingly called undemocratic by some.
If there is a lasting lesson to be learned from this, is that elected officers are supposed to have or pursue the technical competence to deal with the intrincacies of policy.
It is an interesting question to make, and I feel fairly secure in answering it.
Of course, this March is a show of support from (mostly) one side of the dispute, and inherently unattractive to the opposite side.
All the same, it is a significant, hopefully decisive indication of how necessary it is to reconsider the initial results.
For one thing, the attendance in the first referendum was rather low and biased. It is no accident that it was designed as explicitly non-binding, for a legally binding referendum by definition would involve serious challenge of the authority of many government roles. That gave it an intentionally ambiguous nature, a tool of pressure that was often mistaken for and treated as if it had authority of its own. Its never had legal powers, and the understanding was that it did not have to, since its main (only?) purpose was simply to hush brexiteers. Clearly it backfired, but that does not resolve its dubious validity.
Then again, it should be clear that a referendum given almost three years ago, without much of an effort at understanding the issues involved, is easily less representative than the current understanding.
A second referendum is badly needed, and I see much fault in both Theresa May and particularly Jeremy Corbyn for being so reluctant to support it despite the clear and urgent need.
Last edited:
Apples and oranges, IMO.
The Iraq War was in some senses a comparable subject matter, not so much in others. It was inherently a bit more transitory than a Brexit, and somewhat less visible. But I don't think we have much in the way of means for measuring the effects of that March, in any case.
Augustus
…
Britain's involvement in the Iraq war does seem a pretty conclusive measurement imo.
Altfish
Veteran Member
No, the Brexiteers wer sold a pack of lies and had been for 30-years by the right wing media. From bendy bananas to £350m/week for the NHS to Albania and Turkey joining the EU - all lies.
Altfish
Veteran Member
Currently it does.
We also now have FACTS rather than all the rubbish about PROJECT FEAR, facts like the car industry is retreating from the UK; the city is losing thousands of jobs BAe are stopping investment, etc, etc
Did I mention the Irish Border - no I thought not.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
Currently yes, as support/opposition to Brexit has been fairly close, but the majority has definitely switched to oppose since the referendum. But it's quite a mess, I'll say that. and something with such massive implications with such a close divide, perhaps it should be given a second look and even vote if need be.
Altfish
Veteran Member
..or if you've been sold something with promises that can't be delivered.
Notanumber
A Free Man
It would have been more justifiable if they had been marching against the British Deep State and its persecution of anyone that tries to use free speech.
We had a vote, that's it. We do it once and then we work with the result. What's hard about that? We know what we wanted: to leave the EU. No customs union, no free movement, none of it. They gave us a vote and we voted. That they don't like the result shows how out of touch they are.
Social conservatism won for a change, boo hoo.
Some democracy this is.
Social conservatism won for a change, boo hoo.
Some democracy this is.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Ridiculous. The government has spent the entire time ever since trying to work out how to give effect of the referendum result.
However what has happened during that time is that the Brexit Impossiblists have gradually moved the goalposts, to suggest that any sort of deal with the EU is not really leaving. Whereas at the time of the referendum, most of them were envisaging, at least publicly, a Norway or EEA type of arrangement. They have become mad zealots. A no deal exit would set the country back twenty years or more economically and would be very likely to lead the break up of the Union.
I rather agree with Augustus about the march. I was there, having always kicked myself for not going on the Iraq invasion march, but I am under no illusions about its effect on policy. The reason I went was to show solidarity with the Sensibles in Parliament, many of whom appear now to be getting death threats, thanks to May's remarks attacking parliamentary democracy. I found that speech revolting, especially coming from a Prime Minister.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Rubbish. There was nothing on the ballot about customs unions , the single market, or anything. At the time, many of the Brexiters envisioned a Norway or Switzerland type of arrangement. It is only subsequently that they have rewritten their interpretation of leaving, to exclude any form of relationship with the EU whatever.
Yes, until it became clear we weren't going to get anything like that whatsoever. May tried to fob us off with a deal that was possibly the worst ever envisioned by a leader and suited absolutely no-one. We became more zealous the more the government tried to palm us off with crap like this. Now we're all just saying, Fine, let's just nuke out. We're obviously not going to get a deal now. It's been two years and we've been thrown under the bus.