IMO the will of the people is more important than a mere code of conduct.

 

How many times do I have to repeat back to you that 1930s authoritarian newspeak werrrl errf there perplerrrr?

 

Weerll orrf there pwrppleeer does not = 2 of 4 nations and 37% of the electorate.

 

We have a representative democracy. MPs SHOULD (Tories lol) make decisions on what is good for the country. Brexit is not. Therefore they should vote it down.

How many times do I have to repeat back to you that 1830s authoritarian newspeak werrrl errf there perplerrrr?

 

Weerll orrf there pwrppleeer does not = 2 of 4 nations and 37% of the electorate.

 

We have a representative democracy. MPs SHOULD (Tories lol) make decisions on what is good for the country. Brexit is not. Therefore they should vote it down.

 

This is getting very very boring!

As is hearing the 1930s authoritarian motto being repeated ad nauseam for a teeeeny tiiiiny margin of victory when under 18s could not even vote.

As is hearing the 1930s authoritarian motto being repeated ad nauseam for a teeeeny tiiiiny margin of victory when under 18s could not even vote.

 

But iro the referendum result, I tell you the facts as they *are* - you merely repeat how you *want* them to be - not exactly the most productive use of your time.

Edited April 4, 20187 yr by vidcapper

But iro the referendum result, I tell you the facts as they *are* - you merely repeat how you *want* them to be - not exactly the most productive use of your time.

 

So nah nah nah, we won a corrupt and useless vote that should never have been had with a couple thousand votes?

IMO the will of the people is more important than a mere code of conduct.

I assume, then, that you would have used the same argument to prevent the introduction of civil partnerships and the abolition of Section 28. Politicians are not delegates. If all they did was implement the "will of the people" what would be the point of having them? Why bother with elections when we can just have a series of giant opinion polls instead?

So nah nah nah, we won a corrupt and useless vote that should never have been had with a couple thousand votes?

 

It was closer to 1.3 million...

I assume, then, that you would have used the same argument to prevent the introduction of civil partnerships and the abolition of Section 28. Politicians are not delegates. If all they did was implement the "will of the people" what would be the point of having them? Why bother with elections when we can just have a series of giant opinion polls instead?

 

I wouldn't *prevent* the above - I would simply put the question to the electorate, as you suggest I would.

 

What would be wrong with that? IMO moral change should come when a society is ready for it, rather than have it imposed on them.

I wouldn't *prevent* the above - I would simply put the question to the electorate, as you suggest I would.

 

What would be wrong with that? IMO moral change should come when a society is ready for it, rather than have it imposed on them.

Which would mean it would never happen. In your world women would probably still be waiting ti be given there vote.

Which would mean it would never happen.

 

On what basis do you claim that? Social/moral attitudes are not fixed in stone.

 

In your world women would probably still be waiting ti be given there vote.

 

Nonsense - and since when was that a *moral* issue anyway?

On what basis do you claim that? Social/moral attitudes are not fixed in stone.

Nonsense - and since when was that a *moral* issue anyway?

 

Because public opinion and MEN were not overwhelmingly in favour of change. History shows activists get progress not apathetic public opinion of those with power who dont want to lose it. Civil rights have to be fought for, every time. Denying women the Vote isn't a MORAL issue? Sheesh......

 

I can see you in 1920 now:

 

"Look we had a referendum on women getting the vote (amongst men only, quite rightly) and we democratically decided they were too thick to have it, they just wouldnt understand politics, so that's it, no need for another referendum, we've had our say by 2% majority and that's it forever more".....

 

Or perhaps you would have cried out in anguish:

 

"No! A Referendum of men is the wrong way to go, it's not democratic and women should fight for the right to vote and I support that stance no matter what any biased fixed referendum says, just because it's the right thing to do".....

 

Or

 

"Our MP's were voted for (by men) with our trust in them to do the right thing and give women the vote, or not give women the vote, if they feel it's the right thing to do"

 

a, b, or c?

Because public opinion and MEN were not overwhelmingly in favour of change. History shows activists get progress not apathetic public opinion of those with power who dont want to lose it. Civil rights have to be fought for, every time. Denying women the Vote isn't a MORAL issue? Sheesh......

 

I can see you in 1920 now:

 

"Look we had a referendum on women getting the vote (amongst men only, quite rightly) and we democratically decided they were too thick to have it, they just wouldnt understand politics, so that's it, no need for another referendum, we've had our say by 2% majority and that's it forever more".....

 

Or perhaps you would have cried out in anguish:

 

"No! A Referendum of men is the wrong way to go, it's not democratic and women should fight for the right to vote and I support that stance no matter what any biased fixed referendum says, just because it's the right thing to do".....

 

Or

 

"Our MP's were voted for (by men) with our trust in them to do the right thing and give women the vote, or not give women the vote, if they feel it's the right thing to do"

 

a, b, or c?

 

I'm just glad you didn't write the Brexit referendum question - it would have been 'Heads Remain wins, Tails Leave loses'. ;)

 

from another thread moved over to this one:

 

"

Unfortunately we'll never know if Churchill's support for post-war European co-operation, had in mind political/economic union, rather than just trade."

 

I beg to differ. He was pretty clear about it having just barely survived against a Nazi invasion of Europe which ruined the UK economically and a generation of dead men....

 

 

https://eu-rope.ideasoneurope.eu/2013/11/10...european-union/

I'm just glad you didn't write the Brexit referendum question - it would have been 'Heads Remain wins, Tails Leave loses'. ;)

 

No, it would have been: Lies will not be tolerated, and speculation must be flagged as such and we must be clear that what you are voting for is to leave the EU entirely in all matters and areas. So claims about staying in the Single Market would come under "lies" quite clearly.

 

Seems fair to me.

 

I take it your lack of opinion on my question means you opt for A) or accept that I am right?

 

Feel free to type in here your own feelings on Womens rights in the 1920's if my 3 suggestions dont quite cover your views...

On what basis do you claim that? Social/moral attitudes are not fixed in stone.

Nonsense - and since when was that a *moral* issue anyway?

 

Historically, changes in attitudes have happened due to governments taking a lead on the issue. It is only because a government introduced civil partnerships in defiance of public opposition that it was possible to introduce equal marriage with relatively little fuss. If all governments waited for opinion to change it simply wouldn't happen. How would it have been possible to change opinion in favour of decriminalising homosexual acts between men without a government taking the lead?

from another thread moved over to this one:

 

"

Unfortunately we'll never know if Churchill's support for post-war European co-operation, had in mind political/economic union, rather than just trade."

 

I beg to differ. He was pretty clear about it having just barely survived against a Nazi invasion of Europe which ruined the UK economically and a generation of dead men....

https://eu-rope.ideasoneurope.eu/2013/11/10...european-union/

 

Just out of interest, whose post are you quoting from?

Just out of interest, whose post are you quoting from?

 

well you wrote it on Saturday....

No, it would have been: Lies will not be tolerated, and speculation must be flagged as such and we must be clear that what you are voting for is to leave the EU entirely in all matters and areas. So claims about staying in the Single Market would come under "lies" quite clearly.

 

Seems fair to me.

 

And if Leave had still won, however narrow the margin, you would have accepted the decision without objection?

 

I take it your lack of opinion on my question means you opt for A) or accept that I am right?

 

Feel free to type in here your own feelings on Womens rights in the 1920's if my 3 suggestions dont quite cover your views...

You take it wrong - I simply rejected your question as unworthy.

 

Historically, changes in attitudes have happened due to governments taking a lead on the issue. It is only because a government introduced civil partnerships in defiance of public opposition that it was possible to introduce equal marriage with relatively little fuss. If all governments waited for opinion to change it simply wouldn't happen. How would it have been possible to change opinion in favour of decriminalising homosexual acts between men without a government taking the lead?

 

By *that* logic, the government could legalise almost anything, on the basis that once it was legalised, society would have little choice but to adapt to the new reality? :unsure:

 

 

And if Leave had still won, however narrow the margin, you would have accepted the decision without objection?

 

You take it wrong - I simply rejected your question as unworthy.

 

1. Yes, instantly because it would be utterly and totally clear what people were voting for. That is my only problem with the result: that it was based on lies.

 

2. Thought so. A.

2. Thought so. A.

 

NO! No A) or any of the other options - how can you not fail to understand what I meant by rejecting your question? :unsure: