**** Elections thread *****

[Poopadoop]

The politicians who opposed Brexit thought it would never pass the vote, so they let the vote happen. Then when the vote went against their will, they have not changed their direction in accordance with the public choice.

Individual politicans are meant to represent their constituencies. So if you're an MP from a Remain riding, voting against shitty (and they were shitty, even Ong can see that) Brexit deals is wholly appropriate imo. If there had been a good deal on offer then you might have a point.

[OngBonga]

I still believe that the (shifting) majority can choose to vote again, though

Yeah, maybe, once we've left and some time has passed. How much "some time" is is another debate altogether, but it has to be reasonably significant.

Herein lies a problem though. If we have another EU vote, then Scotland deserve another independence vote. And if they leave the UK (which they probably will), the appetite for the (rest of the) UK to leave the EU increases. Reaminers can't have it both ways. They can't get another referendum, and then if they win, refuse to let the Scots have another say to protect their result.

Better to just leave and not have a democratic crisis in the first place.

[Poopadoop]

Yeah, maybe, once we've left and some time has passed. How much "some time" is is another debate altogether, but it has to be reasonably significant.

Herein lies a problem though. If we have another EU vote, then Scotland deserve another independence vote. And if they leave the UK (which they probably will), the appetite for the (rest of the) UK to leave the EU increases. Reaminers can't have it both ways. They can't get another referendum, and then if they win, refuse to let the Scots have another say to protect their result.

What Remainer is saying we can change our minds on Brexit, but Scotland isn't allowed to change its mind?

Scotland can have as many votes as it wants. And if we Leave, it will vote again and it will leave the UK, followed shortly by NI. If we stay in the EU, the chance of those places leaving goes way down (though they should still be free to leave if they want to).

If your argument is that we shouldn't have another vote on Brexit because that opens the door to another referendum on Scottish independence, I got news for you. That door is already open, and leaving the EU will kick it right off its hinges.

[OngBonga]

(and they were shitty, even Ong can see that)

Yeah, the deals were unacceptable. We still would not be able to agree trade deals with third parties, so we would not be economically sovereign.

I doubt people who voted Leave were uniformly in favour of a no-deal or shitty-deal Brexit over Remain, or for that matter had a solid understanding of what the consequences of these kinds of Brexit would be.

Shitty deal, sure, but I think the vast majority of leave voters would agree that "no deal" is the default. I'm not afraid of a no deal.

Whether the electorate had a "solid understanding" as you put it is irrelevant. Most remain voters don't think the EU is moving towards being a federal superstate, so that lack of understanding exists on both sides. What is relevant is we had the vote, and made a decision. That has to be upheld.

The election was called almost entirely due to Brexit. So whether or not it 'should' be another referendum, it effectively is.

I think you're forgetting that we currently have an unelected PM. This election would have needed to happen anyway, even if Brexit was done.

[Poopadoop]

Most remain voters don't think the EU is moving towards being a federal superstate

Proud to count myself as one of these.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Individual politicans are meant to represent their constituencies. So if you're an MP from a Remain riding, voting against shitty (and they were shitty, even Ong can see that) Brexit deals is wholly appropriate imo. If there had been a good deal on offer then you might have a point.

Sitting on their hands and waiting for their opposition to produce a plan they agree with is just a white mutiny in action.

If they're not actively trying to meet the will of the people with a plan of their own, trying to compromise with everyone at the table... they're not effectively representing their constituency. They're defaulting their voice in the compromise. They are not serving their constituents by not trying to actively find the best Brexit deal for their constituents, whether or not those constituents voted with the national majority.


I mean... I'm not sure if this is pure naivety talking, here.

[Poopadoop]

Sitting on their hands and waiting for their opposition to produce a plan they agree with is just a white mutiny in action.

If they're not actively trying to meet the will of the people with a plan of their own, trying to compromise with everyone at the table... they're not effectively representing their constituency. They're defaulting their voice in the compromise. They are not serving their constituents by not trying to actively find the best Brexit deal for their constituents, whether or not those constituents voted with the national majority.

Well no, it's not their job to come up with a plan that their consituencies didn't ask for. It's the job of the government. And those plans were shit, and they were rightly rejected. That's like saying Ds should come up with a plan to build the Wall.

I mean, they shouldn't blindly obstruct any reasonable plan but they should be free to point out when the suggested plan is shitty. And again, the plans offered were shitty enough that enough of the ruling party's members voted against them that they wouldn't pass. So I don't think you can accuse the opposition parties of being uncooperative here. They just weren't given anything reasonable they could vote for.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Well no, it's not their job to come up with a plan that their consituencies didn't ask for. It's the job of the government. And those plans were shit, and they were rightly rejected.

I'm confused. Who are you talking about? I'm talking about the politicians who represent the constituents, and doesn't that make those politicians "the gov't?"

Rejecting bad plans is great.
Rejecting the will of the nation is not.

Failing to work toward the best compromise between the national will and the local constituents' will is the exact job of politicians.

That's like saying Ds should come up with a plan to build the Wall.

When the D's were faced with the choice to build a wall or shut down the gov't, they made the wrong choice, IMO.

Governance is about compromise. I remember saying at the time that the Dem's should have compromised, secured DACA or something and given Trump the stupid wall. Put it there, show how useless and pointless it is at accomplishing its intended goal, or let it prove me wrong.
Either way, if the choice is to do your job or not do your job, then do your goddamn job to the best of your ability.

If the US holds a popular vote on "wall: yes/no" and it comes down as yes, then it's the D's job to get the best damn wall 'Murica can build. Get it designed in my home town and built by companies in my state as much as possible, but get it done.

That's what patriotism means. It's not selfishly insisting the gov't panders to you. It's standing by the will of the majority, even when it opposes your own will.

I mean, they shouldn't blindly obstruct any reasonable plan but they should be free to point out when the suggested plan is shitty. And again, the plans offered were shitty enough that enough of the ruling party's members voted against them that they wouldn't pass. So I don't think you can accuse the opposition parties of being uncooperative here. They just weren't given anything reasonable they could vote for.

So long as Brexit is the law, they should act in good faith to make it happen to the best possible results of their constituents.