[Politics] Theresa May resigns as British PM.

[Silvanus]

Whoever, becomes the new Prime Minister needs to reaffirm the mandate either by calling an election or a referendum.

In a sane world, sure. However, the tactic thus far-- of insisting under all circumstances that the original mandate stands, and any deviation is betrayal-- has worked for them so far.

I think another referendum and/or a general election are unlikely before Brexit comes to pass. Another referendum is certainly reasonable, on the basis of the electoral lawbreaking alone. But the government is not obligated to do it, and it would damage the Conservative Party, which is their primary concern. They hold that concern far above the national interest.

 

[Dreiko_v1legacy]

It would be democratic if they had already left and then there was an option to return. You can't undo a vote just because it's command hasn't been implemented yet and people have changed their minds in the meantime. That's not how democracy works and if you did do that all it'd do is give people in power the suggestion that any time the public votes against their desires they can just fail at conducting what the public commanded them to and just wait until media propaganda has swayed enough minds. It's a pro-status-quo approach.

You first have to carry out the will of the people from the initial vote and actually leave and then you can have a new vote about entering or leaving. You can't vote to undo the previous vote before the actual result is fully carried out though, otherwise with your logic if Trump loses next year he'll be able to just call another vote which will have his side that just lost he more motivated to go vote.

You seem to be severly misinformed on how western representative democracy works. The voters are allowed to change their mind on crucial issues after a few years. It is usually after 4-5 years but the US has it happen every 2 years. If the voters change their minds and elect a new set of politicians to run the country (or state/province/district/city/etx), those politicians have a mandate to stop any projects the previous group of politicians started and replace them with a new set of projects.

eg. When Trump was elected US President, he had the right to abandon Obama's universal healthcare agenda. He was not required to implement universal healthcare and only scrap it when it was successful. That would be idiotic.

The only issue with a second Brexit referendum is whether enough time has elapsed since the previous vote on the issue to warrant a revote on the issue. When May won the last election it reaffirmed her mandate to proceed with Brexit. However, her failure to complete the task has eroded the mandate and now that she resigned the mandate is severely in doubt. Whoever, becomes the new Prime Minister needs to reaffirm the mandate either by calling an election or a referendum.

The difference between your examples and this case is that the thing being upturned (eg. obamacare) did come into being and the results of it were what the basis for the opposition to it is founded upon.

Brexit hasn't happened yet so until it does and whatever follows it comes to play, any opposition to it is merely that of the losing side being sore losers and not wanting to accept the democratic result. If you give in to that you give the whiners' veto to every losing side in any future vote. I seriously doubt the same people would be asking for another vote if stay had won in that same process.

The issue with time is also a valid one but we're not even at that point yet. The thing you're counting those 2 years off of is British politicians failing to actually do a proper Brexit basically. Whatever animus is there is their fault, it's not the fault of the referendum. If the UK had actually left the EU 2 years ago then sure, having a vote about being in the EU would be absolutely fine.

 

[Silvanus]

Brexit hasn't happened yet so until it does and whatever follows it comes to play, any opposition to it is merely that of the losing side being sore losers and not wanting to accept the democratic result.

Do you believe that what we know now is unchanged from what we knew then?

I'll remind you of two things before you answer: Firstly, that we have now received the government's commissioned impact reports, the existence of which had previously been denied by David Davis (and they're not pretty). Secondly, that several core campaign promises were retracted within 24 hours of the result announcement.

If you give in to that you give the whiners' veto to every losing side in any future vote. I seriously doubt the same people would be asking for another vote if stay had won in that same process.

Do you know why we know about the severe electoral lawbreaking within the Leave campaign?

It was revealed by a whistleblower who worked hard on that very campaign. Somebody who believed in leaving the EU strongly enough to devote a huge amount of time to it.

Someone who also believed that the people of the UK were entitled to a fair, legal referendum. Because, in truth, both Leavers and Remainers should be fucking incensed by that. A fair referendum was denied to all of us; both sides. Not all Leavers want to leave by relying on dubious, illegal means.

 

[Marik2]

Also, those that pushed the Brexit referendum in the first place, lying by omission to the UK public, should have all private assets seized to pay for the damage their posturing has caused the UK. Or lined up against a wall and shot. Either is fine with me.

Spoiler: Uhhhhh

I do understand where he's coming from. It's incredibly annoying to see people in power mislead the public, and we are the ones who have to clean up after them.

 

[Abomination]

Also, those that pushed the Brexit referendum in the first place, lying by omission to the UK public, should have all private assets seized to pay for the damage their posturing has caused the UK. Or lined up against a wall and shot. Either is fine with me.

Spoiler: Uhhhhh

I do understand where he's coming from. It's incredibly annoying to see people in power mislead the public, and we are the ones who have to clean up after them.

If corruption and essentially crippling the economy are NOT punished then people will continue to be corrupt and cripple the economy.

These were not cases of "Whoopsie Dasie", these were cases of "Hey, I know a real easy way to get elected on a shoddy platform and reap the benefits of that position temporarily".

 

[Agema]

Basically, like always, the UK wants to be treated like a spoiled brat who gets more than the rest. That simply won't work anymore. The EU already gave the UK preferential treatment and all they got for it was this messy brexit.

This is all a colossal failure of British politics. The British politicians have broadly always understood the value of the EU, but they've been too busy playing domestic politics. Eventually, the anti-EU rhetoric and scapegoating for cheap and easy votes became the reality to the public. Even as Brexit crumbles around the British, too few (mostly Tories) are still prepared to stand up and tell the Brexiter public they're delusional and have been promised lies... because they want the votes of those Brexiters.

It has in a way been good for the rest of the EU, because it's told them all what happens if they don't fight for and make a case for the EU.

Brexit hasn't happened yet so until it does and whatever follows it comes to play, any opposition to it is merely that of the losing side being sore losers and not wanting to accept the democratic result. If you give in to that you give the whiners' veto to every losing side in any future vote. I seriously doubt the same people would be asking for another vote if stay had won in that same process.

The referendum demanded the UK leave the EU. It didn't say how and in what form, yet that's probably the most important thing. A bad Brexit that fails the needs of the country is going to cause a great deal of pain and misery. People ultimately want a better Britain and Brexit needs to deliver that, otherwise even the people who "won" their Brexit will be losers too. In this sense, the referendum was a catastrophe, because the Leave option did not actually let the public know key information they needed for informed choice.

It is therefore absolutely the right thing to do to give the public crystal clear options and let them give full informed consent about what they want to subject their own country too - up to and including the right to change their mind.

I seriously doubt the same people would be asking for another vote if stay had won in that same process.

Actually, numerous leading Brexiters said exactly that, that they would seek another vote.

Nigel Farage: "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way." [footnote]Funny how it suddenly became finished business once he was on the winning end of 52-48.[/footnote]

David Davis: "If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy."

Also by David Davis:
"There is a proper role for referendums in constitutional change, but only if done properly. If it is not done properly, it can be a dangerous tool... Referendums should be held when the electorate are in the best possible position to make a judgment. They should be held when people can view all the arguments for and against and when those arguments have been rigorously tested. In short, referendums should be held when people know exactly what they are getting. So legislation should be debated by Members of Parliament on the Floor of the House, and then put to the electorate for the voters to judge. We should not ask people to vote on a blank sheet of paper and tell them to trust us to fill in the details afterwards. For referendums to be fair and compatible with our parliamentary process, we need the electors to be as well informed as possible and to know exactly what they are voting for. Referendums need to be treated as an addition to the parliamentary process, not as a substitute for it."

And yet, this is almost exactly what the Brexit referendum didn't do: the Leave position gave the public "a blank sheet of paper" and asked the politicians to fill in the details afterwards. It ended in a clusterfuck, as he predicted long before. But again: didn't hear him voicing his doubts after the referendum went his way and he took up the Secretary of State for Exiting the EU job of filling in the details.

 

[Gergar12_v1legacy]

Also forgot to mention, down goes May!!! Down goes another conservative!!! Down goes a Prime minister of a country of sixty million!!!

 

[WindKnight]

British politics is kinda hilarious at this time and this one prolly will add do it. I expect Corbin to win in the end of course big but I also am thoroughly enjoying how the UKIP people from youtube are getting everyone mad enough to throw shakes at them and whatnot. All in all it's thoroughly entertaining.

But yeah from what I have gathered, May's issue was that she had an inability to be firm and kept trying to appease the EU too much. She should have just taken a no deal option and gone ahead with it since that's the democratic thing to do. Trying to appease the EU which is freaking out cause it feels it's about to collapse is impossible.

Yeah, damn her for trying to make the UK leave in an orderly fashion with the least amount of damage or shock to the country 🤷

Farage keeps going on about immediately cutting ties and the EU will come begging to the UK for business. All this trying to do a deal before leaving is hurting the UK...

Which leads me to believe Farage has not much understanding of politics despite being an MP for two decades.

You know how the Big Short is about a bunch of guys who saw the 2008 financial crisis coming, and positioned themselves to make a load of money when it happened? Farage is those guys, only he's actively trying to make the crash happen..

He doesn't care if he's talking out of his own arse, so long as he can convince enough of the british people to slit their own throats to line his pockets.

One thing I'm not seeing talked about is that the EU is moving to ban offshore tax evasion, something Farage, Certain Tories and a lot of Tory donors would like to avoid... and will only be avoided with a No Deal Brexit.

 

[Thaluikhain]

If corruption and essentially crippling the economy are NOT punished then people will continue to be corrupt and cripple the economy.

These were not cases of "Whoopsie Dasie", these were cases of "Hey, I know a real easy way to get elected on a shoddy platform and reap the benefits of that position temporarily".

Not saying I disagree with the sentiment (it's impractical, though), but that's the sort of attitude you keep condemning from Saelune.

 

[Trunkage]

British politics is kinda hilarious at this time and this one prolly will add do it. I expect Corbin to win in the end of course big but I also am thoroughly enjoying how the UKIP people from youtube are getting everyone mad enough to throw shakes at them and whatnot. All in all it's thoroughly entertaining.

But yeah from what I have gathered, May's issue was that she had an inability to be firm and kept trying to appease the EU too much. She should have just taken a no deal option and gone ahead with it since that's the democratic thing to do. Trying to appease the EU which is freaking out cause it feels it's about to collapse is impossible.

Yeah, damn her for trying to make the UK leave in an orderly fashion with the least amount of damage or shock to the country 🤷

Farage keeps going on about immediately cutting ties and the EU will come begging to the UK for business. All this trying to do a deal before leaving is hurting the UK...

Which leads me to believe Farage has not much understanding of politics despite being an MP for two decades.

You know how the Big Short is about a bunch of guys who saw the 2008 financial crisis coming, and positioned themselves to make a load of money when it happened? Farage is those guys, only he's actively trying to make the crash happen..

He doesn't care if he's talking out of his own arse, so long as he can convince enough of the british people to slit their own throats to line his pockets.

One thing I'm not seeing talked about is that the EU is moving to ban offshore tax evasion, something Farage, Certain Tories and a lot of Tory donors would like to avoid... and will only be avoided with a No Deal Brexit.

So he's actually George Soros... only deliberately making it happen

 

[Avnger]

British politics is kinda hilarious at this time and this one prolly will add do it. I expect Corbin to win in the end of course big but I also am thoroughly enjoying how the UKIP people from youtube are getting everyone mad enough to throw shakes at them and whatnot. All in all it's thoroughly entertaining.

But yeah from what I have gathered, May's issue was that she had an inability to be firm and kept trying to appease the EU too much. She should have just taken a no deal option and gone ahead with it since that's the democratic thing to do. Trying to appease the EU which is freaking out cause it feels it's about to collapse is impossible.

Yeah, damn her for trying to make the UK leave in an orderly fashion with the least amount of damage or shock to the country 🤷

Farage keeps going on about immediately cutting ties and the EU will come begging to the UK for business. All this trying to do a deal before leaving is hurting the UK...

Which leads me to believe Farage has not much understanding of politics despite being an MP for two decades.

You know how the Big Short is about a bunch of guys who saw the 2008 financial crisis coming, and positioned themselves to make a load of money when it happened? Farage is those guys, only he's actively trying to make the crash happen..

He doesn't care if he's talking out of his own arse, so long as he can convince enough of the british people to slit their own throats to line his pockets.

One thing I'm not seeing talked about is that the EU is moving to ban offshore tax evasion, something Farage, Certain Tories and a lot of Tory donors would like to avoid... and will only be avoided with a No Deal Brexit.

So he's actually George Soros... only deliberately making it happen

Being a globalist is perfectly fine with the alt-right. You just can't be a (((globalist))).

 

[Abomination]

If corruption and essentially crippling the economy are NOT punished then people will continue to be corrupt and cripple the economy.

These were not cases of "Whoopsie Dasie", these were cases of "Hey, I know a real easy way to get elected on a shoddy platform and reap the benefits of that position temporarily".

Not saying I disagree with the sentiment (it's impractical, though), but that's the sort of attitude you keep condemning from Saelune.

I condemn people for their actions, not for their political associations. In this case elected officials lied to the public for their own gain. I would certainly want to see them go to trial and be convicted, but unfortunately that's not something the UK is willing to have on their books.

 

[CaitSeith]

If corruption and essentially crippling the economy are NOT punished then people will continue to be corrupt and cripple the economy.

These were not cases of "Whoopsie Dasie", these were cases of "Hey, I know a real easy way to get elected on a shoddy platform and reap the benefits of that position temporarily".

Not saying I disagree with the sentiment (it's impractical, though), but that's the sort of attitude you keep condemning from Saelune.

I condemn people for their actions, not for their political associations. In this case elected officials lied to the public for their own gain. I would certainly want to see them go to trial and be convicted, but unfortunately that's not something the UK is willing to have on their books.

That begs the question: have you looked into the actions of those whom Saelune keeps condemning?

 

[Abomination]

That begs the question: have you looked into the actions of those whom Saelune keeps condemning?

Yes, actions that both parties are guilty of. The issue is that in the United States corruption is not only legal, but expected/required in order for any policy to be implemented. My mindset would see Republicans and Democrats both lined up and shot for gerrymandering and accepting of bribes--sorry, lobbying. There would probably be more Republicans with blindfolds than Democrats, but it'd be a purge all the same.

Saelune and I have differing opinions on what acts an official can take being more damaging to a nation and its people. I'm more of a barricade at the edge of the cliff, than an ambulance at the bottom like Saelune. I target all parties, Saelune is obsessed with only targeting Republicans.

 

[Marik2]

This whole event is almost as bad as donalds presidency. Two dominant western countries are on life support.

 

[Zykon TheLich_v1legacy]

You know how the Big Short is about a bunch of guys who saw the 2008 financial crisis coming, and positioned themselves to make a load of money when it happened? Farage is those guys, only he's actively trying to make the crash happen..

He doesn't care if he's talking out of his own arse, so long as he can convince enough of the british people to slit their own throats to line his pockets.

One thing I'm not seeing talked about is that the EU is moving to ban offshore tax evasion, something Farage, Certain Tories and a lot of Tory donors would like to avoid... and will only be avoided with a No Deal Brexit.

Yeah, that one never seemed to be a big talking point. I suppose if anyone political wants to make those sort of accusation they'd better have some pretty good proof with all our libel laws etc.

But really that's just the kind of shit I expect from our politicians, business types, etc Britain feels like it's built on dodgy accountancy these days.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

she wasn't the worst tory. and that's as damning with faint praise as any praise can get, really. but she's still a lizard person. looking at the growing line of hungry replacements is like browsing a menu of "how would you like your healthcare, education and other public services hollowed out and sold to the highest bidder this time?" all come with the traditional starter "ignore corporate tax avoidance" and free refills on "sell arms to whoever's bombing civilians in the middle East the most brazenly" for good measure. oh and every option is essentially the same, which doesn't even matter cause they'll be choosing for you. democracy!