9 ms·

I find her language very problematic. I didn't vote to leave—so when she claims to be speaking for the British people, I'm left wondering how my voice can count

by lwhi 10y ago

I find her language very problematic. I didn't vote to leave—so when she claims to be speaking for the British people, I'm left wondering how my voice can count. I'm part of 48% of 72.2%; a lot of people are likely to share my concern. We need a general election. She speaks of what 'she wants'—the most problematic part of this surreal theatrical horror story is fact we the country didn't vote for her. I don't want this government to make such fundamental changes without the mandate of the people.

Gupie 10y ago
We need a second referendum on what is finally agreed with the EU. The people are allowed to change their mind.
- xemoka 10y ago
  Yeah, but article 50 doesn't work like that, does it?
  - dx034 10y ago
    It just says you're out after two years, which will be very interesting if some regional parliament decides to block the deal the EU makes with the UK. And I'm sure there will be a parliament which is unhappy with the deal.
  - Gupie 10y ago
    In what way? Article 50 can be revoked once triggered: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-article-50-revoked-once-triggered-senior-academics-claim-a7393661.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-article...
    - gpderetta 10y ago
      "[...] probably unilaterally by the UK. However, in the latter case the UK would find itself having to defend a very uncertain legal and very troubling position.” senior academic claims (emphasis and ellipses mine).
      - Gupie 10y ago
        We could be in a "very troubling position" if we stay or try to remain. Anyway no one listens to "senior academics" anymore :(
  - dragonwriter 10y ago
    The agreement with the EU could be made contingent on a referendum by its express terms, I suppose; with a fallback term in the agreement of a further negotiation period without leaving the EU. But that seems unlikely.
lwhi 10y ago
I'm confused why my comment has been downvoted. Theresa May was not voted into government. Only 52% of (72.2%) of the population voted for Brexit. Quite a disappointing response.
- NetStrikeForce 10y ago
  Further proof many, many people don't understand democracy and think you're not allowed a voice. People, democracy is not the tyranny of the majority. Quite the opposite actually.
  - ohstopitu 10y ago
    how does democracy protect the minority? (not saying the minority does not have a voice, but how does it help, if they'll always be voted out?) And if so (and this being a political thread) - Trump being elected is totally legit even though he got less votes (as he was voted by the majority in more than half the states) ? Asking as an outsider - I just feel like everytime the popular opinion does not get voted in - there's an "justified" outcry (but if the majority had won - and there was an outcry by the minority - that's them being childish/not respecting democracy etc.)
    - NetStrikeForce 10y ago
      > how does democracy protect the minority? (not saying the minority does not have a voice, but how does it help, if they'll always be voted out?) With separation of powers and the rule of law. > And if so (and this being a political thread) - Trump being elected is totally legit even though he got less votes (as he was voted by the majority in more than half the states) ? 1- Everywhere I've lived in, my vote has had less power than the average of the state / region. I'm OK with that because otherwise all policies will only favour the overpopulated areas. 2- I don't know all the US election details, but apparently you've got a big issue with corruption that in this case reflects on gerrymandering. 3- If the situation was the opposite, Hillary winning despite less votes, I guess you wouldn't consider it legit? Don't answer me, that's easy; answer internally to yourself. Be sincere. 4- Your problem with Trump is that your "left" candidate is so to the right, that there's no room for human decency at her right. Just think about it, what's a more right-wing policy that doesn't go against climate change, equality/equity, worker's rights, military intervention, radicalisation of your police force, for profit prison system, stupid healthcare system, ... Should I keep going? > Asking as an outsider - I just feel like everytime the popular opinion does not get voted in - there's an "justified" outcry (but if the majority had won - and there was an outcry by the minority - that's them being childish/not respecting democracy etc.) There are always outcries when there's a strong division on a topic. We need to make sure our values stand every single time, whether our opinion wins or we loses.
thenomad 10y ago
I couldn't agree more, and I wonder why you're being downvoted so hard. Particularly given that 52% of the voters voted for Leave, not for a hard Brexit. Those are two very different propositions and a significant chunk of the 52% didn't want a hard Brexit.
- dazc 10y ago
  How did you arrive at this conclusion other than pure conjecture? The in-out vote was a binary choice, as I remember?
  - headmelted 10y ago
    It's a less radical conclusion to assume that of the 52% of the leave voters there were at least some who didn't intend for this hard of a split, versus assuming that every last voter did. Also, you and I both know very well a lot of people that voted had no clue what it meant to leave. Or in some cases, what the EU even is, frighteningly.
  - cannam 10y ago
    No idea what individual voters thought they were voting for, but it's worth remembering that the official Leave campaign said that the UK would be staying in the free-trade zone. That may be impossible to reconcile with the other things they said, but there it is. (Source: http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/our_case.html http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/our_case.html - "There is a free trade zone from Iceland to Turkey and the Russian border and we will be part of it")
  - thenomad 10y ago
    There were polls before and after the event on exactly this question, as well as considerable discussion of the Leave options from Leave campaigners and the press. So I conclude what I originally said from those data points.
- raesene6 10y ago
  I would suggest that a large percentage of that 52% voted based on "control the borders" rhetoric. That (AFAIK) cannot be delivered while remaining in the single market, so the UK government is taking the only possible path to satisfy that requirement which was voted for by the UK population in a referendum... Now I'd agree that if you actually spelled out the reality of "hard brexit" people might be given pause and really they should have listened to "project fear" as it was dubbed by the brexit crew, but the fact remains that the brexit campaign was on border control and to deliver this the UK has to leave the single market
sandbags 10y ago
Agree completely. An ambiguous referendum that gave no guidance. An unelected PM who has taken it upon herself to define the most egregious future path. The only ethical stance is to set out definite terms (which I guess she is now doing) and hold a general election (which I am 100% sure she will not).
- SixSigma 10y ago
  > An unelected PM She was elected by her party, just like Cameron was.
  - headmelted 10y ago
    Not the same. While on the surface this is correct, Cameron subsequently ran as the face of the party in a general election before assuming office, thereby receiving a public mandate (albeit a weak one first time round due to the hung parliament). May did not.
    - SixSigma 10y ago
      That assumption is just that.
  - lgeek 10y ago
    Her only opponent quit, she was the only one running.
    - SixSigma 10y ago
      See also Michael Howard, 2003 John Major, 1990 Margaret Thatcher, 1975
  - gaius 10y ago
    And just like Corbyn. That's the way it's always worked in the UK - we don't have a "president". Amazing how many people don't understand this.
notahacker 10y ago
A general election in the near future isn't going to pose any practical obstacle to May, since the opposition parties (except in Scotland) are in total disarray and the public has very little information to judge whether May's vague aspirations are actually realistic and desirable. And all the available evidence suggests they actually trust her more than the PM whose government they reelected. A post-negotiation referendum might be more of a mandate, but pitching the idea that "the referendum obliges the government to attempt to negotiate the best Leave settlement it can; it doesn't guarantee the outcome of those negotations will actually be more popular than the EU so that deal shoud also be put to referendum" required considerably more unity and political skill on the part of the remains of the Remain campaign to make the idea stick.
hkjgkjy 10y ago
27.8% chose not to have a say in it then. Leaving the EU means leaving the single market, and a majority voted for that. It's not too late for the UK - if you do have a general election, and one party promises to not follow the Brexit referendum, and they win, I guess the EU will stay. But then people will moan about government not following the voice of the people, as expressed by the referendum.
- srssays 10y ago
  The desire for a Norway-style agreement was voiced frequently before and after the referendum by various Leave politicians (e.g. Hannan and Boris). Since Leave isn't a party, it didn't and doesn't have any policies.
- soVeryTired 10y ago
  > Leaving the EU means leaving the single market That's actually not correct. It's possible to be in the European Free Trade Area without being a member of the EU. Norway, Switzerland, and Iceland have this arrangement.
  - dx034 10y ago
    But we need the £400mln per week we'd pay for that to fund the NHS! /s
- Chestofdraw 10y ago
  > Leaving the EU means leaving the single market, and a majority voted for that. Stop this revisionism.
raesene6 10y ago
To me a referendum is a clearer mandate than any general election (especially using a First Past the Post system) as it's more focused on a single topic and is (partially) free of the baggage of party alliegance. Given the percentage of the electorate who supported the current government at the last general election, it doesn't seem likely that you'd get a clearer mandate from a new one. It seems to me that Mrs May didn't have a lot of choice here, a large portion of the exit vote (which won) was predicated on "control the borders" and the only way that can be delivered is by leaving the single market, anything else is evidently not delivering the will of the majority. (before you assuming I'm a brexiter, I'm not, personally I think it's a terrible idea, however we live in a democracy and the exit vote won, simple as that)
- gpderetta 10y ago
  clear mandate to what exactly? Hard brexit? Why would you assume that would be the preferred outcome of a majority of the population?
  - raesene6 10y ago
    Clear mandate to achieve the aims campaigned on. A large part of the the brexit campaign revolved around control of immigration. Now control of immigration predicates leaving the single market as one of the principles of that is freedom of movement, so there's literally no way to achieve the stated brexit campaign goals without leaving the single market. I didn't say anything about the majority of the population I said people who voted in favour of the referendum. The reality of our electoral system is that you just need the majority of voters, not population (well unless you're scotland in the 70's that is) EDIT : in case anyone wants to argue that immigration wasn't a key part of the leave campaign... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/27/eu-referendum-reality-check-leave-campaign-promises https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/27/eu-referend... a key pledge related to immigration directly and another was closely associated
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > To me a referendum is a clearer mandate than any general election It's potentially a clearer mandate on, at most, exactly the question asked in the referendum, but it's not a mandate for any particular method of implementing it nor is it a mandate for any party's or leader's judgement in pursuing it, nor is it even a mandate for any choice on balancing that one priority against others.

by lwhi 10y ago

Gupie 10y ago

We need a second referendum on what is finally agreed with the EU. The people are allowed to change their mind.

xemoka 10y ago
Yeah, but article 50 doesn't work like that, does it?
- dx034 10y ago
  It just says you're out after two years, which will be very interesting if some regional parliament decides to block the deal the EU makes with the UK. And I'm sure there will be a parliament which is unhappy with the deal.
- Gupie 10y ago
  In what way? Article 50 can be revoked once triggered: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-article-50-revoked-once-triggered-senior-academics-claim-a7393661.html http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-article...
  - gpderetta 10y ago
    "[...] probably unilaterally by the UK. However, in the latter case the UK would find itself having to defend a very uncertain legal and very troubling position.” senior academic claims (emphasis and ellipses mine).
    - Gupie 10y ago
      We could be in a "very troubling position" if we stay or try to remain. Anyway no one listens to "senior academics" anymore :(
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  The agreement with the EU could be made contingent on a referendum by its express terms, I suppose; with a fallback term in the agreement of a further negotiation period without leaving the EU. But that seems unlikely.

lwhi 10y ago

I'm confused why my comment has been downvoted. Theresa May was not voted into government. Only 52% of (72.2%) of the population voted for Brexit. Quite a disappointing response.

NetStrikeForce 10y ago
Further proof many, many people don't understand democracy and think you're not allowed a voice. People, democracy is not the tyranny of the majority. Quite the opposite actually.
- ohstopitu 10y ago
  how does democracy protect the minority? (not saying the minority does not have a voice, but how does it help, if they'll always be voted out?) And if so (and this being a political thread) - Trump being elected is totally legit even though he got less votes (as he was voted by the majority in more than half the states) ? Asking as an outsider - I just feel like everytime the popular opinion does not get voted in - there's an "justified" outcry (but if the majority had won - and there was an outcry by the minority - that's them being childish/not respecting democracy etc.)
  - NetStrikeForce 10y ago
    > how does democracy protect the minority? (not saying the minority does not have a voice, but how does it help, if they'll always be voted out?) With separation of powers and the rule of law. > And if so (and this being a political thread) - Trump being elected is totally legit even though he got less votes (as he was voted by the majority in more than half the states) ? 1- Everywhere I've lived in, my vote has had less power than the average of the state / region. I'm OK with that because otherwise all policies will only favour the overpopulated areas. 2- I don't know all the US election details, but apparently you've got a big issue with corruption that in this case reflects on gerrymandering. 3- If the situation was the opposite, Hillary winning despite less votes, I guess you wouldn't consider it legit? Don't answer me, that's easy; answer internally to yourself. Be sincere. 4- Your problem with Trump is that your "left" candidate is so to the right, that there's no room for human decency at her right. Just think about it, what's a more right-wing policy that doesn't go against climate change, equality/equity, worker's rights, military intervention, radicalisation of your police force, for profit prison system, stupid healthcare system, ... Should I keep going? > Asking as an outsider - I just feel like everytime the popular opinion does not get voted in - there's an "justified" outcry (but if the majority had won - and there was an outcry by the minority - that's them being childish/not respecting democracy etc.) There are always outcries when there's a strong division on a topic. We need to make sure our values stand every single time, whether our opinion wins or we loses.

thenomad 10y ago

I couldn't agree more, and I wonder why you're being downvoted so hard. Particularly given that 52% of the voters voted for Leave, not for a hard Brexit. Those are two very different propositions and a significant chunk of the 52% didn't want a hard Brexit.

dazc 10y ago
How did you arrive at this conclusion other than pure conjecture? The in-out vote was a binary choice, as I remember?
- headmelted 10y ago
  It's a less radical conclusion to assume that of the 52% of the leave voters there were at least some who didn't intend for this hard of a split, versus assuming that every last voter did. Also, you and I both know very well a lot of people that voted had no clue what it meant to leave. Or in some cases, what the EU even is, frighteningly.
- cannam 10y ago
  No idea what individual voters thought they were voting for, but it's worth remembering that the official Leave campaign said that the UK would be staying in the free-trade zone. That may be impossible to reconcile with the other things they said, but there it is. (Source: http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/our_case.html http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/our_case.html - "There is a free trade zone from Iceland to Turkey and the Russian border and we will be part of it")
- thenomad 10y ago
  There were polls before and after the event on exactly this question, as well as considerable discussion of the Leave options from Leave campaigners and the press. So I conclude what I originally said from those data points.
raesene6 10y ago
I would suggest that a large percentage of that 52% voted based on "control the borders" rhetoric. That (AFAIK) cannot be delivered while remaining in the single market, so the UK government is taking the only possible path to satisfy that requirement which was voted for by the UK population in a referendum... Now I'd agree that if you actually spelled out the reality of "hard brexit" people might be given pause and really they should have listened to "project fear" as it was dubbed by the brexit crew, but the fact remains that the brexit campaign was on border control and to deliver this the UK has to leave the single market

sandbags 10y ago

Agree completely. An ambiguous referendum that gave no guidance. An unelected PM who has taken it upon herself to define the most egregious future path. The only ethical stance is to set out definite terms (which I guess she is now doing) and hold a general election (which I am 100% sure she will not).

SixSigma 10y ago
> An unelected PM She was elected by her party, just like Cameron was.
- headmelted 10y ago
  Not the same. While on the surface this is correct, Cameron subsequently ran as the face of the party in a general election before assuming office, thereby receiving a public mandate (albeit a weak one first time round due to the hung parliament). May did not.
  - SixSigma 10y ago
    That assumption is just that.
- lgeek 10y ago
  Her only opponent quit, she was the only one running.
  - SixSigma 10y ago
    See also Michael Howard, 2003 John Major, 1990 Margaret Thatcher, 1975
- gaius 10y ago
  And just like Corbyn. That's the way it's always worked in the UK - we don't have a "president". Amazing how many people don't understand this.

notahacker 10y ago

A general election in the near future isn't going to pose any practical obstacle to May, since the opposition parties (except in Scotland) are in total disarray and the public has very little information to judge whether May's vague aspirations are actually realistic and desirable. And all the available evidence suggests they actually trust her more than the PM whose government they reelected. A post-negotiation referendum might be more of a mandate, but pitching the idea that "the referendum obliges the government to attempt to negotiate the best Leave settlement it can; it doesn't guarantee the outcome of those negotations will actually be more popular than the EU so that deal shoud also be put to referendum" required considerably more unity and political skill on the part of the remains of the Remain campaign to make the idea stick.

hkjgkjy 10y ago

27.8% chose not to have a say in it then. Leaving the EU means leaving the single market, and a majority voted for that. It's not too late for the UK - if you do have a general election, and one party promises to not follow the Brexit referendum, and they win, I guess the EU will stay. But then people will moan about government not following the voice of the people, as expressed by the referendum.

srssays 10y ago
The desire for a Norway-style agreement was voiced frequently before and after the referendum by various Leave politicians (e.g. Hannan and Boris). Since Leave isn't a party, it didn't and doesn't have any policies.
soVeryTired 10y ago
> Leaving the EU means leaving the single market That's actually not correct. It's possible to be in the European Free Trade Area without being a member of the EU. Norway, Switzerland, and Iceland have this arrangement.
- dx034 10y ago
  But we need the £400mln per week we'd pay for that to fund the NHS! /s
Chestofdraw 10y ago
> Leaving the EU means leaving the single market, and a majority voted for that. Stop this revisionism.

raesene6 10y ago

To me a referendum is a clearer mandate than any general election (especially using a First Past the Post system) as it's more focused on a single topic and is (partially) free of the baggage of party alliegance. Given the percentage of the electorate who supported the current government at the last general election, it doesn't seem likely that you'd get a clearer mandate from a new one. It seems to me that Mrs May didn't have a lot of choice here, a large portion of the exit vote (which won) was predicated on "control the borders" and the only way that can be delivered is by leaving the single market, anything else is evidently not delivering the will of the majority. (before you assuming I'm a brexiter, I'm not, personally I think it's a terrible idea, however we live in a democracy and the exit vote won, simple as that)

gpderetta 10y ago
clear mandate to what exactly? Hard brexit? Why would you assume that would be the preferred outcome of a majority of the population?
- raesene6 10y ago
  Clear mandate to achieve the aims campaigned on. A large part of the the brexit campaign revolved around control of immigration. Now control of immigration predicates leaving the single market as one of the principles of that is freedom of movement, so there's literally no way to achieve the stated brexit campaign goals without leaving the single market. I didn't say anything about the majority of the population I said people who voted in favour of the referendum. The reality of our electoral system is that you just need the majority of voters, not population (well unless you're scotland in the 70's that is) EDIT : in case anyone wants to argue that immigration wasn't a key part of the leave campaign... https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/27/eu-referendum-reality-check-leave-campaign-promises https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/27/eu-referend... a key pledge related to immigration directly and another was closely associated
dragonwriter 10y ago
> To me a referendum is a clearer mandate than any general election It's potentially a clearer mandate on, at most, exactly the question asked in the referendum, but it's not a mandate for any particular method of implementing it nor is it a mandate for any party's or leader's judgement in pursuing it, nor is it even a mandate for any choice on balancing that one priority against others.