5 ms·

Yes there was a vote. But it was a vote on a very ambiguous set of terms that was also an advisory vote, not a binding vote. This vote has been taken by an unel

Yes there was a vote. But it was a vote on a very ambiguous set of terms that was also an advisory vote, not a binding vote. This vote has been taken by an unelected Prime Minister serving out a term won on a mandate to protect UK interests in Europe. The current PM's actions are quite illegitimate.

Noseshine 10y ago
You can twist and turn it any way you like, there WAS a vote, it was democratic, and you just keep complaining and whining about democracy when you don't like the outcome. The current PM's actions are quite illegitimate. If that is so go to the courts. Otherwise whatever you say is just an empty bag of hot air. Of course, you won't do that - because you know very well the current UK government is perfectly legitimate. And "brexit" was voted for by the people. People like you only start complaining when they dislike the result - or please show me your similar complains when the result was to your liking, because there always are people who abstain. Only votes from people who vote count, what a huge surprise.
- sandbags 10y ago
  Why do you have to take such a tone? Can we not disagree and argue without adhominem attacks? Your argument is a fallacy. In any division there are going to be those who agree and disagree with the outcome. Of course the people who get what they "wanted" don't argue against it. But they also shouldn't argue against the legitimacy of those who don't to continue to argue their point. That is the difference here. Yes, there was a vote on an advisory referendum that had not specific details about what the outcome should be. What does that make legitimate? If Theresa may had decided that to leave the EU we had to go to war with Europe, would that be legitimised by the vote? This argument is about the terms of any such approach and how to legitimise those.
- sandbags 10y ago
  I will add that there are two current legal challenges and I suspect there will be more.
- misnome 10y ago
  > If that is so go to the courts They did. The court sided against the government. They appealed to the supreme court, whom we are currently awaiting a judgement from.
SixSigma 10y ago
Which election had "I want David Cameron as PM" on the ballot? I only remember having the option to vote in parliamentary elections for my local MP.
- sandbags 10y ago
  On the leadership of the party I concede, strictly, your point. We don't vote for a PM, although clearly people knew who they were voting to be the PM. But the government was elected with a manifesto commitment to protect our interests in Europe and hold a referendum. It was not, to my knowledge, invested with a mandate to act on that referendum in the way that it is doing.
- misnome 10y ago
  Almost as though we don't directly get to elect the people who administer the whole thing. Sounds a bit like the EU, but we all know[1] how that's a completely different out-of-control unelected bureaucracy[2]. [1] Have been told [2] The EU parliament doesn't count, for vague reasons that change every time you hear it.

Noseshine 10y ago

You can twist and turn it any way you like, there WAS a vote, it was democratic, and you just keep complaining and whining about democracy when you don't like the outcome. The current PM's actions are quite illegitimate. If that is so go to the courts. Otherwise whatever you say is just an empty bag of hot air. Of course, you won't do that - because you know very well the current UK government is perfectly legitimate. And "brexit" was voted for by the people. People like you only start complaining when they dislike the result - or please show me your similar complains when the result was to your liking, because there always are people who abstain. Only votes from people who vote count, what a huge surprise.

sandbags 10y ago
Why do you have to take such a tone? Can we not disagree and argue without adhominem attacks? Your argument is a fallacy. In any division there are going to be those who agree and disagree with the outcome. Of course the people who get what they "wanted" don't argue against it. But they also shouldn't argue against the legitimacy of those who don't to continue to argue their point. That is the difference here. Yes, there was a vote on an advisory referendum that had not specific details about what the outcome should be. What does that make legitimate? If Theresa may had decided that to leave the EU we had to go to war with Europe, would that be legitimised by the vote? This argument is about the terms of any such approach and how to legitimise those.
sandbags 10y ago
I will add that there are two current legal challenges and I suspect there will be more.
misnome 10y ago
> If that is so go to the courts They did. The court sided against the government. They appealed to the supreme court, whom we are currently awaiting a judgement from.

SixSigma 10y ago

Which election had "I want David Cameron as PM" on the ballot? I only remember having the option to vote in parliamentary elections for my local MP.

sandbags 10y ago
On the leadership of the party I concede, strictly, your point. We don't vote for a PM, although clearly people knew who they were voting to be the PM. But the government was elected with a manifesto commitment to protect our interests in Europe and hold a referendum. It was not, to my knowledge, invested with a mandate to act on that referendum in the way that it is doing.
misnome 10y ago
Almost as though we don't directly get to elect the people who administer the whole thing. Sounds a bit like the EU, but we all know[1] how that's a completely different out-of-control unelected bureaucracy[2]. [1] Have been told [2] The EU parliament doesn't count, for vague reasons that change every time you hear it.