4 ms·

Article 50 is part of the Treaty of Lisbon. Any member state can trigger article 50 and leave the EU. The time to debate whether or not article 50 was in some w

Article 50 is part of the Treaty of Lisbon. Any member state can trigger article 50 and leave the EU. The time to debate whether or not article 50 was in some way a tyrannical or unjust was during the crafting of the law. So we can assume that it was deemed acceptable and agreed by the member states. If your claim is that article 50 is tyrannical then the Treaty of Lisbon itself should be changed to remove article 50. Barring that, I don't think there is legal standing to try and prevent article 50 from being triggered. It was put to a popular vote and the PM is respecting the will of the citizenry.

toomuchtodo 10y ago
My comment was addressing why politicians might override an electorate morally; I don't believe I took a stance either way on Article 50. The public referendum was non-binding, and legally, can be ignored.
- generic_user 10y ago
  But the topic of discussing is article 50. So I am contextualizing your post with the current topic. > My comment was addressing why politicians might override an electorate I think in the in the current case a referendum was a fairly standard democratic procedure that everyone agreed on. No one questioned weather or not there should have been a referendum in the first place. Some people are just upset that there side lost. So again in the current context there is little evidence of a 'tyrannical majority'. I'm not saying that your points are not valid in the abstract. But in the current discussion of article 50 and Brexit I do not see much evidence that the process or result could credibly called into question.
  - Symbiote 10y ago
    Plenty of people questioned wherever there should be a referendum. More people questioned whether a simple majority was appropriate. By the time of the vote, people questioned whether they had enough information, and after various "promises" were withdrawn mere hours after the result was announced, further questioned what the plan was. We still don't know the plan.
    - generic_user 10y ago
      > Plenty of people questioned wherever there should be a referendum. Yes they did. And there arguments were deemed insufficient by the majority of there peers and fellow citizens. > We still don't know the plan. Its a fair point. But In order to negotiate 'the plan' which will include various bilateral trade agreements and so on the PM has to have the authority to trigger article 50. And I believe the PM has to indeed trigger article 50 before the government can negotiate such agreements if they wanted to be perfectly legal about things. I seriously doubt that this would have passed if the insiders did not have a fairly material plan. I doubt that its entirely worked out but thats to be expected. And Its certainly not going to be released to the public at this point. That would compleatly undermine there negotiating position.
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    > I think in the in the current case a referendum was a fairly standard democratic procedure that everyone agreed on that. No one questioned weather or not there should have been a referendum in the first place. Some people are just upset that there side lost. Again, it was not a legally binding referendum. The government is free to throw the results out. Politicians must be ready to sacrifice their political career to save the electorate from its own self-destruction. Simply because the people vote on something doesn't mean you give it to them.
    - generic_user 10y ago
      > Again, it was not a legally binding referendum. That is probably part of the argument that was made to require a parliamentary vote. Which is conceivably a fair judgement. But on the other hand what is the purpose of having a referendum to leave the EU if it is not intended to be enacted in law? It would be rather nonsensical to hold referendums that have no effect and could be discarded at will. Nevertheless, as we saw the substantial majority voted to honor the referendum and a fairly small minority did not. That leads me to believe that the overwhelming sentiment is to honor the democratic vote and the will of the people. The risk of denying the democratic majority is the risk of the 'tyranny of elite minority'. Its hard to decide which is the true injustice in an abstract fashion. Its very much a question of context and specifics.
      - Symbiote 10y ago
        The purpose, assuming a remain win, was for the Conservative party leadership to tell their anti EU members to shut up and get on with other things, and for the party as a whole to retain appeal in the face of UKIP.

toomuchtodo 10y ago

My comment was addressing why politicians might override an electorate morally; I don't believe I took a stance either way on Article 50. The public referendum was non-binding, and legally, can be ignored.

generic_user 10y ago
But the topic of discussing is article 50. So I am contextualizing your post with the current topic. > My comment was addressing why politicians might override an electorate I think in the in the current case a referendum was a fairly standard democratic procedure that everyone agreed on. No one questioned weather or not there should have been a referendum in the first place. Some people are just upset that there side lost. So again in the current context there is little evidence of a 'tyrannical majority'. I'm not saying that your points are not valid in the abstract. But in the current discussion of article 50 and Brexit I do not see much evidence that the process or result could credibly called into question.
- Symbiote 10y ago
  Plenty of people questioned wherever there should be a referendum. More people questioned whether a simple majority was appropriate. By the time of the vote, people questioned whether they had enough information, and after various "promises" were withdrawn mere hours after the result was announced, further questioned what the plan was. We still don't know the plan.
  - generic_user 10y ago
    > Plenty of people questioned wherever there should be a referendum. Yes they did. And there arguments were deemed insufficient by the majority of there peers and fellow citizens. > We still don't know the plan. Its a fair point. But In order to negotiate 'the plan' which will include various bilateral trade agreements and so on the PM has to have the authority to trigger article 50. And I believe the PM has to indeed trigger article 50 before the government can negotiate such agreements if they wanted to be perfectly legal about things. I seriously doubt that this would have passed if the insiders did not have a fairly material plan. I doubt that its entirely worked out but thats to be expected. And Its certainly not going to be released to the public at this point. That would compleatly undermine there negotiating position.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  > I think in the in the current case a referendum was a fairly standard democratic procedure that everyone agreed on that. No one questioned weather or not there should have been a referendum in the first place. Some people are just upset that there side lost. Again, it was not a legally binding referendum. The government is free to throw the results out. Politicians must be ready to sacrifice their political career to save the electorate from its own self-destruction. Simply because the people vote on something doesn't mean you give it to them.
  - generic_user 10y ago
    > Again, it was not a legally binding referendum. That is probably part of the argument that was made to require a parliamentary vote. Which is conceivably a fair judgement. But on the other hand what is the purpose of having a referendum to leave the EU if it is not intended to be enacted in law? It would be rather nonsensical to hold referendums that have no effect and could be discarded at will. Nevertheless, as we saw the substantial majority voted to honor the referendum and a fairly small minority did not. That leads me to believe that the overwhelming sentiment is to honor the democratic vote and the will of the people. The risk of denying the democratic majority is the risk of the 'tyranny of elite minority'. Its hard to decide which is the true injustice in an abstract fashion. Its very much a question of context and specifics.
    - Symbiote 10y ago
      The purpose, assuming a remain win, was for the Conservative party leadership to tell their anti EU members to shut up and get on with other things, and for the party as a whole to retain appeal in the face of UKIP.