5 ms·
1. MPs acted as delegates because the government was elected on a manifesto promising a referendum and to deliver on the result. The referendum happened, the UK
by ldjb 10y ago
1. MPs acted as delegates because the government was elected on a manifesto promising a referendum and to deliver on the result. The referendum happened, the UK voted to leave, and so the majority of MPs respected the will of the people and voted the bill through.
2. Considering we didn't have a referendum to join the EU in the first place, I'm not sure it makes sense to have a threshold. If the threshold wasn't met, I'm not sure how the default can be to be part of something the British people never said they wanted.
3. I absolutely agree that people need to have accurate information to base their decisions upon. So it was a real shame a lot of the information published by the remain campaign was not entirely true. I'm not sure what promise UKIP made you're referring to.
It is true that democracy requires more than simply going with what the majority want. But in this case, there was a clear choice between leaving the EU or remaining. I really don't see how it can be democratic to keep the UK in the EU after the result of the referendum.
- cstejerean 10y agoI suspect the promise was spending £350M on the NHS after Brexit, which everyone was quick to backpedal from as soon as the vote went through http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/nigel-farage-350-million-pledge-to-fund-the-nhs-was-a-mistake/ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/24/nigel-farage-350-...
- ldjb 10y agoWell, that was Vote Leave, not UKIP. And in fact, the pledge wasn't to spend the entire £350 million on the NHS, but part of it. The government is still looking to do just that, but it can't until we've actually left the EU (we're still paying them money).
- lavezzi 10y agoI'm struggling to read the small print, fam. Can you help me out? http://i.imgur.com/6aU3sH6.png http://i.imgur.com/6aU3sH6.png
- ldjb 10y ago"Let's fund the NHS instead" doesn't mean spending the entire amount. I don't think anyone seriously expected all the money to be used to fund the NHS. Sure, the message written on the bus could have gone into more detail, but it would be a bit ridiculous to put small print on the side of a bus. The point is to have a short, snappy message that quickly gets a point across and can be read from a distance. Further details were available from the website, on leaflets, etc..
- jacquesm 10y agoI'm sure they could have simply corrected the amount and not waste any space with 'small print'. But hey, anything goes when there are votes to be gotten, who cares about facts and accuracy anyway?
- ldjb 10y agoThe amount is correct — it's the gross amount we send to the EU. Perhaps it would have been simpler to just put the net amount — £250 million — which is still a huge amount. Even if they did that, though, people would claim they were promising to spend the entire £250 million on the NHS, which would not be correct either. Whatever the pledge was, people would have nitpicked and claimed it was a lie. There's no way to succinctly provide enough details on the side of a bus to satisfy everyone.
- cstejerean 10y agoHere's another poster, does this clarify what the actual intent was behind that message? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2016/05/14/97905329_BRISTOL_ENGLAND_-_MAY_14__Conservative_MP_Boris_Johnson_speaks_as_he_visits_Bristol_on_May-medium_trans_NvBQzQNjv4BqKjggCdpvXjoraOzAlyzu1MOSRhbr0ZABex7Vh5dC_YU.jpg http://www.telegraph.co.uk/content/dam/news/2016/05/14/97905...
- ldjb 10y agoThat poster was worded horribly and was not correct. It does not represent what the pledge was. However, whenever representatives from Vote Leave were questioned about the pledge, they were always very clear they meant spending a portion of the £350 million on the NHS, not the entire amount. I do wish that poster had been worded better. I'm sure it was a genuine mistake and not an attempt to mislead.
- ionised 10y agoJudean People's Front, People's Front of Judea
- oddlyaromatic 10y agoI think parent was referring to the "let's fund our NHS" idea... The one on the big bus. In my opinion the referendum was too simple to mean much. So much about leaving was not known. When a concrete deal is proposed and the terms and consequences are more clear, I think the public should have another vote on whether that specific deal passes muster. Leave voters surely did not all intend "leave in any way possible no matter what the conditions".
- ldjb 10y agoI think much about remaining was not known either. One thing that was clear was that a vote to remain was not a vote for the status quo. But sure, it would have been nice to have been provided with more detail on what sort of Brexit we'd have. Perhaps the government at the time could have given greater clarity regarding that. Although, given the fact the government underwent a massive reshuffle, and the fact that the UK still has to negotiate terms with the EU, it might have been rather a challenge.
- ptype 10y agoWhat was unknown about remaining?
- ldjb 10y agoFor one thing, how much further the "ever closer union" would go. There had already been chattering about an EU army, and it was only until after the referendum vote went through that we got concrete details on it. There was also the prospect of other countries joining the EU. Was that going to happen or not? We simply didn't (and still don't) know.
- oddlyaromatic 10y agoI agree it would have a been a challenge, if not impossible, to truly give details on the meaning of Leave before those details were negotiated. The Leave vote has of course put the UK on the path to a specific deal. Does enough of the public want to pull the trigger on a specific deal that it would survive another vote is an interesting question to me. I wasn't really close to this one (Irish, and living abroad at that) but I'm surprised to hear that Remain was not a vote for, approximately, the status quo.