claretspice wrote:Try and keep out of the Brexit stuff these days - its repetitive - but this is such pernicious guff it deserves a response.
Jolyon Maugham is referring to the ECJ the question of whether Article 50 can be revoked without question. In other words, whether the status quo is an option. That is important because if we do have a second referendum that would have to be an option on the ballot paper.
Now, a second referendum may not be possible - the logistics don't really stack up time wise - but the argument its undemocratic is utter self-serving tosh. In effect it boils down to arguing an ill informed referendum is democratically legitimate, whereas an informed one between two well defined possible options would not be.
If we had another choice between two clearly defined options, and "remain" won, then clearly the country would not be rabidly euro sceptic. A minority would be rabidly euro sceptic who always have been, and of course its them who present this argument.
I'm not convinced a second referendum is practical, but leaving that aside, the language that brexit must be irreversible is the language of dictators who having gained power in a narrow election win, promptly suspend elections. For intelligent people to cloak it in the language of democracy is amongst the most disingenuous things I've ever heard or read.
Apologies, just seen this reply. Just logged in to post player ratings,
I had to look up what pernicious means - I’m guessing you are a lawyer as only a lawyer would use a word like that, so I can see why you defend that QC.
You call the argument self serving but it’s your argument above that is the self serving one. My vote won - I don’t need to be self serving.
“This is important because if we do have a second referendum” - the whole point is that we shouldn’t have one, never in our history have we had one so close to reverse another. The first should be enacted - no matter what. That’s what they are for. Then, as I said yesterday, by all means hold another in a decade to test if we suit being out. The angry parties (EU and Remain voters) trying to throw as many spanners in the works as they can doesn’t make it more credible to vote again, it makes it less credible to vote again. Trying to hold one now is self serving, deceitful and wrong.
You then call the first vote “ill-informed” - that is a sweeping judgement with a huge assumption that you know what other people in society are thinking. Maybe, just maybe, you hold a minority view? We should all try to expand our minds and think outside our own comfort zones, something that in my experience Remain fanatics struggle to do.
You then proceed to expand your delusions of grandeur by assuming that if Remain won, that would be fair and democratic. Was the Electoral Commission blocking an election of a Leave voting candidate this week democratic? The Commission who would set the wording of the question? Those of us who live in the real world know that just because 51% may vote Remain doesn’t make those 51% non-eurosceptic. Your extreme liberalism may not like this, but we live in a Eurosceptic country. I personally know around 20 people who detest the EU but voted Remain on economic grounds. 3 of them are so appalled by recent events they would now vote Leave. It doesn’t make the other 17 non-Eurosceptic.
Anyway, labelling me guff, disingenuous and whatever pernicious means I can’t allow even after a 4-0 win, but lets raise one to the Clarets anyway!