** The Brexit Thread ** - 'Brexit Means Brexit'

[pwa]

The irony of the Lib Dem position is staggering. For as long as I can remember they have campaigned for proportional representation. But now they seek to overturn the result of a vote in which every vote counted by winning a majority of seats in a first past the post system. They need to have a long hard look in the mirror.

In theory they could have a parliamentary majority with 40% of the votes and overturn a measure invoked by 52% of votes. Their commitment to democracy is shot.

[Mike Sales]

it requires a peculiar sort of doublestink to believe that the majority of voters can be ignored and cancelled by a genuine democracy

If a majority vote for remain parties, or for remain in a third referendum, then it would be entirely democratic to remain, and undemocratic to leave.

It was not said that a vote to leave would be irrevocable in any circumstances. Give the people a chance to say again that we want to leave, or that we have changed our mind. What could be more democratic?

[Oldjohnw]

The irony of the Lib Dem position is staggering. For as long as I can remember they have campaigned for proportional representation. But now they seek to overturn the result of a vote in which every vote counted by winning a majority of seats in a first past the post system. They need to have a long hard look in the mirror.

In theory they could have a parliamentary majority with 40% of the votes and overturn a measure invoked by 52% of votes. Their commitment to democracy is shot.

I don't think that there is anything undemocratic about the LibDems position.

If they get elected it will be by people who know their manifesto and then they have a huge mandate. Going from 18 members to nearly 300 to get in government would be a far more democratic indicator than a silly referendum which said nothing and was probably fraudulent.

[Mike Sales]

And where democracy falls in all this? Parliament has not mandate to revoke article 50.

If the Liberal Democrats want to revoke article 50 then I'd say let them campaign for a revoke of article 50 on the next General Elections and if they win by overall majority then they would have a mandate to revoke article 50 and any supporter of brexit that believes in democracy should respect the decision.

Isn't their campaign to stop the leave process implicitly a campaign to revoke?

[pwa]

The irony of the Lib Dem position is staggering. For as long as I can remember they have campaigned for proportional representation. But now they seek to overturn the result of a vote in which every vote counted by winning a majority of seats in a first past the post system. They need to have a long hard look in the mirror.

In theory they could have a parliamentary majority with 40% of the votes and overturn a measure invoked by 52% of votes. Their commitment to democracy is shot.

I don't think that there is anything undemocratic about the LibDems position.

If they get elected it will be by people who know their manifesto and then they have a huge mandate. Going from 18 members to nearly 300 to get in government would be a far more democratic indicator than a silly referendum which said nothing and was probably fraudulent.

But for decades they have criticised First Past the Post, which gives a parliamentary majority without having a majority of the votes, yet they will now seek to use that system to overturn a vote which did get more than half the votes. If that is not ironic I don't know what is.

[Oldjohnw]

The irony of the Lib Dem position is staggering. For as long as I can remember they have campaigned for proportional representation. But now they seek to overturn the result of a vote in which every vote counted by winning a majority of seats in a first past the post system. They need to have a long hard look in the mirror.

In theory they could have a parliamentary majority with 40% of the votes and overturn a measure invoked by 52% of votes. Their commitment to democracy is shot.

I don't think that there is anything undemocratic about the LibDems position.

If they get elected it will be by people who know their manifesto and then they have a huge mandate. Going from 18 members to nearly 300 to get in government would be a far more democratic indicator than a silly referendum which said nothing and was probably fraudulent.

But for decades they have criticised First Past the Post, which gives a parliamentary majority without having a majority of the votes, yet they will now seek to use that system to overturn a vote which did get more than half the votes. If that is not ironic I don't know what is.

Yes, but it happens to be the only system available. Should they opt out of electins because of the system?

[Mike Sales]

But for decades they have criticised First Past the Post, which gives a parliamentary majority without having a majority of the votes, yet they will now seek to use that system to overturn a vote which did get more than half the votes. If that is not ironic I don't know what is.

If a Liberal government were in a position to introduce PR, it would be because they had won a FPP election. Hypocritical?

[pwa]

Yes, but it happens to be the only system available. Should they opt out of electins because of the system?

To be consistent with their own stated principles they would need to run a second referendum. It would be an abandonment of those principles to overturn the referendum result with, say 42% of the vote in a General Election. The referendum was the most direct form of democracy and to overturn it with FPTP is the opposite of what the Lib Dems have always stood for.

[pwa]

But for decades they have criticised First Past the Post, which gives a parliamentary majority without having a majority of the votes, yet they will now seek to use that system to overturn a vote which did get more than half the votes. If that is not ironic I don't know what is.

If a Liberal government were in a position to introduce PR, it would be because they had won a FPP election. Hypocritical?

In government they would hold a referendum on PR, because in other circumstances they have been in favour of referenda.

[RRSODL]

And where democracy falls in all this? Parliament has not mandate to revoke article 50.

If the Liberal Democrats want to revoke article 50 then I'd say let them campaign for a revoke of article 50 on the next General Elections and if they win by overall majority then they would have a mandate to revoke article 50 and any supporter of brexit that believes in democracy should respect the decision.

Isn't their campaign to stop the leave process implicitly a campaign to revoke?

Well they are now campaigning to revoke article 50 but that wasn't the case for the last election, also they are only the third largest political party in parliament, way behind Labour so they have a mountain to climb before they have a mandate to revoke article 50.

If I'm honest, I think this is simply a strategy to attract people that don't want Brexit full stop, by offering something different, the problem is that they are offering to ignore the referendum, like it never happened, while before they were asking for a second referendum but since Labour now also is seeking a second referendum, the Lib Dems need to seek something different. I have a feeling this is going to backfire on them.

[roubaixtuesday]

Yes, but it happens to be the only system available. Should they opt out of electins because of the system?

To be consistent with their own stated principles they would need to run a second referendum. It would be an abandonment of those principles to overturn the referendum result with, say 42% of the vote in a General Election. The referendum was the most direct form of democracy and to overturn it with FPTP is the opposite of what the Lib Dems have always stood for.

Opinion asserted as fact.

My own opinion is the opposite - events since the referendum have unequivocally shown that it was fatally flawed as a democratic instrument.

[bovlomov]

The referendum was the most direct form of democracy....

A referendum is direct, but not more legitimate than other forms - even leaving aside the fraud that plagued this particular referendum.

[Mike Sales]

Yes, but it happens to be the only system available. Should they opt out of electins because of the system?

To be consistent with their own stated principles they would need to run a second referendum. It would be an abandonment of those principles to overturn the referendum result with, say 42% of the vote in a General Election. The referendum was the most direct form of democracy and to overturn it with FPTP is the opposite of what the Lib Dems have always stood for.

I think they should hold a third referendum. Another vote has seemed inevitable to me for some time, and I have posted so here.

[pete75]

The irony of the Lib Dem position is staggering. For as long as I can remember they have campaigned for proportional representation. But now they seek to overturn the result of a vote in which every vote counted by winning a majority of seats in a first past the post system. They need to have a long hard look in the mirror.

In theory they could have a parliamentary majority with 40% of the votes and overturn a measure invoked by 52% of votes. Their commitment to democracy is shot.

I don't think that there is anything undemocratic about the LibDems position.

If they get elected it will be by people who know their manifesto and then they have a huge mandate. Going from 18 members to nearly 300 to get in government would be a far more democratic indicator than a silly referendum which said nothing and was probably fraudulent.

But for decades they have criticised First Past the Post, which gives a parliamentary majority without having a majority of the votes, yet they will now seek to use that system to overturn a vote which did get more than half the votes. If that is not ironic I don't know what is.

Yes they have criticised it and would prefer a system of PR. We don't currently have that so they have to work with the present system as do all other parties. Are you suggesting that a LIbdem government elected under the present system would have no legitimacy because the party supports PR?

[mjr]

I don't want the UK cast adrift. Never have done.

Yet here we are. Adrift and humiliated. By Luxembourg.

Oh well, Luxembourg is ruled by the EU so we won't need their agreement for a trade deal... Oh wait that's not reality is it? Piffle is annoying people we would need not to veto stuff. I wonder why.

But never mind, the Leave lunatics will keep wittering on about the future manifestoes of small parties and ignore the massive international diplomacy mess now in progress.