General Election June 8th

[bluethrunthru]

Well I and many of those who voted leave think we do have the clout or believed the EU was not heading in a direction that was beneficial to us. Nobody on the remain side gave a conclusive argument about where the EU was heading in the next ten years, just what a 'disaster' it would be if we left now.But that's for another thread; i've already given my reasons and explanations to support the vote I gave and I still do not regret it. This debate is about the snap General Election and whether it should have been called or if the reasons to do so signify a majority public approval of the decision made by the referendum take last June, and I see it like this:-

*We've voted to leave the EU*
"It was only advisory! You don't have a legal mandate to do this!"

Fine, we'll get Supreme Court approval that Parliament has to have the final say.
*Supreme Court agrees Parliament must be allowed to have the final say on invoking Article 50 and start the process to leave the EU. Parliament agrees to enacting Article 50 via vote, A50 become Royal Assent*

"You don't have the support of the whole nation!"
Fine, we'll hold a snap election so you can vote for the MP's that publically support or reject invoking Article 50 and leaving the EU

...."it's still not a mandate!"

I don't deny that the vote went the Leave way and as mush as that dismayed me as a Remainer what will be will be and its about making the best of it. I would NEVER promote the idea that we keep voting until we get the "correct" decision. However I just see banks moving functions abroad - car makers now hedging their bets on assertions made before the vote ( eg Nissan and Toyota have said that staying in the UK is dependant on HM Govt spending £100+ on improving THEIR supply chain ) - Trump telling Merkel - a woman he can't stand - that the EU ( market of 600m people to trade into? ) will get preference over the UK ( a market of 60m to trade into ) are all early signs that we just aren't the major player you think we are. Sorry.

 

[Metal Biker]

I absolutely agree that it was an in/out binary decision and unfortunately the political elite as it were all put their own spin on why Leave got the most votes ( a win in most peoples parlance) and that is mostly misguided because like just about all politicians they are just too far removed from "real people" to really know what was behind the decision and in many cases that "elite" don't want to know.

The political elite serve their own interests.

Mandelson, Kinnock, publically rejected by the British electorate, now have cushy positions within the EU, dedicated to promoting further European integration. Whatever the EU was supposed to uphold, promote and benefit no longer exists. Many of us have seen the detriments to continued EU membership and voted in accordance to that yet still we had people like Mandelson, Blair, Izzard, Geldof, telling us we were wrong. Ever since we've had the pro-EU remainers championing their efforts to overturn a democratic result. Look at the recent narrative of 'Gina Millers tactical voting' campaign. They don't want Brexit to happen; that's understandable as there were many people who were against this decision.

But to suggest that this snap election is not or should not be the defining answer as to the 'mandate' of what direction the British electorate wants the UK Parlaiment to go in regarding Brexit, means that the pro-EU remainers will simply reject ANY method which solidifies the decision taken last June. To me that is an unacceptable stance to hold given the reality of the snap election being called; this is precisely the right decision and the definitive decsion to all those who still regard Brexit and the decision to hold a referendum as folly.

If those parties which have publically stated their oppostion to the result of the EU referendum recieve the most MP's in Parlaiment, then THAT should be regarded as the mandate that the British public on a whole have rejected the 'hard Brexit' stance presented by the parties that support and accept the result of the June EU Referendum, just as that any party that DOES support the result and will honour the result to conclude the UK's exit from the EU should be equally respected and seen as the will of the people.

 

[Metal Biker]

I don't deny that the vote went the Leave way and as mush as that dismayed me as a Remainer what will be will be and its about making the best of it. I would NEVER promote the idea that we keep voting until we get the "correct" decision. However I just see banks moving functions abroad - car makers now hedging their bets on assertions made before the vote ( eg Nissan and Toyota have said that staying in the UK is dependant on HM Govt spending £100+ on improving THEIR supply chain ) - Trump telling Merkel - a woman he can't stand - that the EU ( market of 600m people to trade into? ) will get preference over the UK ( a market of 60m to trade into ) are all early signs that we just aren't the major player you think we are. Sorry.

Regardless of your interpreted observations, it is the decision we as a voting electorate have taken. If the public has changed it's mind since, this snap election will reveal exactly which party they want to take us forwardin regards to our exit from the EU. Either a backtracking mentality or a 'hardline' exit.

All the parties have made their positions clear; hard brexit, honouring the result, damage limitation, reverse the decision, oppose the decision. It it left in our hands to decide once again which direction we as a majority want our elected MP's to take, as it should be. We tell them what we want, not the other way around. They govern, not dictate.

 

[bluethrunthru]

The political elite serve their own interests.

Mandelson, Kinnock, publically rejected by the British electorate, now have cushy positions within the EU, dedicated to promoting further European integration. Whatever the EU was supposed to uphold, promote and benefit no longer exists. Many of us have seen the detriments to continued EU membership and voted in accordance to that yet still we had people like Mandelson, Blair, Izzard, Geldof, telling us we were wrong. Ever since we've had the pro-EU remainers championing their efforts to overturn a democratic result. Look at the recent narrative of 'Gina Millers tactical voting' campaign. They don't want Brexit to happen; that's understandable as there were many people who were against this decision.

But to suggest that this snap election is not or should not be the defining answer as to the 'mandate' of what direction the British electorate wants the UK Parlaiment to go in regarding Brexit, means that the pro-EU remainers will simply reject ANY method which solidifies the decision taken last June. To me that is an unacceptable stance to hold given the reality of the snap election being called; this is precisely the right decision and the definitive decsion to all those who still regard Brexit and the decision to hold a referendum as folly.

If those parties which have publically stated their oppostion to the result of the EU referendum recieve the most MP's in Parlaiment, then THAT should be regarded as the mandate that the British public on a whole have rejected the 'hard Brexit' stance presented by the parties that support and accept the result of the June EU Referendum, just as that any party that DOES support the result and will honour the result to conclude the UK's exit from the EU should be equally respected and seen as the will of the people.

I agree with all you say with the view on the elite - but don't forget amongst those gravy train riders are some Tories too.

I'd take issue with your view on the election ref Brexit though because to treat it as such is to re-run the referendum. What if a pro Leave party got the most seats? Would that be a mandate to reverse the referendum decision? A General Election has to be fought broadly on all front because the next Govt isn't being elected to run a 2 year negotiation whilst letting all other aspects of governing just hang in the air...

 

[Bewar3them00n]

Most definitely not voting for May, the evil, lying woman!

 

[Metal Biker]

I agree with all you say with the view on the elite - but don't forget amongst those gravy train riders are some Tories too.

I'd take issue with your view on the election ref Brexit though because to treat it as such is to re-run the referendum. What if a pro Leave party got the most seats? Would that be a mandate to reverse the referendum decision? A General Election has to be fought broadly on all front because the next Govt isn't being elected to run a 2 year negotiation whilst letting all other aspects of governing just hang in the air...

It would be a instruction by the electorate to raise the issue to Parliament to challenge the invoking of Article 50, which let's not forget is now LAW by Royal Assent. It MUST be enacted or repealed by an act of Parliament, passed by the House of Lords.

The UK Parliament has to invoke Article 50 to whatever conclusion. At best, a pro EU, anti-leave majority Government would have to be seen to challenge the law and put the decision to Parliament, and I'd have to accept that we leavers, given the fact that under the terms of this snap election being called, would have to accept that Government would have the right to at least present the matter to Parliament.

Parliament then votes and if it votes to repeal the "Article 50 activation" law, it will do so. If it does not, the new pro-EU Government would still be bound to leave the EU but under the provisions of what they presented to the electorate during the snap election. This snap election is a gamble, but given the popularity of May, Brexit as a whole and the number of MP's who have publically stated their respect to the referendum result, I don't see the result of June 2016 being overturned.

May didn't call this snap election in response to Labour's criticisms about foodbanks and NHS funding, did she.

 

[bluethrunthru]

It would be a instruction by the electorate to raise the issue to Parliament to challenge the invoking of Article 50, which let's not forget is now LAW by Royal Assent. It MUST be enacted or repealed by an act of Parliament, passed by the House of Lords.

The UK Parliament has to invoke Article 50 to whatever conclusion. At best, a pro EU, anti-leave majority Government would have to be seen to challenge the law and put the decision to Parliament, and I'd have to accept that we leavers, given the fact that under the terms of this snap election being called, would have to accept that Government would have the right to at least present the matter to Parliament.

Parliament then votes and if it votes to repeal the "Article 50 activation" law, it will do so. If it does not, the new pro-EU Government would still be bound to leave the EU but under the provisions of what they presented to the electorate during the snap election. This snap election is a gamble, but given the popularity of May, Brexit as a whole and the number of MP's who have publically stated their respect to the referendum result, I don't see the result of June 2016 being overturned.

May didn't call this snap election in response to Labour's criticisms about foodbanks and NHS funding, did she.

No but if she wishes to continue as PM through Brexit negs and beyond do you really think that she should expect to be just swept to power without being taken to task on her Governments record as a whole?

 

[Bewar3them00n]

It's not just about Brexit though is it? The Tories are running our schools into the ground, grinding the NHS into dust, ready to be sold on, record numbers of people using food banks, record levels of child poverty. Disabled and vulnerable people being deprived of essential services and care, anybody who cheats the government out of benefits is hounded like a criminal, yet bankers and companies who cheat the tax man out of millions, are let off.
Prices are rocketing up, this country is in a fucking disgrace, people are being turned against each other by lies and manipulation of the government and Tory backed media.
The only reason May has called this snap election ( even though she promised she wouldn't ) is because there are 30 Tory MP's are about to be charged for electoral fraud and will be banned from sitting in the House, thus removing Tory parliamentary majority, she's hoping that the election comes first.

Its a tough decision isn't it, voting for a party who wants to save the NHS, tackle tax avoidance, housing issues, child poverty, or one that wants to screw everybody who isn't a rich wanker into dust while aligning themselves with Saudia Arabia. But no, carry on believing the Tory propaganda pumped out by, yes you guessed it, Tory backed newspapers and media outlets.

 

[Metal Biker]

It's not just about Brexit though is it? The Tories are running our schools into the ground, grinding the NHS into dust, ready to be sold on, record numbers of people using food banks, record levels of child poverty. Disabled and vulnerable people being deprived of essential services and care, anybody who cheats the government out of benefits is hounded like a criminal, yet bankers and companies who cheat the tax man out of millions, are let off.
Prices are rocketing up, this country is in a fucking disgrace, people are being turned against each other by lies and manipulation of the government and Tory backed media.
The only reason May has called this snap election ( even though she promised she wouldn't ) is because there are 30 Tory MP's are about to be charged for electoral fraud and will be banned from sitting in the House, thus removing Tory parliamentary majority, she's hoping that the election comes first.

Its a tough decision isn't it, voting for a party who wants to save the NHS, tackle tax avoidance, housing issues, child poverty, or one that wants to screw everybody who isn't a rich wanker into dust while aligning themselves with Saudia Arabia. But no, carry on believing the Tory propaganda pumped out by, yes you guessed it, Tory backed newspapers and media outlets.

So Theresa May called a snap election to solely address these apparent Labour highlighted public concerns?

What was stopping her and the Conservatives continuing their term as Government until 2020 before she made the decision? I'm intrigued.

 

[Metal Biker]

No but if she wishes to continue as PM through Brexit negs and beyond do you really think that she should expect to be just swept to power without being taken to task on her Governments record as a whole?

Is that why she called the snap election though?

She called it to address the concerns raised by Labour, Lib Dems and the SNP about not being given a a mandate to pursue a hard brexit.

It smacks of desperation to include a few "oh and by the ways" in regards to her parties performance in power, regardless of people's criticisms of it in respect to everything people have highlighted, education, healthcare, migration etc. This snap election was absolutely called to address the brexit/no mandate criticism and nothing else. If other parties who oppose the Conservatives with to highlight those concerns they are free to do so, however, given the motives of the snap election being called I doubt it will hold sway with many of the electorate, especially those they intend to switch their vote from Conservative to Labour/SNP, which is the apparent objective.

I'm an (occasional) Labour voter and I want to hear Labour's vision for Britain leaving the EU, not how they will 'save the NHS'. Brexit is the key issue; avoiding it or giving it second billing will turn many people off Labour.