Brexit Referendum Superthread

alastair

Sam Russell wrote: »

Maybe, but it is not undemocratic if you get the wrong answer. Sure we do it all the time when the wrong answer is returned. (Divorce, Lisbon, etc.)

Divorce and Lisbon referenda were different questions in both cases. General elections pose the same question every time, and no-one seems to have a difficulty with the notion of the electorate changing their minds.

ancapailldorcha

From this week's issue of The Economist:



Article here. The article states that the slight majority by which Leave won may now have evaporated.

BlitzKrieg

Hmm perhaps the Tories are playing hard until ukip burns itself out? Once that threat is gone they might soften on a lot of the brexit terms?

amacca

djpbarry wrote: »

Putting a question to the electorate more than once is, apparently, "undemocratic".

Yes, well even as I was typing it I thought that might come up.

djpbarry

Sam Russell wrote: »

Maybe, but it is not undemocratic if you get the wrong answer. Sure we do it all the time when the wrong answer is returned. (Divorce, Lisbon, etc.)

I was being facetious - I see absolutely no issue in asking any electorate "Are you sure?"

Thomas_...

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Hmm perhaps the Tories are playing hard until ukip burns itself out? Once that threat is gone they might soften on a lot of the brexit terms?

Not quite the perception I have, rather the contrary that if UKIP goes further down, not less of the Kippers might defect to the Tory Party and then the Tories have them former Kippers in their ranks.

Peregrinus

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Hmm perhaps the Tories are playing hard until ukip burns itself out? Once that threat is gone they might soften on a lot of the brexit terms?

The UK government is snookered two ways on soft Brexit terms. First, UKIP will denounce them as traitors if they look for any special deal from Europe at all. Secondly, there is no guarantee that they will get any special deal from Europe, since it will require the unanimous consent of each of the EU-27 member states. So they may lose face by looking for something and failing to acheive it. Even if UKIP goes away, the second problem does not

The politically safe course is to look for hard Brexit, because you can't be criticised by Brexiters for that, and it is certainly deliverable.

Jim2007

Peregrinus wrote: »

Secondly, there is no guarantee that they will get any special deal from Europe, since it will require the unanimous consent of each of the EU-27 member states.

Unless the deal requires a treaty change all that is required is a EU parliament majority, plus a council majority representing 65% of the population of the EU.

Peregrinus

You need unamity among member states for (a) a treaty change; (b) an additional treaty [therefore you'd need unanimity for the UK to join the EEA, for example, since that's done by a treaty of accession] or (c) action in any of the policy fields for which unanimity is required in the Council. These include any question of contribution to the EU budget [e.g. UK contributions to the budget as a quid pro quo for limited access to the market]; anything to do with harmonisation of social security or social protection [mutual recognition of social security regimes for the benefit of UK nationals working in the EU and vice versa]; the common security policy [which is a matter of great interest to the UK]; operational police co-operation [another area of interest to the UK].

It's not easy to think of a plausible set of soft Brexit terms which wouldn't raise some issue requiring unanimity.

Thomas_...

Jim2007 wrote: »

Peregrinus wrote: »

Secondly, there is no guarantee that they will get any special deal from Europe, since it will require the unanimous consent of each of the EU-27 member states.

Unless the deal requires a treaty change all that is required is a EU parliament majority, plus a council majority representing 65% of the population of the EU.

First of all, it's all a matter of what is on the table and there isn't anything put there yet. It's just all hot air by now and one can rather assume that some concrete requests will be put on negotiations next yeat.

As the Brits won't comply on free movement of labour which means Migration from and to EU member states, there's no other way left for them than to go down the path of a hard Brexit and that means no Special conditions for the Brits which would see them being better off with that than with what they had got by Camerons negotiations with the EU while the UK was still a member of (and will remain so until her Exit from) the EU.

Some Brits refuse to realise that Europe is fed up with them and their demands for special treatment and conditions. It will rather be a matter of take it or leave it what is on offer.

Peregrinus

BlitzKrieg wrote: »

Bloomberg warning that it'll be the us and neither Europe or the uk that will benefit from a hard brexit in terms of London financial srvices:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-16/the-big-winner-from-london-s-brexit-exodus-isn-t-even-in-europe

Yes, of course New York as a financial centre will benefit from Brexit.

But one point not made in the Bloomberg article is that, if institutions move out of London because London lacks a financial services passport, a move to New York is a move to another place which also lacks a financial services passport. Even if most of the departing business goes to New York, that's no skin of the EU's nose - it's a matter of indifference to them whether non-EU business is done in London or New York - and some of the business will transfer to centres within the EU - Paris, Frankfurt or even Dublin - because they want an operation with a financial services passport. Even if it's only a small slice of the business, that's a gain for those cities, not a loss.

djpbarry

Peregrinus wrote: »

The politically safe course is to look for hard Brexit, because you can't be criticised by Brexiters for that, and it is certainly deliverable.

I would say it is the politically safe course in the short term, because making a success of a hard Brexit is going to be one hell of a challenge. The die-hard Brexiteers will believe they made the right call regardless of economic impact, but it's going to get harder and harder to keep the electorate on side if their standard of living deteriorates.

oscarBravo

djpbarry wrote: »

I would say it is the politically safe course in the short term...

By a happy coincidence, that's the same timeframe over which the average elected politician makes their plans.

Will May's government do what's best for the UK in the long run, or what they think is best for the Conservatives in the next election? I wonder.

Thomas_...

oscarBravo wrote: »

djpbarry wrote: »

I would say it is the politically safe course in the short term...

By a happy coincidence, that's the same timeframe over which the average elected politician makes their plans.

Will May's government do what's best for the UK in the long run, or what they think is best for the Conservatives in the next election? I wonder.

Mrs May will just look at and do what is best for her party in the next election, that's for sure.

K-9

oscarBravo wrote: »

By a happy coincidence, that's the same timeframe over which the average elected politician makes their plans.

Will May's government do what's best for the UK in the long run, or what they think is best for the Conservatives in the next election? I wonder.

With Labour so weak she should be able to focus on the long term but the Euroskeptic wing is always there in the Tories.

I can see the logic in why they are setting out a hard Brexit position but 48% did vote Remain and I'm sure a significant section of the leave vote wasn't for a full hard Brexit position.

The problem as per usual is nobody seems to be speaking or shouting for that view while the Euroskeptics get all the attention.

Bob24

K-9 wrote: »

The problem as per usual is nobody seems to be speaking or shouting for that view while the Euroskeptics get all the attention.

In my view the problem is a bit more subtle than this.

There has been a very vocal group with good media connections explaining how they are not happy with Brexit. But they used most of that media coverage to explain how this was not a valid referendum and the result should be ignored/reconsidered (calling Brexit voters ill-informed and/or stupid, saying older people shouldn't be given a vote and/or are selfish fro voting the way they did, saying there shouldn't have been a referendum on this as people are not smart enough to understand the implications, etc). That message is clearly not being received beyond that hardcore group as to many people it sounds very condescending and fairly anti-democratic. Very few of the vocal remain advocates have genuinely tried to understand the reasons of the leave vote and reflect on it to address the majority of the voters with a proposed solution/compromise rather than pure negative criticism.

So I would say that as usual, people who are the most vocal and getting attention (on both side of the argument) are the ones who are a bit too self-centred and refuse to consider other's point of view - which makes compromising and finding a middle ground more difficult.

Chips Lovell

Bob24 wrote: »

But they used most of that media coverage to explain how this was not a valid referendum and the result should be ignored/reconsidered (calling Brexit voters ill-informed and/or stupid, saying older people shouldn't vote and/or are selfish, saying there shouldn't have been a referendum on this as people are not smart enough to understand the implications, etc).

Where have you been reading this? Most of the pro-EU coverage I've read has focused on the likely impact to the British economy.

Chips Lovell

K-9 wrote: »

I can see the logic in why they are setting out a hard Brexit position but 48% did vote Remain and I'm sure a significant section of the leave vote wasn't for a full hard Brexit position.

The problem as per usual is nobody seems to be speaking or shouting for that view while the Euroskeptics get all the attention.

The thing is, it's so entrenched now, I can't see there being any compromise. I think they'll actually have to go through with it, the full hard Brexit, before the public start to come around.

djpbarry

oscarBravo wrote: »

Will May's government do what's best for the UK in the long run, or what they think is best for the Conservatives in the next election? I wonder.

I’m starting to wonder whether the Tories can survive this in their current form. The referendum was an attempt by Dave to appease the kippers in the party and they will settle for nothing less than hard Brexit, but most Tory MPs don’t support this. So soft Brexit will likely lead to a revolt by the kippers and hard Brexit massive dissatisfaction among the moderates (and, I expect, the general populace when it becomes apparent that being outside the EU is not all it’s cracked up to be).

What price a split in the party? The vocal minority sod off to form their own ultra-conservative conservatives, while the remainder reform and launch a more centrist “New Conservative” Party. Unlikely I guess, as the dinosaurs will have less influence outside a mainstream party.

Bob24

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Where have you been reading this? Most of the pro-EU coverage I've read has focused on the likely impact to the British economy.

Only focusing on short to medium term economic impacts is refusing to fully analyse the vote in the first place (many leaves are aware of the risk they are taking with the economy but have voted to leave anyway due to other considerations).

But on the specific points I mentioned The Guardian (amongst others) is a very good example of where you can find them, for example:
- https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/24/young-angry-eu-referendum (my point opposing young and old voters)
- https://www.theguardian.com/politics/political-science/2016/oct/06/why-referendums-are-problematic-yet-more-popular-than-ever (my point on referendums not being a valid way to make decisions)

I've also seen numerous crazy post unsocial media of hardcore remainder friends explaining how older people should see their voting rights reduced because they have shorter life expectancy or how Brexit voters are clueless idiots. I am not saying a majority of remain voters think stupid things like this, but it seems like a good bit of the vocal minority does - which doesn't serve their cause with the general public.

Chips Lovell

Neither of those pieces says the result was invalid, or No voters were stupid or suggests taking the vote off older people. Are you sure you're not straw-manning this?

Bob24

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Are you sure you're not straw-manning this?

Yep pretty much. Beyond the now fairly hardcore May government (possibly too much), can you quote many vocal remainers who are genuinely trying to analyse the cause of the vote beyond the simplistic explanations I mentioned and offer a compromise?

oscarBravo

K-9 wrote: »

...I'm sure a significant section of the leave vote wasn't for a full hard Brexit position.

There's the problem with a lot of referendums: they boil complex, nuanced issues down to a yes-or-no question.

Insofar as there was any talk of hard Brexit before the referendum, I seem to recall it mostly being dismissed as "project fear" by the pro-leave campaign. I suspect most of the leave vote was for the "the EU will give us everything we want and we'll concede nothing in return" position.

ancapailldorcha

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's the problem with a lot of referendums: they boil complex, nuanced issues down to a yes-or-no question.

This is the issue and why I think that there's an argument to be made that they're undemocratic (setting aside the fact that it was a ploy to maintain Tory unity).

Take the 2 stances. If you're a remainer, do you favour a reformed EU with a greater emphasis on the government and more public spending? Do you think it's perfect as it is? Would you like it to move in a more capitalist direction? If you're a leaver, would you like to avail of the EEA option and trade with the EU but be freer of the central government? Should the UK sever all ties? Should the UK remain if immigration can be capped?

KingBrian2

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This is the issue and why I think that there's an argument to be made that they're undemocratic (setting aside the fact that it was a ploy to maintain Tory unity).

Take the 2 stances. If you're a remainer, do you favour a reformed EU with a greater emphasis on the government and more public spending? Do you think it's perfect as it is? Would you like it to move in a more capitalist direction? If you're a leaver, would you like to avail of the EEA option and trade with the EU but be freer of the central government? Should the UK sever all ties? Should the UK remain if immigration can be capped?

An argument could made that a European referendum should be held for all the European nations as the UK leaving is important to them and like the fiscal compact which was agreed through parliament and referenda a similar approach could be made for a UK agreement with the rest of Europe ourselves included.

oscarBravo

KingBrian2 wrote: »

An argument could made that a European referendum should be held for all the European nations as the UK leaving is important to them and like the fiscal compact which was agreed through parliament and referenda a similar approach could be made for a UK agreement with the rest of Europe ourselves included.

Wow. I've pointed out how a referendum is a terrible idea for a complex issue, and you respond by proposing an even less practical referendum - one for which no mechanism exists - for an even more complex situation.

KingBrian2

oscarBravo wrote: »

Wow. I've pointed out how a referendum is a terrible idea for a complex issue, and you respond by proposing an even less practical referendum - one for which no mechanism exists - for an even more complex situation.

Wasn't proposing any referendum I was only making the point that many Europeans have their own electorates to look out for. Referendum is but one way to reach a decision.

ancapailldorcha

KingBrian2 wrote: »

An argument could made that a European referendum should be held for all the European nations as the UK leaving is important to them and like the fiscal compact which was agreed through parliament and referenda a similar approach could be made for a UK agreement with the rest of Europe ourselves included.

You're going to have to elaborate? Would other countries have a vote on whether or not the UK should be allowed to leave?

KingBrian2

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

You're going to have to elaborate? Would other countries have a vote on whether or not the UK should be allowed to leave?

As it relates to their workers travelling to the UK then they should have a say. Britain could make multilateral agreements with these countries on free movement. A very vibrant Polish community resides in the UK. The Bulgarians and Romanians also have large communities. Europeans have to position themselves to safeguard their citizens many of them are EU citizens in the UK. Switzerland and Norway don’t have as many EU citizens I happen a guess whereas the UK has huge numbers of citizens and tourists. If not the EU than National gvts will have to get involved in looking out for them.

Apologies for the font my machine is going on he blink at the moment.

Zubeneschamali

KingBrian2 wrote: »

A very vibrant Polish community resides in the UK. The Bulgarians and Romanians also have large communities.

Which many Brexiteers see as a problem.