Brexit Referendum Superthread

Peregrinus

Referenda are fairly exotic creatures in the British constititutional scheme of things, so their thinking about what kind of mandate a referendum confers is a bit vague.

In general, what kind of mandate your vote confers is determined by what you voted for, not your reasons for voting for that.

So, e.g, a British party goes into a general election with a manifesto promising a flat 20% tax rate, the closure of the universities, the extension of the London Underground to Birmingham and knighthoods for everyone over the age of 35. They win a thumping majority. They now have a mandate to do all these things. It makes no difference which of these things actually motivated the supporters, and it doesn't matter if none of them, taken individually, would attract majority support.

So, with a referendum, you have a mandate to do what it says on the tin - in this case, leave the EU. Doing so will allow you to control immigration from the EU-27, if you wish to (or if you think it would be popular) but you have no mandate to do so, because you didn't seek one. It would be different if the government had campaigned for an exit vote, promising greater immigration controls if successful; then there would be mandate for greater immigration controls. But, as matters stand, all you have is the possibility of greater immigration controls after Brexit, if you think they would be popular/in the public interest.

solodeogloria

Calina wrote: »

That really depends on your point of view. Almost 50% of people voted to stay so there is division and not an obvious victor in terms of what to do.

Good morning,

52% voted to leave. It is respecting democracy to respect the vote. I'm sure there are many more of the 48% than I who just want Britain to invoke Article 50 and get it over with.

Calina wrote: »

The other point I would raise is that free movement of European labour is arguably not a form of discrimination. Remember that the UK took in more non-EU immigration in the last few years than EU sourced immigration. If immigration was the problem, the UK had the tools to strongly reduce the numbers. Ultimately the UK signed up to the European project which brought with it certain requirements. They were at liberty to control ex-EU immigration, practically didn't do it to any great extent so effectively, you could argue people coming from outside the EU were not massively disadvantaged in this respect.

But here's the crux of the issue. Why should Britain reduce the non-EU numbers? Most of these people will be skilled workers that fill a gap in the British economy.

It is free movement that is the issue. The people are not saying no to any immigration from the EU but controlled migration so that for example lower wage workers aren't constantly at risk of being undercut by a lower wage worker coming from the EU. Non-EU immigrants won't be in this category due to Home Office limits on salary.

It is arguably discriminatory to let people in from the EU on easier terms than elsewhere.

Calina wrote: »

Personally I think the problem is that UK people tend to be quite insular. Many of them do not speak foreign languages - in absolute terms more people take higher level French in Ireland than take A-level French in England/Wales/NI for example. Not percentage terms - absolute - absolute terms. They have been having increasing problems getting people into the European institutions because of the language skills deficit. Ireland btw has a similar issue on that front. But I do think that at least in Ireland for various reasons we've seen an uptick in interest in languages like Polish because of intercultural relationships.

Yes and no. You have to realise that London is the most multicultural city in Europe and probably one of the most multicultural on the face of the earth. That isn't going to stop being the case after Brexit. The UK is still going to be an open country. One doesn't need to be a member of the EU to ensure that. Most other British cities are also hugely multicultural.

Calina wrote: »

However, I think what will be interesting is whether, in fact, Article 50 gets invoked in March or not. Dates have slipped several times already and while March is far enough away to avoid more accusations of slippage, it's coming fast and there is a monumental lack of direction or coherence from the UK Cabinet.

Why would she miss it? Why would that be in her interests?

As for the Cabinet's strategy - we don't know this in full. I kind of understand why - you don't want your hand on the table in a game of poker. That doesn't mean there isn't one.

Calina wrote: »

for the tl;dr version: it is just possible that the referendum result actually doesn't suit Britain's interests at all and that perhaps, there needs to be a refocus on the country's interests rather than the referendum. I'm not sure how it will be possible to do this because the level of debate about it so far suggests that ignorance is a driving force and a lack of awareness of that ignorance is also causing problems. Personally I think they need a referendum that provides an indication of the negotiation preference because the one thing the referendum did not do is identify that and it's very much to the detriment of the country that this is the case.

Technocracy versus Democracy. The enlightened experts know best and the public are just silly lemmings. That's the difference between democracy in mainland Europe and Britain.

I think there will be a cost to Brexit in the short to medium term, but there is no reason to believe that Britain can't get a deal with the EU and there's no reason to think it won't be able to set up deals with other countries. I think it's because we've all mostly grown up with the EU that we think there's no other options outside of it. But, most of the world does just fine outside of the EU and there's no reason at all to think that isn't true of the UK also.

The people voted because they felt Brexit was in the national interest. That needs to be respected. That will come at a price and the people think that's worth paying for the long term benefits of being able to set up their own trade deals, to take control of their borders and to control their own laws.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

alastair

solodeogloria wrote: »

Technocracy versus Democracy. The enlightened experts know best and the public are just silly lemmings. That's the difference between democracy in mainland Europe and Britain.

That's a rather strange assertion, given that the UK electorate are being kept in the dark about what strategy or policy the UK government (presumably the 'enlightened experts') are taking with regard to their country's relationship with Europe, and consequently the rest of the world.

You seem to believe that democracy is encapsulated in a one-time non-binding referendum on a subject that wasn't actually teased out as to the implications, and that the people should have no input as to the consequences that will impact on them.

That sounds precisely like the very thing that you suggest applies in 'mainland' Europe.

The democratic thing would be to establish what the UK electorate want regarding single market membership, border controls and then, govern on that basis.

UK also has a representative democracy and not direct democracy.

Zubeneschamali

solodeogloria wrote: »

As for the Cabinet's strategy - we don't know this in full. I kind of understand why - you don't want your hand on the table in a game of poker.

We all know they have no cards and are bluffing. This will become increasingly obvious as time goes on.

So far, their only negotiating tactic has been to threaten a hard Brexit, which is exactly what the hardliners in the EU want.

FA Hayek

The spotlight is on the UK for now but there is a point in saying that the UK government should not reveal their strategy of Brexit just because some people are clamouring for it. The media do not run a country no matter what the editors and the chattering class think.

With the spotlight on the UK, people seem to forget the huge structural issues in the EU itself. Greece has not gone away. Germany is having a crisis of confidence, France is near turning to the National Front for some semblance of control, Italy and its banks are near bankruptcy and are only kept alive by the generosity of the ECB, the Dutch and Austrians if given a chance would vote for their own Brexit, Sweden wants to be a case study on how not to do migration and Ireland is stuck in the middle of all this.

2017 will be important as there may be two new leaders heading up the two powerhouses of the EU, France and Germany. The Dutch is also having an election and you can bet that the euro skeptic parties are going to clean up.

It will be interesting sure but I think people making very bold predictions on how terrible and awful all this will be for the UK will be slightly disappointed in the outcome. There is a new paradigm in politics and few have yet to pick up on this.

alastair

It's not going to be good for the UK, regardless of what the Dutch election outcomes are. And the electorate (not the 'chattering classes') certainly have a right to know what their government intends to do on their behalf.

Zubeneschamali

alastair wrote: »

And the electorate (not the 'chattering classes') certainly have a right to know what their government intends to do on their behalf.

Brexit means brexit.

Thomas_...

solodeogloria wrote: »

Technocracy versus Democracy. The enlightened experts know best and the public are just silly lemmings. That's the difference between democracy in mainland Europe and Britain.

I think there will be a cost to Brexit in the short to medium term, but there is no reason to believe that Britain can't get a deal with the EU and there's no reason to think it won't be able to set up deals with other countries. I think it's because we've all mostly grown up with the EU that we think there's no other options outside of it. But, most of the world does just fine outside of the EU and there's no reason at all to think that isn't true of the UK also.

The people voted because they felt Brexit was in the national interest. That needs to be respected. That will come at a price and the people think that's worth paying for the long term benefits of being able to set up their own trade deals, to take control of their borders and to control their own laws.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

The 52% have been deluded and some of them are just waking up and face what this Brexit is really about to mean in the mid to the long run. The rest of the world who does just fine outside the EU has no such need to have access to the single market like the UK has. Those countries outside of the EU and also outside of Europe which are doing "fine" are often the big global Players like USA, Canada, Australia, Russia and China and in compare to them, UK is just a tiny island nation.

Well, good luck with it and don't let the door hit them on their way out.

Thomas_...

Another example for how time changes opinions, especially by someone who is now PM:
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-37782468

How big a deal is leaked tape of Theresa May?

Thomas_...

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

alastair wrote: »

And the electorate (not the 'chattering classes') certainly have a right to know what their government intends to do on their behalf.

Brexit means brexit.

Mrs May says one thing and does another. Mrs May means Mrs May.

FA Hayek

alastair wrote: »

It's not going to be good for the UK, regardless of what the Dutch election outcomes are. And the electorate (not the 'chattering classes') certainly have a right to know what their government intends to do on their behalf.

I am sure you have put your pensions fund and life savings into this bet have you?

The UK government tell everyone what their play is and at the same time scupper their negotiation position. I am sure people know this and that is their aim but people are wise to this trick.

FA Hayek

Some of us didn't get a choice not to



<

---

FA Hayek wrote: »

I am sure you have put your pensions fund and life savings into this bet have you?

The UK government tell everyone what their play is and at the same time scupper their negotiation position. I am sure people know this and that is their aim but people are wise to this trick.

dinorebel

Thomas_... wrote: »

Those countries outside of the EU and also outside of Europe which are doing "fine" are often the big global Players like USA, Canada, Australia, Russia and China and in compare to them, UK is just a tiny island nation.

Well, good luck with it and don't let the door hit them on their way out.

Yet the UK has a far bigger economy than 3 of that list for example the UK's GDP is twice that of Russia.

dinorebel

Thomas_... wrote: »

Mrs May says one thing and does another. Mrs May means Mrs May.

Of course she said one thing and is doing another she was on the Remain side(quietly but still a Remainer) and is now PM after a referendum voted out. Are you saying she should ignore the result or that only a Brexiter should be PM?

Thomas_...

dinorebel wrote: »

Thomas_... wrote: »

Mrs May says one thing and does another. Mrs May means Mrs May.

Of course she said one thing and is doing another she was on the Remain side(quietly but still a Remainer) and is now PM after a referendum voted out. Are you saying she should ignore the result or that only a Brexiter should be PM?

Neither of the two. She should call a snap GE and see how the people vote in now and if there would be a majority that backs the plan (I still wonder what exact plan there is already worked out to this day) of the UK govt. to go ahead for the Brexit then she would have a brighter and more secure democratic approval for this.

This would give the electorate a second chance to think again and vote on the Brexit. But to do so just on the basis on this referendum which was not legally binding and deprive parliament to have its say on that matter and also vote on it is the peak of her arrogance, apart from clinging to power once she has got the taste of being PM.

alastair

FA Hayek wrote: »

I am sure you have put your pensions fund and life savings into this bet have you?

Thankfully I'm not relying on the £ for those savings. The economic damage is already evident, and it'll not get better before it gets worse. Clearly the UK isn't going to become a third world nation, but it's a bit daft to suggest that Brexit isn't going to harm the UK economy.

Thomas_...

Thomas_... wrote: »

Neither of the two. She should call a snap GE and see how the people vote in now and if there would be a majority that backs the plan (I still wonder what exact plan there is already worked out to this day) of the UK govt. to go ahead for the Brexit then she would have a brighter and more secure democratic approval for this.

This would give the electorate a second chance to think again and vote on the Brexit. But to do so just on the basis on this referendum which was not legally binding and deprive parliament to have its say on that matter and also vote on it is the peak of her arrogance, apart from clinging to power once she has got the taste of being PM.

Fixed Term Parliament Act would require her to ask for a vote of no-confidence in the current Government in order to do that.

There is no realistically feasible route to a GE.

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

Fixed Term Parliament Act would require her to ask for a vote of no-confidence in the current Government in order to do that.

There is no realistically feasible route to a GE.

Now - that's not true.

There's a second mechanism laid out in the Act:

If the House of Commons, with the support of two-thirds of its total membership (including vacant seats), resolves "That there shall be an early parliamentary general election"

Thomas_...

Deleted User wrote: »

Thomas_... wrote: »

Neither of the two. She should call a snap GE and see how the people vote in now and if there would be a majority that backs the plan (I still wonder what exact plan there is already worked out to this day) of the UK govt. to go ahead for the Brexit then she would have a brighter and more secure democratic approval for this.

This would give the electorate a second chance to think again and vote on the Brexit. But to do so just on the basis on this referendum which was not legally binding and deprive parliament to have its say on that matter and also vote on it is the peak of her arrogance, apart from clinging to power once she has got the taste of being PM.

Fixed Term Parliament Act would require her to ask for a vote of no-confidence in the current Government in order to do that.

There is no realistically feasible route to a GE.

There is also the open door to resign and call a new GE. That is the feasible route to a GE, but as you said, not the realistic one cos once the taste of power is taken, it won't go away. She has tasted power by now, and it certainly tastes even more to her since being PM.

Thomas_...

Thomas_... wrote: »

There is also the open door to resign and call a new GE. That is the feasible route to a GE, but as you said, not the realistic one cos once the taste of power is taken, it won't go away. She has tasted power by now, and it certainly tastes even more to her since being PM.

No political party would ever even countenance asking for a vote of no confidence in itself.

alastair

alastair wrote: »

Now - that's not true.

There's a second mechanism laid out in the Act:

Yup. Requiring a very very large minority of her MPs to vote for no confidence in the government.

Political suicide.

(also, that would not be in her power would it? She couldn't 'call a snap GE' without asking for the vote)

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

Yup. Requiring a very very large minority of her MPs to vote for no confidence in the government.

Political suicide.

(also, that would not be in her power would it? She couldn't 'call a snap GE' without asking for the vote)

It doesn't call for any vote of confidence in the government. May could call for a vote on an early election without any inference as to the conduct or quality of her government. There's an easy two thirds of Parliament uneasy about Brexit - it would be a done-deal if a vote was called.

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

No political party would ever even countenance asking for a vote of no confidence in itself.

They don't have to. That's why the second mechanism is there.

Thomas_...

Deleted User wrote: »

Thomas_... wrote: »

There is also the open door to resign and call a new GE. That is the feasible route to a GE, but as you said, not the realistic one cos once the taste of power is taken, it won't go away. She has tasted power by now, and it certainly tastes even more to her since being PM.

No political party would ever even countenance asking for a vote of no confidence in itself.

You're missing my point. I wasn't talking of a no confidence vote in parliament, I was talking about her just throwing the towel and resign. Cameron didn't need a no confidence vote in the Commons, he simply resigned and that was that. He just didn't call for a new GE because he suggested Mrs May as his replacement.

alastair

alastair wrote: »

It doesn't call for any vote of confidence in the government. May could call for a vote on an early election without any inference as to the conduct or quality of her government. There's an easy two thirds of Parliament uneasy about Brexit - it would be a done-deal if a vote was called.

alastair wrote: »

They don't have to. That's why the second mechanism is there.

Great, except in the case we have now (a very weak majority) the Government would require the opposition to support the bill in order to achieve the 66% required.

Now, if I'm in opposition and believe that the Government are trying to call an early election to compound a majority, am I going to allow them to exercise that mechanism on their own terms? (i.e second method). I doubt it. They would in fact demand that if the Government wanted an early GE, they must pass a vote of no-confidence in themselves. They would not get the second mechanism passed.

An opposition bill to enact the second mechanism might attract enough members of the house to get passed, but once again, that is certainly not May calling a GE, quite the opposite in fact.

Thomas_...

alastair wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

Yup. Requiring a very very large minority of her MPs to vote for no confidence in the government.

Political suicide.

(also, that would not be in her power would it? She couldn't 'call a snap GE' without asking for the vote)

It doesn't call for any vote of confidence in the government. May could call for a vote on an early election without any inference as to the conduct or quality of her government. There's an easy two thirds of Parliament uneasy about Brexit - it would be a done-deal if a vote was called.

Yes, and I think that she must know about that, but as I said, the taste of power is too sweet for some people. She might lose a GE, but with that weak Labour Party the chances might be higher for her to win, unless there is another party which very clear for a remaining of the UK as a member of the EU (I think that the LibDems could be that party) which could rally the remainers behind it and got more votes in order to secure that the Brexit won't happen.

As there is no such scenario in sight, the donkey will jump off the cliff and the Brexit will go ahead to the bitter end.

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

Great, except in the case we have now (a very weak majority) the Government would require the opposition to support the bill in order to achieve the 66% required.

Now, if I'm in opposition and believe that the Government are trying to call an early election to compound a majority, am I going to allow them to exercise that mechanism on their own terms? (i.e second method). I doubt it. They would in fact demand that if the Government wanted an early GE, they must pass a vote of no-confidence in themselves. They would not get the second mechanism passed.

That's a bit strange - you think that the opposition would reject an opportunity to compete in an election? Particularly on an issue that they oppose and is currently in play? They would have to, or (justifiably) face the wrath of their support base.

In any case - the claim that a vote of no confidence is required is incorrect.

alastair

alastair wrote: »

That's a bit strange - you think that the opposition would reject an opportunity to compete in an election? Particularly on an issue that they oppose and is currently in play? They would have to, or (justifiably) face the wrath of their support base.

In any case - the claim that a vote of no confidence is required is incorrect.

Nothing strange whatsoever. The opposition would say, and quite rightly "if you want a general election, you have the power to call one - simply vote yourselves out".

The 'political points' scored by doing this are incalculable of course, but undeniably exist.

FWIW, the Labour Party would be terrified of having a GE today.

in any case, the claim that Mrs May cannot call a snap GE without realistically calling for a vote of no-confidence in herself is true.

(if we're doing a 'last word' game)

alastair

Deleted User wrote: »

Nothing strange whatsoever. The opposition would say, and quite rightly "if you want a general election, you have the power to call one - simply vote yourselves out".

The 'political points' scored by doing this are incalculable of course, but undeniably exist.

FWIW, the Labour Party would be terrified of having a GE today.

It's a view. But not one I'd agree with. Any party seen to avoid an opportunity to advocate for their platform is making itself redundant electorally.