Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Brexit Referendum Superthread
Options
Comments
-
Bit cynical wrote: »The parliament continues to be responsible primarily for legislation, and the executive continues to be responsible for executive decisions such as in this case
The goal is over there and it is open0 -
I think that a significant section of the UK elite must have considered in fine detail all the serious questions posed in this & similar threads about leaving the EU
(such as tariffs, supply chain tariffs, single market access, financial passporting, EEEA budget contributions, time length required to do an international trade deal{5, 7, 10 years} etc.) and decided that the correct thing to do is leave the EU.
Because I just can’t believe this earthquake happened in the UK without many seriously powerful (i.e. realistic business) people in that country supporting it.solodeogloria wrote: »...As a remainer in the referendum who now just wants the UK to get on and leave, I think the democratic vote in this referendum must be absolutely respected. In any case parliament would have had a say in this debate anyway when the deal came back from Brussels....
For the most serious issues such as anything related to the long term wealth of a country – there should be a requirement that 2/3 or a 66% majority is in favour for the issue to pass plus a minimum quorum of 70% (the latter figure was 72% in June which was enough, just).
However, in this referendum only 51.9% voted yes. This – for such a serious issue – is a wafer thin margin and should be dismissed for further reflection. I’m sure you’ll say there’s no point complaining now however that’s just trying to sweep these plebiscite requirement issues under the carpet as if they’re non issues.
As others have said, referenda are arguably the worst aspect of the least worst form of government.
Huge proportions of people voting for all kinds of garbage reasons. The most common reason being - to give the government a kicking. Groan :rolleyes:
Then you have the vast swathes of ignorant, ill-informed, propagandised clowns who think it's all just a big laugh (plus of course a proportion of responsible people who actually do care about the issue enough to think about it for more than 10 seconds).
For example if a referendum was held tomorrow with the dubious proposition:-
Do you agree that everyone with brain cancer should be lobotimised on live television to entertain voyeuristic nihilistic sadists?
It is not inconceivable that 30% of voters in the UK or any similar country would vote yes to that question.
That’s the level of crass stupidity we are dealing with in referenda- lots of people who just don’t give a f*ck about anything, voting in the most irresponsible way imaginable.
You say you voted a reluctant remain…...
Nah, in my opinion, I don’t believe you were a remainer in any intelligible sense (which is…er….interesting for an Irishman living in the UK).
There’s nothing wrong with your claims to the contrary, I’m just noting it appears sort of obvious now that you were not.0 -
Paradoxically, it is unlikely that if parliament demands a soft brexit (which is what would suit Ireland) that that is the result that would be obtained. The reason is that the type of brexit that occurs is down to negotiation with the rest of the EU. If the the EU play hardball as many cheerleaders on this forum want it to, then the negotiations are stalemated until the two year deadline comes up. Then the UK is out of the EU without any deal and that amounts to a hard brexit. This is far more likely to happen if Theresa May's hands are tied in negotiations.The thing is you'd imagine that if the UK parliament gets more control over the process your much more likely to get a soft brexit than a hard brexit.
Well this might be possible in future referendums. For example a future Scottish independence referendum, perhaps in thirty years, might require 75% of the electorate there to vote for independence for it to happen. There is some merit in that. However the Brexit referendum has already occurred and was won on the basis of more than 50% voting for brexit. Therefore brexit is what has to happen. Neither Labour or the Tories are disputing this.Only 52% voted to leave and the one thing you can say is that all of that 52% definitely didn't want a hard brexit. You'd actually end up with something more in line with what the uk public wants. But that won't do for the hardliners.0 -
Bit cynical wrote:Well this might be possible in future referendums. For example a future Scottish independence referendum, perhaps in thirty years, might require 75% of the electorate there to vote for independence for it to happen. There is some merit in that. However the Brexit referendum has already occurred and was won on the basis of more than 50% voting for brexit. Therefore brexit is what has to happen. Neither Labour or the Tories are disputing this.
Brexit will happen its just the type of Brexit. People weren't asked about the type. At least 48% of people would like a soft Brexit. Not all of that 52% wanted a hard brexit. That's where parliment comes in most didn't want a brexit in the first place but should respect the vote. If May has to put a deal through parliament she'll have to factor those people in(and be able to hide behind them if necessary) not should the very vocal but a smaller number of Brexit hardliners in her own party.0 -
UK is very low on the list of trade partners compared to for example USA, China etc. (nothing changed and it would come in after Russia on 5th spot just above Turkey at 149 billion EUR vs 140 using Aug. 2016 trade as base) where as EU makes up 50% of UK's trade and even more on the import side (i.e. UK would end up losing in a tariff war due to importing more than they export to EU). EU trade is important for UK; UK trade is no where near as important for EU (it currently makes up about 8% if unchanged but without car manufacturing, passporting etc. this is likely to drop towards 5% or less quickly) and any deal will reflect this esp. as a significant portion of that trade would most likely end up moved to EU instead (see financial services for passporting, car manufacturing, research etc.).
As a reference this is the Aug. 2016 UK export data and the EU top trading partners.
Good morning!
You're confusing the output from the whole EU to the trade of individual member states.
For example Britain is Sweden's third biggest customer, likewise it is Ireland's second biggest, Germany's third, France's fifth, and Italy's third.
Everyone knows that individual member states will be arguing for their own interests as well as the interests of the whole EU at the negotiating table. Unless you're suggesting that they will all be willing to take heavy losses. I personally doubt that, but it remains to be seen.
As for 130Kph's accusations that I didn't vote remain in the referendum. I guess you weren't in the ballot box with me. At the end of the day, Britain has voted to leave therefore that should be respected. The time for whining about the result is over. The time for placing restrictions on the referendum was in parliament when it was being debated in the House of Commons and in the House of Lords. The question now is how does Britain leave the EU.
Claiming that the people were lemmings who shouldn't be listened to is well and good, but it isn't how democracy works.
PeadarCo: I don't think it follows that all 48% are looking for a "soft Brexit". In fact I think the terms "soft Brexit" or "hard Brexit" are meaningless. I personally think that the Government need to seek sovereignty over UK law and controls on migration. I think the UK will still be very open for immigration after these controls are placed in but there needs to be control over unskilled labour in particular.
Much thanks,
solodeogloria0 -
Advertisement
-
@solodeogloria To clarify:
I did not mean to imply that your voting was connected in any way to various gormless groups of voters I was describing.
I don’t doubt you voted remain.
All I was saying was, I noted your rapid 180 degree reversal to the “we’re all Brexiters now” trope after the result was in.
A reluctant remainer would have said something like “this is a profound mistake; we’re stuck with it and now have to make the best of a miserable lot”.
Not what you did which was come on with a weird brand of forced optimism, redolent of a born again UKipper, and start telling people to stop whining and that Brexit means only limited pain in the medium term.
Britain will not go fully down the tubes - they may shrivel into a much reduced version of their post-war selves. How much the reduction is, is the question. Every extra 1% decrease in economic activity is going to hurt.
This is a website in Ireland not a policy committee of the Tory party. People are not obliged to discuss only the question of how does Britain leave the EU if they don’t wish to.0 -
solodeogloria wrote: »I don't think it follows that all 48% are looking for a "soft Brexit"
You are right, the 48% were looking for no Brexit0 -
@solodeogloria To clarify:
I did not mean to imply that your voting was connected in any way to various gormless groups of voters I was describing.
I don’t doubt you voted remain.
All I was saying was, I noted your rapid 180 degree reversal to the “we’re all Brexiters now” trope after the result was in.
A reluctant remainer would have said something like “this is a profound mistake; we’re stuck with it and now have to make the best of a miserable lot”.
Not what you did which was come on with a weird brand of forced optimism, redolent of a born again UKipper, and start telling people to stop whining and that Brexit means only limited pain in the medium term.
Britain will not go fully down the tubes - they may shrivel into a much reduced version of their post-war selves. How much the reduction is, is the question. Every extra 1% decrease in economic activity is going to hurt.
This is a website in Ireland not a policy committee of the Tory party. People are not obliged to discuss only the question of how does Britain leave the EU if they don’t wish to.
Good afternoon!
I think we need to be careful with our personal judgement.
I cast a vote for remaining in the EU. The majority of the British electorate voted to leave with one of the biggest turnouts ever in any vote. The result came in. I believe in respecting the democratic vote. The only option now, is to respect the result and make the best of it. That's not a Tory issue, many Labour voters also voted for Brexit. The people have spoken and the only right policy from here on in is to put that into action instead of whining about it. I believe that Brexit has made things much much more volatile for the UK, but it does offer an exciting opportunity to review the UK's role in the world.
There were clear issues behind the Brexit vote which the Government need to look into. I hope that the UK will remain an open country (and perhaps become a more open country) as a result of this rather than becoming a more closed country, but as an opportunity it is an exciting opportunity to address issues that British people have felt with the EU over the years, and to chart the UK's own direction in years to come. I genuinely believe that in 15 - 20 years time that the UK will not be worse off for making this decision. I might be wrong, but I don't believe the apocalyptic accounts from some posters on this thread.
I'm not massively gloomy about this. If all parties are reasonable in their approach then Britain can reach an amicable divorce deal with the EU and seek a more appropriate relationship with it and the remaining member states of the EU can continue integrating more closely with one another without the UK pulling the handbrake.
Everything is there to play for right now, and I hope the outcome will be good for the UK, good for Ireland and good for the wider European Union.
As for your point about the economy, nobody is predicting a recession in the UK right now. There are revised quarterly growth rates, but this will settle as the markets see what direction Brexit is going in.
Much thanks,
solodeogloria0 -
Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,316 CMod ✭✭✭✭
Join Date:Posts: 16344
Both Germany and France have both clearly come out and marked that they will take such losses to keep EU intact so yes I am stating exactly that; or have you missed the comments from the respective governments? You're also missing another point which is EU represents over 50% of the trade for UK; if the largest economies in EU who represents a significant amount of the trade flowing to UK already stated they are willing to sacrifice it that puts UK in the weak spot and not the other way around. And this is before we line up the countries likely to be highly annoyed with UK (i.e. Slovakia, Poland, Romania, Hungary etc.) which will happily block things if they think UK get a to sweet of a deal or that they will lose to much money.solodeogloria wrote: »Good morning!
You're confusing the output from the whole EU to the trade of individual member states.
For example Britain is Sweden's third biggest customer, likewise it is Ireland's second biggest, Germany's third, France's fifth, and Italy's third.
Everyone knows that individual member states will be arguing for their own interests as well as the interests of the whole EU at the negotiating table. Unless you're suggesting that they will all be willing to take heavy losses. I personally doubt that, but it remains to be seen.
EU can lose the trade with UK and come out in a far better position than UK can lose the trade with EU; that puts the EU negotiators with the strong hand at the table (see for example EUR clearing which will be legislated to have to be within EU). EU can trade on WTO terms (they do that with most of the world anyway) and be fine; UK can't because they lose their key access to their most important markets. And before someone brings up "Oh but UK will trade with the rest of the world" take for example India's Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry who thinks the trade will actually go down after Brexit!
So in essence; yes EU has stated and will play for EU first and EU regulation for any and all trade because they have the size and cards to do so esp. to mark to other countries what happens if you leave; UK on the other hand has all to lose currently but try to bluster and claim they will get all they want somehow through magical beans.0 -
Both Germany and France have both clearly come out and marked that they will take such losses to keep EU intact so yes I am stating exactly that; or have you missed the comments from the respective governments? You're also missing another point which is EU represents over 50% of the trade for UK; if the largest economies in EU who represents a significant amount of the trade flowing to UK already stated they are willing to sacrifice it that puts UK in the weak spot and not the other way around. And this is before we line up the countries likely to be highly annoyed with UK (i.e. Slovakia, Poland, Romania, Hungary etc.) which will happily block things if they think UK get a to sweet of a deal or that they will lose to much money.
EU can lose the trade with UK and come out in a far better position than UK can lose the trade with EU; that puts the EU negotiators with the strong hand at the table (see for example EUR clearing which will be legislated to have to be within EU). EU can trade on WTO terms (they do that with most of the world anyway) and be fine; UK can't because they lose their key access to their most important markets. And before someone brings up "Oh but UK will trade with the rest of the world" take for example India's Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry who thinks the trade will actually go down after Brexit!
So in essence; yes EU has stated and will play for EU first and EU regulation for any and all trade because they have the size and cards to do so. UK on the other hand has all to lose currently but try to bluster and claim they will get all they want somehow through magical beans.
Good afternoon!
The reality is that no other city in Europe can provide the type of investment banking infrastructure that exists in London. There was an article in the Financial Times (possibly behind paywall) about how Frankfurt, Dublin and other European cities can't provide the same level of banking infrastructure that London can in a quick time frame.
Not only is London a centre for Euro clearing, it's also a centre for Yen and Dollar clearing. If anything, if London loses clearing business it will probably go to Zürich or to New York. Here's another article in the Financial Times (possibly behind paywall) discussing why the EU's threat on Euro clearing may be empty. New York also has dollar, yen and euro clearing without being in the European Union according to that article.
Most of London's financial services business isn't tied specifically to the Eurozone or to the European Union. It is global facing. So, yes, perhaps some other cities will take some of that, but the conversation on what the City will get from the negotiation is incredibly premature.
The City might be somewhat diminished by Brexit in a worst case scenario, but it will benefit New York more than it will benefit Frankfurt. London will still remain a major banking city.
Again, I don't get what all this premature doomsaying adds to the argument or why it should encourage anxiety or fear. I guess, the confidence that I have in the UK's place in the world is the reason why I have opted to stay here post-Brexit.
Edit: The EU only constitutes 44% of UK trade. Here's a link discussing that on fullfact.org. The UK buys more from the EU than it sells into it.
Much thanks,
solodeogloria0 -
Advertisement
-
Sorry, did you misread my moniker as 'Nigel Farage', or something?But the Brextiers always stated if it was close they would request another vote.
I'm not Nigel Farage, nor am I even a Brexiter. I don't know why you're replying with a statement that Brexiters made. I'm saying that I, as a different person, who didn't vote, think the referendum result ought to be respected. Because I'm one of those 'democrats'.
There's a very good reason why you should never immediately repeat a democratic referendum, and it's been stated multiple times on this thread. When you repeat a referendum, you give an unfair advantage to the largest state-funded political parties. Voluntary, grassroots campaign groups will not have the resources to keep campaigning.You'd be wrong to oppose it. Times change and things move on.
If we had repeated the Marriage Equality referendum, which would have been an obnoxious, anti-democratic decision, groups like Yes Equality would have had a very difficult time in campaigning. Their resources were depleted by the campaign they ran, whereas any Government party would have a wealth of revolving funding, as well as free labour, effectively, in the form of the civil service.
So no, you cannot just run a repeat referendum to overturn an undesirable outcome, and claim that is acceptable in a democratic society.
Right. A decade later. Not immediately after the first one.We ran the divorce referendum twice.
Nobody thinks you can never repeat a question, only that you can't financially and morally decimate your opposition by holding repeats.
That's analogous to a State changing the law so that it can appeal a legal case against a citizen until the citizen can no longer afford legal representation, or has become apathetic because he believes the entire system is rotten.0 -
That's true, but there's a deeper problem there, which is not usually acknowledged by the 'No Problemers'.solodeogloria wrote: »
Edit: The EU only constitutes 44% of UK trade. Here's a link discussing that on fullfact.org. The UK buys more from the EU than it sells into it.
The long-run demand for goods and services which Britain imports is price inelastic. As far as I know, the UK has an estimated long-run price elasticity of imports of approximately -0.08.
To put it plainly, if an import that used to cost £100 now doubles in price, demand only falls by less than 10%, because it's a necessary item or service that the Brits do not manufacture or create.
That's a problem. It can only be overcome by increasing British production, but that's a long-term project that wouldn't see much fruit for another decade.
Russia purchased about one quarter of all German exports in 2013. That trade has now halved, because of EU sanctions that were led by Germany itself. Recent reports say that Merkel is now seeking to increase those sanctions.solodeogloria wrote: »
For example Britain is Sweden's third biggest customer, likewise it is Ireland's second biggest, Germany's third, France's fifth, and Italy's third.
Principles seem to matter to modern Germany more than its customers do. I think we could say the same of the largest countries in the European Union, all of whom once did strong trade with Russia.0 -
A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »Russia purchased about one quarter of all German exports in 2013. That trade has now halved, because of EU sanctions that were led by Germany itself. Recent reports say that Merkel is now seeking to increase those sanctions.
Principles seem to matter to modern Germany more than its customers do. I think we could say the same of the largest countries in the European Union, all of whom once did strong trade with Russia.
The % of German exports going to Russia you menition is exaggerated (unless you meant a quarter of German exports to outside the EU?). Anyway, it does not change the point that Brits cannot expect a special deal just because they are big importers of German cars and other goods.
2013, German exports:
http://www.thelocal.de/20140403/how-important-is-russia-to-germany-as-a-trading-partner0 -
I think that a significant section of the UK elite must have considered in fine detail all the serious questions posed in this & similar threads about leaving the EU
(such as tariffs, supply chain tariffs, single market access, financial passporting, EEEA budget contributions, time length required to do an international trade deal{5, 7, 10 years} etc.) and decided that the correct thing to do is leave the EU.
Because I just can’t believe this earthquake happened in the UK without many seriously powerful (i.e. realistic business) people in that country supporting it.
For the most serious issues such as anything related to the long term wealth of a country – there should be a requirement that 2/3 or a 66% majority is in favour for the issue to pass plus a minimum quorum of 70% (the latter figure was 72% in June which was enough, just).
However, in this referendum only 51.9% voted yes. This – for such a serious issue – is a wafer thin margin and should be dismissed for further reflection. I’m sure you’ll say there’s no point complaining now however that’s just trying to sweep these plebiscite requirement issues under the carpet as if they’re non issues.
As others have said, referenda are arguably the worst aspect of the least worst form of government.
Huge proportions of people voting for all kinds of garbage reasons. The most common reason being - to give the government a kicking. Groan :rolleyes:
Then you have the vast swathes of ignorant, ill-informed, propagandised clowns who think it's all just a big laugh (plus of course a proportion of responsible people who actually do care about the issue enough to think about it for more than 10 seconds).
For example if a referendum was held tomorrow with the dubious proposition:-
Do you agree that everyone with brain cancer should be lobotimised on live television to entertain voyeuristic nihilistic sadists?
It is not inconceivable that 30% of voters in the UK or any similar country would vote yes to that question.
That’s the level of crass stupidity we are dealing with in referenda- lots of people who just don’t give a f*ck about anything, voting in the most irresponsible way imaginable.
You say you voted a reluctant remain…...
Nah, in my opinion, I don’t believe you were a remainer in any intelligible sense (which is…er….interesting for an Irishman living in the UK).
There’s nothing wrong with your claims to the contrary, I’m just noting it appears sort of obvious now that you were not.
By that logic no referendum in the history of the Irish State, with the exception of the 3rd Amendment, would have been passed. And that just about satisfied your 70% criteria. The Nice treaties had turnouts of less than 50% and Lisbon less than 60% and both of those treaties are directly linked to Irelands long term wealth.0 -
embraer170 wrote: »The % of German exports going to Russia you menition is exaggerated (unless you meant a quarter of German exports to outside the EU?). Anyway, it does not change the point that Brits cannot expect a special deal just because they are big importers of German cars and other goods.
2013, German exports:
http://www.thelocal.de/20140403/how-important-is-russia-to-germany-as-a-trading-partner
The difference between the relationship with Germany and Russia as opposed to that between Germany and the UK is that Germany ran a trade deficit with Russia, and still does. In 2015 that was about 7 billion euro. The UK however accounts for a 51 billion euro surplus on roughly twice the trade total. As stated it doesn't mean that the UK can expect a special deal, however it does mean that German industry will be a little more antsy at the thoughts of a reduction in trade0 -
But, as I said in the earlier paragraph of my post, the type of brexit is not down purely to the UK. That is a matter for negotiation. That is why it only makes sense to ask the electorate whether they want in or out of the EU. I agree with you though that large amounts of people may well want a soft brexit, and indeed it could be what Theresa May is aiming for even though she can't say it publicly.Brexit will happen its just the type of Brexit. People weren't asked about the type. At least 48% of people would like a soft Brexit. Not all of that 52% wanted a hard brexit. That's where parliment comes in most didn't want a brexit in the first place but should respect the vote. If May has to put a deal through parliament she'll have to factor those people in(and be able to hide behind them if necessary) not should the very vocal but a smaller number of Brexit hardliners in her own party.
As I said, it is also in Ireland's interest to have a soft brexit. But if the UK government is only allowed to seek a soft brexit and negotiations fail, then the two year deadline runs out and a hard brexit occurs.0 -
solodeogloria wrote: »Good afternoon!
I think we need to be careful with our personal judgement.
I cast a vote for remaining in the EU. The majority of the British electorate voted to leave with one of the biggest turnouts ever in any vote. The result came in. I believe in respecting the democratic vote. The only option now, is to respect the result and make the best of it. That's not a Tory issue, many Labour voters also voted for Brexit. The people have spoken and the only right policy from here on in is to put that into action instead of whining about it. I believe that Brexit has made things much much more volatile for the UK, but it does offer an exciting opportunity to review the UK's role in the world.
There were clear issues behind the Brexit vote which the Government need to look into. I hope that the UK will remain an open country (and perhaps become a more open country) as a result of this rather than becoming a more closed country, but as an opportunity it is an exciting opportunity to address issues that British people have felt with the EU over the years, and to chart the UK's own direction in years to come. I genuinely believe that in 15 - 20 years time that the UK will not be worse off for making this decision. I might be wrong, but I don't believe the apocalyptic accounts from some posters on this thread.
I'm not massively gloomy about this. If all parties are reasonable in their approach then Britain can reach an amicable divorce deal with the EU and seek a more appropriate relationship with it and the remaining member states of the EU can continue integrating more closely with one another without the UK pulling the handbrake.
Everything is there to play for right now, and I hope the outcome will be good for the UK, good for Ireland and good for the wider European Union.
As for your point about the economy, nobody is predicting a recession in the UK right now. There are revised quarterly growth rates, but this will settle as the markets see what direction Brexit is going in.
Much thanks,
solodeogloria
while on the face of it , this is a reasonable perspective, it underlies many things that are wrong with referenda.
The first thing is that the UK had no requirement to hold a referendum, nor any experience it holding such, nor in fact any constitutional prerogative in accepting what is essentially a plebiscite.
The 2nd thing is that clearly the issues where manipulated, therefore the whole result is questionable, The will of the people can only be respected when in fact , one can be reasonably confident that The issues where presented factually and correctly. ( which is why we have thing like the McKenna judgement here ) .
What we are seeing in Brexit and the US elections is not democracy in action, its a complete travesty of democracy.
Hence "protestations" that such outcomes represent the " will " of the people are entirely dubious claims.
The issue of the resources of the campaigners is easily dealt with , by simple laws that ensure that funding is provided to all sides of a referendum debate.
Equally There is a strong argument that where complex issues are boiled down to simplistic fact free debate as was characteristic of the Brexit referendum , that in fact multiple referenda could be held on the topic , and especially on the proposed Brexit plan when it is revealed.can continue integrating more closely with one another without the UK pulling the handbrake.
The UK has traditionally been one of the most compliant EU states , in fact0 -
But, as I said in the earlier paragraph of my post, the type of brexit is not down purely to the UK. That is a matter for negotiation. That is why it only makes sense to ask the electorate whether they want in or out of the EU. I agree with you though that large amounts of people may well want a soft brexit, and indeed it could be what Theresa May is aiming for even though she can't say it publicly.
The simple answer to that is to have a referendum on the exit terms. At least there will be actual facts ( the agreement ) rather then an entirely fact-free debate that characterised the Brexit campaign0 -
The difficulty here is that you don't have any exit terms until you have negotiated with the EU and agreed a set of exit terms with them. And you can't get to that point until after you have served Art. 50 notice. And once you have served Art. 50 notice it's irrevocable; the UK will exit the EU, come what may.The simple answer to that is to have a referendum on the exit terms. At least there will be actual facts ( the agreement ) rather then an entirely fact-free debate that characterised the Brexit campaign
So by the time you're having a referendum on the exit terms that have been negotiated, the choice is exit on the negotiate terms, or exit with no agreement of any kind, which pretty well everybody thinks would be a really bad idea. It''s not much of a choice, really. And whatever section of the electorate thinks the negotiate terms are too hard is faced with no real option; do you want the terms that are too hard, or terms that are harder again?0 -
while on the face of it , this is a reasonable perspective, it underlies many things that are wrong with referenda.
The first thing is that the UK had no requirement to hold a referendum, nor any experience it holding such, nor in fact any constitutional prerogative in accepting what is essentially a plebiscite.
Your second point is not precisely correct, as they held a referendum on changing their electoral system from FPTP just a few years ago.There is a strong argument that where complex issues are boiled down to simplistic fact free debate as was characteristic of the Brexit referendum , that in fact multiple referenda could be held on the topic , and especially on the proposed Brexit plan when it is revealed.
Inclined to agreed that the debate was largely fact-free. The Remainers disguised some of the truth, but the Brexiter side was far more culpable and particularly fact free (or, to put it less politely, the UK electorate were sold a pup based on a tissue of lies by right wing Little Englander opportunists, some of whom don't even live in Britain and have no particular loyalty to it).
I look forward with bated breath to seeing the Brexit plan....I suspect that they don't have one and that they never did.0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 19382
The UK has traditionally been one of the most compliant EU states , in fact
I think that is not quite true.
1. UK refused to join the Euro
2. The UK refused to join Shengen
3. The UK refuses to adopt metrication
4. The UK has always railed against contributing to the EU budget.
They have always considered themselves as semi-detached members.0 -
I started to read the book "Unleashing Demons" by Craig Oliver, over the weekend and got to nearly finish chapter 7 so far. This book is a very interesting account about the developments to the Brexit Referendum from January to the end of June 2016 and gives a good background informations about what went on behind the scenes. It also shows how early the ambitions of Mrs May to become PM are already spotted by Cameron himself in January 2016 in regards to her hesitation to back him and the remain camp up. The book also sheds a light on the British media and their hostile attitude towards the EU but more to the point the UK govt itself as well as how difficult the EU Commission made it for Cameron to get a deal to win the Brexit referendum.
The book is really recommendable, eventhough I haven't finished it yet but after those chapters, I anticipate that it will get even more interesting the closer the chapters go to the referendum itself and its aftermath.
I didn t get it from Eason, but for everyone who likes to get a copy of the book, I post this link to the page of the book on the Website of Eason.
http://www.easons.com/p-4477818-unleashing-demons.aspx0 -
Thomas_... wrote: »but more to the point the UK govt itself as well as how difficult the EU Commission made it for Cameron to get a deal to win the Brexit referendum.
I suspected as much. I remember Cameron making a big point in his referendum promise that he'd only have it *if* he didnt achieve major changes in EU policy and I expected him essentially call the referendum off at the first solid concession he could use to appease his party's hardliners.
Might pick up the book as I'm curious if it was more the concessions he got were'nt strong enough to appease them or europe (much like Tyrants point on Russia) dug in much firmer then he ever expected?0 -
BlitzKrieg wrote: »I'm curious if it was more the concessions he got were'nt strong enough to appease them or europe dug in much firmer then he ever expected?
He was never going to get any real concessions - the EU has been fed up for a generation with the UK demanding special treatment.
It was always just a dog and pony show - get some feeble concession, wave it at the Brexiters, win a referendum, call the question settled for another 20 years.
But he lost the referendum. Idiot.0 -
BlitzKrieg wrote: »Thomas_... wrote: »but more to the point the UK govt itself as well as how difficult the EU Commission made it for Cameron to get a deal to win the Brexit referendum.
I suspected as much. I remember Cameron making a big point in his referendum promise that he'd only have it *if* he didnt achieve major changes in EU policy and I expected him essentially call the referendum off at the first solid concession he could use to appease his party's hardliners.
Might pick up the book as I'm curious if it was more the concessions he got were'nt strong enough to appease them or europe (much like Tyrants point on Russia) dug in much firmer then he ever expected?
They (UK govt and EU Commission) had negotiations run and it was about the renegotiation of the terms offered that developed into a decline of seeing the UK getting better terms, it turned to give them less then they got in the first rounds. It is stated in that book that around 20 member states were not prepared to give the Brits more than they already got in concessions. In other words, many of the other member states were already fed up with the demands coming from the Brits and another important point is, that the EU as a whole didn't take the Brits serious. On one hand the Brits fecked up their cause by themselves and in the other they were let down by the EU Commission and Mr Hollande appears to be one of those who were more inclined to give the Brits less than they asked for.
The book describes the complexity of the whole subject and also shows how it even got more complex the closer they got to the referendum date. The book has main chapter which go month by month from January to June and within These month termed chapters are the numbered chapters. So, chapter 7 is still in February 2016 where the date for the Referendum was still to be set up but it was already in the making then that it will turn out to fall on a day in June. Quite like Cameron said in January regarding Mrs May that she could well be PM within a half year and that was some foresight by himself.0 -
Ferrari3600 wrote: »Your second point is not precisely correct, as they held a referendum on changing their electoral system from FPTP just a few years ago.
Yeah but the warning signs should have been there from that referendum. That also was a referendum that split the government (though on party lines) and the "no" side won by what some consider underhanded campaigning.
It was also one that was badly run, really poorly handled logistics wise and prone to use of elements like NHS funding to attack the Yes campaign.
The only thing going in favour of that referendum over brexit is that they got the actual questions the right way round.0 -
Zubeneschamali wrote: »BlitzKrieg wrote: »I'm curious if it was more the concessions he got were'nt strong enough to appease them or europe dug in much firmer then he ever expected?
He was never going to get any real concessions - the EU has been fed up for a generation with the UK demanding special treatment.
It was always just a dog and pony show - get some feeble concession, wave it at the Brexiters, win a referendum, call the question settled for another 20 years.
But he lost the referendum. Idiot.
I wouldn't put the blame for losing the referendum on Cameron only. Aside from the usual cherry picking of the Brits in the EU, I was for a certain time backing Cameron in his efforts to bring in a spirit for reforming the EU and the other member states could have adopted some of his ideas, but the problem was - for a long time - which ideas he had in a precise outlet. He always kept it general and hesitated to come concrete (except on the migration thing) cos as it melted down to be the only self-interests of the UK, there was no chance to bring on any reformation spirit into the EU.
So, I would rather say that he really had some good intentions, but he failed on the refusal for reformations on the side of the EU Commission (which is the very last one who would even consider to give up any thing of her power) and last but not least, he lost the backing from within his own party with even cabinet members turning into false friends ready to use the hidden dagger against him.
Interesting it was to read what a sneaky character this Mr Gove is and he wasn't the one who stood in the light of public attention before the Brexit referendum was held. More in the back pulling the strings and with Mr Johnson as the "famous actor" for the Leave side in the open.
The more I read about the background and the filthy games in politics which went along with the months up to the referendum, the more I get convinced that Cameron was left with no other choice but to resign upon the result of the Brexit referendum. I doubt that he stood the chance to survive this for a long time by remaining PM. So, the other sneaky character who also turned against him is now the one who is PM and has to sort it out, the very mess her fellow campaigners have created. I have no doubt that Mrs May might already see herself as "second Maggie Thatcher" and alone this imagination is sickening to me as the whole Brexit thing with the nasty developments it has shown in the recent past and which probably it is still about to show. For the latter one just has to visit the BBC News site to get a taste of it when the other chap Mr Farage is talking about "protests on the streets" in case the Supreme Court rules in confirming the verdict of the High Court. It is left to the beholder of whether one perceives this what came from Farage as being just a "warning" or a "hidden threat". What really annoyes me is that Farage is apparently enjoying the split within the British Society in which he had a great deal for bringing it that far. If one has politicians like him, one doesn't needs any sort of enemies at all cos he's one of the worst ever.0 -
Ferrari3600 wrote: »
I look forward with bated breath to seeing the Brexit plan....I suspect that they don't have one and that they never did.
There are two option only for the Brexit plan: to accept free movement of people and stay in the single market or not to accept and leave the single market.
EU will never compromise on free movement of people, as it will mean the end of the Union.0 -
KindOfIrish wrote: »Ferrari3600 wrote: »
I look forward with bated breath to seeing the Brexit plan....I suspect that they don't have one and that they never did.
There are two option only for the Brexit plan: to accept free movement of people and stay in the single market or not to accept and leave the single market.
EU will never compromise on free movement of people, as it will mean the end of the Union.
So it is, just that the Brexiteers don't get it and think that they can still ly to the people in promising them that they can have both, despite the fact that this wishful thinking has been outruled long ago and being repeated for various times.0 -
Advertisement
-
The UK fundamentally does not understand the EU. It is not a some kind some kind of a free trade area, it is the intention to build a community well beyond a simple customs union. It is what the majority of voters in Europe voted for and that is where it is heading. Yes there will be reforms going forward but they will be in support of a community not a trade area, as the UK would like.Thomas_... wrote: »KindOfIrish wrote: »Ferrari3600 wrote: »
I look forward with bated breath to seeing the Brexit plan....I suspect that they don't have one and that they never did.
There are two option only for the Brexit plan: to accept free movement of people and stay in the single market or not to accept and leave the single market.
EU will never compromise on free movement of people, as it will mean the end of the Union.
So it is, just that the Brexiteers don't get it and think that they can still ly to the people in promising them that they can have both, despite the fact that this wishful thinking has been outruled long ago and being repeated for various times.
And the other thing is that UK politicians think "No" means "I open to persuasion" where as most other politicians really mean "No" when they say so.0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement