Brexit Referendum Superthread

ancapailldorcha

Fratton Fred wrote: »

late in the day though. early doors it looked like a 60 to 70% vote in favour of remain.

The fact that there was no plan B is shocking and why, I believe, David Cameron had to resign. He ****ed up, big time.

I don't think I remember seeing any likelihood of a 70% win for remain. As far as I know, it was mid-50's in favour of remain until the last week or so.

Fratton Fred

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I don't think I remember seeing any likelihood of a 70% win for remain. As far as I know, it was mid-50's in favour of remain until the last week or so.

I thought I had seen it in excess of 60% at times, but there was always a 15 to 20% undecided as well, who all seemed to vote leave.

View

Fratton Fred wrote: »

oh please, stop with the advisory referendum.

Westminster took a vote to hold the referendum in the first place, it wasn't just some arbitrary "Ohh, what do people think". It was Westminster deciding that the issue required a referendum. Westminster asked the people, the people gave their answer.

The only votes against holding a referendum came from the SNP, therefore Westminster is obliged to honour that. To do otherwise is an afront to democracy, no matter how unsavoury that is.

There is no obligation - legal or otherwise - on anyone to follow advice. "Advice" that you MUST follow is effectively a binding "command".

Under the UK constitution, "Parliament is sovereign". That was confirmed in the Miller case judgment. Their Parliament is therefore free to choose to act or not to act as it, and it alone, so chooses. If it MUST act in a particular fashion then, by definition, Parliament is no longer sovereign since its wishes are no longer the deciding factor in the course of action that the UK follows.

It is an affront to the UK's Parliamentary democracy to claim that Westminster is, or can be, obliged to act in a certain fashion when, under the UK system, it is their Parliament, and Parliament alone, that can make such decisions.

Fratton Fred

And who gives parliament that authority?


if nothing else, the last few pages have given me an insight in to his Irish politicians get away with what they do. The low level of expectations and accountability is surprising.

Water John

Well Fred, you have a PM whom ye do not know was for or against Brexit.
A woman who sat on the fence was selected as PM.
Not a place to throw bricks from.
Not even getting into Boris, riding both horses.

Calina

Fratton Fred wrote: »

And who gives parliament that authority?


if nothing else, the last few pages have given me an insight in to his Irish politicians get away with what they do. The low level of expectations and accountability is surprising.

Your contributions - despite your having voted for Remain - have given me a clear understanding of why Britain is suddenly in the middle of a major mess. Far too many of their voters do not understand how their democracy works. In addition it is patently obvious far too many British voters did not understand the ramifications of why, when their vote usually doesn't count, on this occasion it did.

We have very high expectations when it comes to referendums, driven by a lot of Supreme Court jurisprudence. Quite simply, the NHS bus thing would not have happened to mention one example. There would have been explicit clarity on what the next steps would be in the event of a vote in favour of constitutional change. And the government would have done contingency planning.

The UK had a referendum which was not legally binding and the fact that it was not legally binding was made clear in documentation provided to I believe the House of Lords. The advisory nature of it was made very clear to them, whatever about the population who appear not to have bothered doing much or any research. Not only that, the next steps were not defined anywhere. The only part of government in the UK that did any contingency planning was Scotland.

Politically, it would have been extremely difficult to ignore the results of the referendum. But Parliament was not legally bound by them because parliament cannot be bound and in fact Parliament cannot bind future Parliaments either. That being said, if you had any sort of decent leaders in the HoC at the moment - which frankly you do not, and did not at the time - there might have been room for a non-chaotic period of reflection.

But we are where we are. Personally I think this was an amoral decision on the part of Britain. It is an act of monumental self vandalism in the first place, done with absolutely no regard for the collateral damage on any of your friends. The arrogance of the Article 50 letter and the comments about security cooperation and veiled threats regarding that make it clear that regardless what you may think about Irish politicians, the UK does not hold any high moral ground in this respect.

Sam Russell

Water John wrote: »

Not even getting into Boris, riding both horses.

It is not just horses Boris has been riding either.

Fratton Fred

Water John wrote: »

Well Fred, you have a PM whom ye do not know was for or against Brexit.
A woman who sat on the fence was selected as PM.
Not a place to throw bricks from.
Not even getting into Boris, riding both horses.

This Theresa May?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/leaked-recordings-reveal-theresa-may-s-pro-eu-stance-ahead-of-brexit-vote-a7380286.html

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-38653681


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/25/theresa-may-wants-you-to-stay-in-the-eu-has-she-blown-her-chance/

Fratton Fred

Calina wrote: »

Your contributions - despite your having voted for Remain - have given me a clear understanding of why Britain is suddenly in the middle of a major mess. Far too many of their voters do not understand how their democracy works.

nope, i understand it fully. I think the big difference is in mindset. In the UK, we believe the politicians work for us and we expect them to act in an accountable manner. Hence the swift demands for resignations at the slightest whiff of a scandal or corruption. That is why Parliament had no choice but to respect the result of the referendum.

Heck, I have relatives who are distraught by the whole thing, even to the point of begging their parents to claim Irish citizenship under the granny rule, so they can follow suit and keep an eu passport.

Did they want Parliament to ignore the result of the referendum? not at all.

Calina wrote: »

In addition it is patently obvious far too many British voters did not understand the ramifications of why, when their vote usually doesn't count, on this occasion it did.

That could be true, that is often the way in elections or referendums during hard times. People protest vote, not realising that their protest vote might actually be the difference.

Calina wrote: »

We have very high expectations when it comes to referendums, driven by a lot of Supreme Court jurisprudence. Quite simply, the NHS bus thing would not have happened to mention one example. There would have been explicit clarity on what the next steps would be in the event of a vote in favour of constitutional change. And the government would have done contingency planning.

really? I look forward to the claims that come out during the abortion referendum. Some of those that came out during Lisbon were quite amusing, such as conscription in to an eu army and Ireland forced in to legalising abortion.

Irish referendums are rarely as broad as this though. You could argue that it should have broken down in to smaller bites I guess

Calina wrote: »

The UK had a referendum which was not legally binding and the fact that it was not legally binding was made clear in documentation provided to I believe the House of Lords. The advisory nature of it was made very clear to them, whatever about the population who appear not to have bothered doing much or any research. Not only that, the next steps were not defined anywhere.

yet Parliament is sovereign, is it not? the referendum and its wording were voted on by Parliament. It is what they wanted, they chose to consult the populace, they got an answer.

Calina wrote: »

The only part of government in the UK that did any contingency planning was Scotland.

true, but in fairness, the SNP's contingency plan for everything is "Leave the UK" so it wasn't exactly difficult for them.

Calina wrote: »

Politically, it would have been extremely difficult to ignore the results of the referendum. But Parliament was not legally bound by them because parliament cannot be bound and in fact Parliament cannot bind future Parliaments either. That being said, if you had any sort of decent leaders in the HoC at the moment - which frankly you do not, and did not at the time - there might have been room for a non-chaotic period of reflection.

Politically it would have been impossible. The only party that could would have been the SNP. NO ONE ELSE OBJECTED TO THE REFERENDUM.

Calina wrote: »

But we are where we are. Personally I think this was an amoral decision on the part of Britain. It is an act of monumental self vandalism in the first place, done with absolutely no regard for the collateral damage on any of your friends. The arrogance of the Article 50 letter and the comments about security cooperation and veiled threats regarding that make it clear that regardless what you may think about Irish politicians, the UK does not hold any high moral ground in this respect.

oh, morals are suddenly coming in to it are they?

dinorebel

demfad wrote: »

As a British citizen you should take some time to understand the workings of your own parliamentary democracy.
If you make false statements other posters will refute them. Frame it any way you like.
The Express called the legal verdict on Parliaments sovereign right to decide on A50 as made by 'enemies of the people'. By calling anything but parliament invoking A50 'an insult to democracy' you are in your small way are also attacking parliaments sovereignty and the judiciary who defends it.
This is why it is most important to call the referendum what it was. No more no less.

Talking of facts it was the Daily Mail not the Express

murphaph

dinorebel wrote: »

Talking of facts it was the Daily Mail not the Express

To be honest there's little difference. I was pretty dismayed to see the headlines in all their trashy papers when I was over there last week. It's almost creepy how they completely modify their headlines for the different UK regions and Ireland.

Lemming

Calina wrote: »

Your contributions - despite your having voted for Remain - have given me a clear understanding of why Britain is suddenly in the middle of a major mess. Far too many of their voters do not understand how their democracy works. In addition it is patently obvious far too many British voters did not understand the ramifications of why, when their vote usually doesn't count, on this occasion it did.

Just to add to that, the general knowledge of how the EU works and perhaps more importantly how it doesn't work are by and large completely unknown to the UK population, making it incredibly easy to pedal whatever fictional excrement you want, as is evident on any given week by the tabloid rags, and is swallowed whole as gospel. I've got workmates who have "expressed" absolute shock when informed that they have indeed been afforded the opportunity to vote for MEPs to represent them in Europe and that such elections occur on a regular basis, typically coinciding with UK elections be they local or a GE. And this after listening to them maintain adamantly that there is no democracy in the EU and how they're all unelected ... whilst not realising that one of the lists of names they've voted on has been for MEPs ... you could not make this sh1t up.

Whilst I'm not for one moment suggesting that every Irish person has an intimate, indepth knowledge of how the EU works, the level of understanding in comparison is like night & day.

The UK had a referendum which was not legally binding and the fact that it was not legally binding was made clear in documentation provided to I believe the House of Lords.

As an FYI to all, the relevant cabinet paper detailing the referendum to be advisory is available to view and download from the online government archives.

Bit cynical

Lemming wrote: »

I've got workmates who have feigned absolute shock when informed that they have indeed been afforded the opportunity to vote for MEPs to represent them in Europe and that such elections occur on a regular basis, typically coinciding with UK elections be they local or a GE.

Does the fact that they feigned shock not suggest that they were trying to get a rise out of you?

Lemming

Bit cynical wrote: »

Does the fact that they feigned shock not suggest that they were trying to get a rise out of you?

No, it was quite honest in its expression. Absolute surprise and a "news to me" sort of thing.

Peregrinus

I think Fred is right to suggest that, having legislated to hold the referendum, Parliament had to accept and give effect to the outcome. The Tories in particular had to do this, because they were elected on a manifesto promise to hold a referendum and respect the result.

Legally, they could have decided not to exit the EU. (Legally, Parliament can do anything.) But, politically, it was unthinkable.

I think, though, you can still criticise Parliament on two grounds.

First, they shouldn't have held a referendum in the first place. It's at the very least a bad idea, if not an irresponsible abdication of policy, to hold a referendum seeking a mandate for action that you don't want to take, and that you don't think is in the public or national interest to take. The reason is obvious in the present circumstances; you could end up being politically compelled to do something which you believe to be against the national interest, and it's a compulsion you didn't have to subject yourself to in the first place.

Secondly, while the referendum conferred an irresistible mandate to leave the EU, it didn't confer a similar mandate to leave the single market, leave the customs union, etc. None of that was on the ballot paper. The referendum conferred a mandate for Brexit, but not for hard Brexit. The type of Brexit is therefore still within the control of Parliament. Parliament may not at this point be responsible for Brexit, but it is responsible for hard Brexit.

This, I think, is why May fought so hard to deny Parliament its proper role in the Brexit process, and why she was so enthusiastically supported in that by the likes of the Daily Mail. She was concerned that Parliament would do its job, and would insist on the Brexit which it judged to be least damaging to the national interest. In the event, she was not successful. But, in the further event, Parliament isn't doing that job; May seems hell-bent on a hard Brexit and Parliament isn't going to stop her. And I think Parliament can be criticised for that, given that we know the dominant sentiment in Parliament is that Brexit is bad for Britain, and a hard Brexit is worse.

First Up

Lemming wrote:

No, it was quite honest in its expression. Absolute surprise and a "news to me" sort of thing.

Maybe you should look up what "feigned" means so.

Lemming

First Up wrote: »

Maybe you should look up what "feigned" means so.

*yawn*

demfad

Peregrinus wrote: »

Legally, they could have decided not to exit the EU. (Legally, Parliament can do anything.) But, politically, it was unthinkable.

Can you please explain why it was unthinkable politically?
Their JOB is to represent the best interests of their constituents. They are representatives not delegates. It is expected of politicians to put national interest above political interest. How was national interest served by carrying out this act of mass self harm?
LibDems position of Remain seems quite popular.

I think, though, you can still criticise Parliament on two grounds.

First, they shouldn't have held a referendum in the first place. It's at the very least a bad idea, if not an irresponsible abdication of policy, to hold a referendum seeking a mandate for action that you don't want to take, and that you don't think is in the public or national interest to take.

Agreed. And when the error is exposed you admit the error: you don't continue the lie to save your bacon.

Secondly, while the referendum conferred an irresistible mandate to leave the EU

52-48 is not an irresistable mandate.

, it didn't confer a similar mandate to leave the single market, leave the customs union, etc. None of that was on the ballot paper. The referendum conferred a mandate for Brexit, but not for hard Brexit. The type of Brexit is therefore still within the control of Parliament. Parliament may not at this point be responsible for Brexit, but it is responsible for hard Brexit.

You have two players in this don't forget: UK and EU. EUs cards have always been on the table: 4 freedoms not negotiable therefore Brexit in all liklihood means hard Brexit. This is a logical position.
Theresa May just filled in the remaining two sides of the square in her Tory conference speech.

ambro25

demfad wrote: »

Can you please explain why it was unthinkable politically?

Because of the manifesto promise to respect the result.

I find Peregrinus' take on the issue wholly correct, particularly the second point about Parliament (the first one, whilst correct, became 'we are where we are' material the second the EU Referendum Act was voted through in 2015) but, in a post considering political angles, perhaps lacking an additional consideration of the opposition's abject surrender to populo-nationalist sirens.

Of course, that still does not amount to condoning the course of action since: there's always been quite a few different ways of skinning that leaving cat, both before the whole Royal Prerogative affair and the article 50 vote, and still now, with a hard Brexit representing one end of the scale.

It would have been, and still would be, acceptable politically (not without difficulty of course, but not suicidally/terminally), to leave de jure but stay de facto, with something just shy (technically 'out', if politically impossible to misrepresent 'still borderline in' as 'out') of Cameron's negotiated deal/Treaty changes.

Personally, I hold the electors of Corbyn nearly as culpable as Farage, Cameron, Bojo, Gove et al and Leave voters. They castrated parliamentarian opposition in the UK, durably, and killed Labour off, equally durably.

Fratton Fred

ambro25 wrote: »

Of course, that still does not amount to condoning the course of action since: there's always been quite a few different ways of skinning that leaving cat, both before the whole Royal Prerogative affair and the article 50 vote, and still now, with a hard Brexit representing one end of the scale.

That cat is yet to be skinned.

ambro25

Fratton Fred wrote: »

That cat is yet to be skinned.

Indeed, whence the use of:

ambro25 wrote:

Of course, that still does not amount to condoning the course of action since: there's always been quite a few different ways of skinning that leaving cat, both before the whole Royal Prerogative affair and the article 50 vote, and still now, with a hard Brexit representing one end of the scale.

demfad

ambro25 wrote: »

Because of the manifesto promise to respect the result.

They also had a manifesto promise NOT to leave the single market. Why wasnt this unthinkable politically?

It would be politically damaging but surely the the damage to be visited on the State should be more unthinkable?

I disagree about Corbyn. Thay had no idea that he would be manipulated so badly that Cambridge Analytica (who back far right movements) would help Labour in the Stoke by-election.

It would have been, and still would be, acceptable politically (not without difficulty of course, but not suicidally/terminally), to leave de jure but stay de facto, with something just shy (technically 'out', if politically impossible to misrepresent 'still borderline in' as 'out') of Cameron's negotiated deal/Treaty changes.

That option is not on the table. Never has been. The EU has always said that the 4 freedoms are sancrosanct. Ergo hard Brexit

View

Fratton Fred wrote: »

And who gives parliament that authority?

Nobody gives Parliament authority. "Parliament is sovereign" means that Parliament has ALL authority and retains unless it decides to transfer it to local authorities/devolved bodies or to international bodies (and in both those cases it is in the form of a "loan" since Parliament can recall it should it so decide).

Fratton Fred wrote: »

if nothing else, the last few pages have given me an insight in to his Irish politicians get away with what they do. The low level of expectations and accountability is surprising.

It is quite the contrary. Most people in Ireland accept Edmund Burke's judgment that an elected representative is there to exercise THEIR good judgment and that they fail their electorate if they act as a delegate rather than exercising their judgment reasonably.

That's the underlying basis of Parliamentary democracy as it has been practiced for centuries and, as Margaret Thatcher warned in 75 prior to the first UK-wide referendum, one that the UK is in real danger of casually casting aside without having of a clear alternative system in mind.

ambro25

demfad wrote: »

They also had a manifesto promise NOT to leave the single market. Why wasnt this unthinkable politically?

Fair cop, I wasn't aware of that one, and thank you for pointing it out.

demfad wrote: »

I disagree about Corbyn. Thay had no idea that he would be manipulated so badly that Cambridge Analytica (who back far right movements) would help Labour in the Stoke by-election.

His character and positions (notably anti-EU) were clear as day to all but the most fervent Corbynistas during the Labour leadership election, long before the referendum campaign even started.

His fence-sitting during the referendum campaign came as no surprise whatsoever, likewise his abject lack of combativity as opposition leader ever since the first PMQ he attended.

It's gone to the extent that I seriously wouldn't be surprised at all to learn some day, that he really was a Tory plant!

demfad wrote: »

That option is not on the table. Never has been. The EU has always saud that the 4 freedoms are sancrsanct. Ergo hard Brexit

Reneging on some, or curtailing some or all, of the 4 freedoms, does not automatically equate with a hard Brexit.

Lest we forget, hard Brexit is a lesser relationship with the EU, than Turkey currently enjoys with the EU: how's the 4 freedoms stand with Erdoland, again?

Same with all those third party countries (Korea, Canada, <...>) with an FTA in place with the EU. Lest we forget again, an FTA is oodles better than WTO MFN (commonly 'hard Brexit').

demfad

ambro25 wrote: »

Lest we forget, hard Brexit is a lesser relationship with the EU, than Turkey currently enjoys with the EU: how's the 4 freedoms stand with Erdoland, again?

Same with all those third party countries (Korea, Canada, <...>) with an FTA in place with the EU. Lest we forget again, an FTA is oodles better than WTO MFN (commonly 'hard Brexit').

Yes, the customs Union was arguably open to the UK but this was ruled out early by the appointment of Liam Fox in his cabinet position and then by the Tory conference speech. May's 'bespoke' deal (the customs element) was never on the cards as it amounted to cherry picking customs (Nissan) which the EU had ruled out early.

The FTA is logical but again it is years away: they wont achieve this in the 3 years 'transition' after Brexit that the EU has factored in as firewall.

The 'no-deal better than bad deal' deal that May threatened is actually an armagedon situation. The US, China, Australia who have no FTAs with the EU have mutual recognition agreements for standards. The US one is infact 109 pages long. Without this British produce must be tested upon import to the EU. Takes 2 weeks, costs £2000 per container.

There is only one European port to test livestock from the UKs $12 billion annual industry there.

May knew this, the EU knew this, she knew they knew, they knew she knew they knew. It was for domestic consumption only. Infact the UK had not looked at what might happen in the event of a no-deal until before the referendum.

Paul Dacre backed May for leadership (I believe). He is the only media person invited to meet her in Downing street. As well as Dacre, she also made promised to hard Brexiters to get elected leader.

The system does seem to be broken.

Edit: Point taken about Corbyn, thankyou.

Peregrinus

demfad wrote: »

They also had a manifesto promise NOT to leave the single market.

I don't think they did, actually. Here's the 2015 Conservative Manifesto; I don't see that promise in it. There's praise for the single market as a positive aspect of EU membership, but no commitment to remain (or seek to remain) in the single market in the event of a referendum decision to leave.

demfad

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't think they did, actually. Here's the 2015 Conservative Manifesto; I don't see that promise in it. There's praise for the single market as a positive aspect of EU membership, but no commitment to remain (or seek to remain) in the single market in the event of a referendum decision to leave.

This is what they say:

“We are clear about what we want from Europe. We say: yes to the Single Market.”

......“We benefit from the Single Market and do not want to stand in the way of the Eurozone resolving its difficulties….we will not let the integration of the Eurozone jeopardise the integrity of the Single Market or in any way disadvantage the UK.”.....

“We want to expand the Single Market, breaking down the remaining barriers to trade and ensuring that new sectors are opened up to British firms.”

The Tories headline pledge was to hold a referendum.

'Honouring' the outcome was in the small print with the single market pledges above.

Peregrinus

None of that amounts to a commitment to seek to remain in the single market even if leaving the Union; it's all about their position if Britain remains in the Union - hence the references to the Eurozone and the UK's attitude to it. Whereas the commitment to hold the referendum and honour the result is explicit. In that connection the manifesto says nothing at all about the single market.

Chips Lovell

I think it became very apparent during the referendum campaign that the Single Market (specifically the free movement of workers) was one of the main reasons people voted to leave.

Now they could have said that they were going to honour the manifesto, but I don't think it would have gone down very well with Leave voters.

demfad

Peregrinus wrote: »

None of that amounts to a commitment to seek to remain in the single market even if leaving the Union; it's all about their position if Britain remains in the Union - hence the references to the Eurozone and the UK's attitude to it. Whereas the commitment to hold the referendum and honour the result is explicit. In that connection the manifesto says nothing at all about the single market.

They say nothing about their position either way (in or out of the Union).

The only headline commitment is not to leaving the Union but to HOLDING the in-out referendum. Another headline is "safeguard British interests in the Single Market".
Honouring referendum result etc. are given equal significance to remaining in the EU. And plenty have argued here that both are possible (to fight for atleast) in a soft Brexit.

Real change in our relationship with the European Union
Our commitment to you:
For too long, your voice has been ignored on Europe. We will:
give you a say over whether we should stay in or leave the EU, with an in-out referendum by the end of 2017
commit to keeping the pound and staying out of the Eurozone
reform the workings of the EU, which is too big, too bossy and too bureaucratic
reclaim power from Brussels on your behalf and safeguard British interests in the Single Market
back businesses to create jobs in Britain by completing ambitious trade deals and reducing red tape