Brexit Referendum Superthread

Sam Russell

murphaph wrote: »

Time will tell. They're too stubborn to stop it now but I firmly believe we'll be hearing from a chastened UK in my lifetime, knocking at the door of an EU that I hope and believe will welcome the next generation in with open arms, but as a fully committed member state, without the opt-outs.

If they seek to not leave (before the negotiations complete), then I believe they will be accepted as is. However, if any sour note is left when they do leave and they try to rejoin within a decade, I would think it will be as a new member with no opt outs, and that will include accepting the Euro.

I get the feeling that a lot of UK people just accept the result and hope it works out, but do not know what will come of it.

Professor Moriarty

AnGaelach wrote: »

That's little more than conjecture on your part. We've seen people who backed Remain (like Niall Ferguson) who have swung to backing Brexit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r8eDIIo3fw


here seems to be less desire to reverse Brexit than there was to stop it in the first place
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/18/bregrets-remainers-polls-leavers-brexit-referendum

Indeed, it is conjecture but that's kind of the point of these discussions.

Nobody knows what kind of deal Britain will get so nobody knows how people will react to the deal. So my point remains:

The words 'on mature reflection' spring to mind. When British people see the reality of what Brexit means (unless it is a very flaccid Brexit), they may wish to change their minds.

Water John

This journalist shows how the two leave campaigns in the UK were legally linked. Vote Leave and Leave.eu are thus the one campaign in terms of finance and donors.
Thus they should have declared the monies spent as one. This would have broken the limits on spending.
Note this is from The Observer. Robert Mercer at the centre of it all.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/may/14/robert-mercer-cambridge-analytica-leave-eu-referendum-brexit-campaigns

Water John

Millar is a QC specialising in electoral law.

Millar said that one of the significant and revealing aspects of the arrangement was that it was hidden. “It’s the covert nature of the relationship between these two companies and campaigns that I find particularly revealing and alarming. If there is covert cooperation via offshore entities, [it] is about as serious a breach of the funding rules as one can imagine in the 21st century.”

Also key

Because, legally, these two companies – AggregateIQ in Canada and Cambridge Analytica, an American company based in London, have nothing to connect them publicly. But this intellectual property licence shown to the Observer tells a different story. This created a binding “exclusive” “worldwide” agreement “in perpetuity” for all of AggregateIQ’s intellectual property to be used by SCL Elections (a British firm that created Cambridge Analytica with Mercer).

Capt'n Midnight

steddyeddy wrote: »

I mean we all (well most of us) know that the UK was sovereign despite being in the EU. It's the leave voters that refused to believe that.

I should have made it clear earlier that I was referring to sovereignty in the tabloid sense of Johnny Foreigner handling the UK's trade treaties if they joined the customs union.

iceadtea

Sam Russell wrote: »

I get the feeling that a lot of UK people just accept the result and hope it works out, but do not know what will come of it.

Most of the people I've spoken to in England seem to have this sort of view, they're waiting to see what happens. No on really knows what will come of it but the general feeling is of unease.
Also, I get the feeling it's accepted because...what can they do to change it? All they can do is hope it'll work out ok.
Especially down south where my family is, the south gets a lot of EU funding and there is worry those counties will be forgotten once they're out of the EU.

demfad

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/may/14/is-paul-dacre-most-dangerous-man-in-britain-daily-mail
Intriguing article following Daily Mail's coverage from Cameron's bid for concessions from the EU till the present.
How the paper destroyed Cameron and gave then Home secretary Theresa May a pass on it's endless attack on immigration, blaming other Tory politicians, 'Liberal elite' and the EU instead.
The reporting on EU, immigration, Brexit was relentless.
It shows how the paper backed her through her leadership challenge and painted a slightly awkward vicar's daughter into Thatcher Mark 2.
This was so successful that even May herself uses it.
Many people see things as the daily Mail sees them. and not always daily mail readers. How the most powerful paper in the UK helped shape Brexit and the UK political world after it.

johnp001

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Indeed, it is conjecture but that's kind of the point of these discussions.

Nobody knows what kind of deal Britain will get so nobody knows how people will react to the deal. So my point remains:

The words 'on mature reflection' spring to mind. When British people see the reality of what Brexit means (unless it is a very flaccid Brexit), they may wish to change their minds.

Polls published last week indicate the opposite:

Forget 52%. The rise of the “Re-Leavers” mean the pro-Brexit electorate is 68%
While the EU referendum result may have ended up 52/48, post-referendum politics have settled into something far less evenly balanced. The rise of the “Re-Leavers” – those who voted to Remain in the EU but think that the government has a duty to leave – mean that the Conservatives are fishing in a massive lake, while the other parties are casting their rods into a pond

In the eleven months since the EU referendum, it has become a common theme that we are now a nation divided – 52/48. However, while it is true that most people still think they voted the right way last June, when it comes to the composition of the Brexit tribes in the general election, it is not a simple as “Leave” and “Remain”.

There is a third group who change the dynamics of EU-related arguments – the “Re-Leavers.” These are people who voted to Remain in the EU and many still think that leaving was the wrong decision, but crucially now believe the government has a duty to carry out the will of the British people.

When taking this into account, we can split the country into three groups instead of two: The Hard Leavers who want out of the EU (45%); the Hard Remainers who still want to try to stop Brexit (22%); and the Re-Leavers (23%). The other 9% don’t know.
More...

Also interesting in this context is a recent report into anti-Brexit BBC bias in run up to the referendum:

NEWS-WATCH SURVEY OF BBC ARTICLE 50 SURVEY SHOWS DEEP ANTI-BREXIT BIAS
The latest News-watch detailed analysis of BBC output, covering the UK’s Article 50 letter and its aftermath, shows heavy bias against the case for Brexit. The report, which included more than 73,000 words of programme transcripts, can be found in full here. Coverage of the survey’s findings is in the Daily Express here.

In the week of the filing of the UK’s Article 50 letter (March 29 – April 4, 2017), BBC Radio 4’s Today programme broadcast six editions which contained almost five hours of material about the letter and its aftermath. This was almost half of the available feature airtime.

The programme coverage was strongly biased against Brexit and made special efforts to illustrate the extent to which leaving the EU could have catastrophic consequences for the UK. There was, by contrast, only minimal effort to examine the potential benefits.

A measure of this overwhelming negativity was that only eight (6.5%) of the 124 speakers who appeared over the six editions were given the space to make substantive arguments that the future for the UK outside the EU would yield significant benefits.

The overall gloom was buttressed by the programme’s editorial approach. Presenters and correspondents, for example, pushed at every opportunity to illustrate potential (and existing) problems. At the same time, they were strongly adversarial towards Brexit supporters, but much less so to guests who advocated that the UK was, in effect, now staring down the barrel of a loaded gun.
More...

Zubeneschamali

In other news, the BBC has been shown to be heavily biased against flat earth theories.

Most coverage of the flat vs. curved earth controversy has highlighted alleged deficencies of flat earth theory, and ignored most of its plus points.

whatstherush

One of the thinks mentioned in the run up to the brexit was Britain would lose some of its soft power in diplomatic terms by leaving. All scoofed at by Borris et al.

The truth was anglophile countries used the UK and its soft power as way of interacting with the EU in whatever dealings they had but now....

https://twitter.com/JamieSmythF/status/867580515569680385

c_man

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

In other news, the BBC has been shown to be heavily biased against flat earth theories.

Most coverage of the flat vs. curved earth controversy has highlighted alleged deficencies of flat earth theory, and ignored most of its plus points.

Dunno about you, I think that tv stations (especially Gov run ones) should be neutral and objective in regards to elections/referendums.

The BBC were accused of being anti-Indy ref back in 2014. Scottish independence at that time would have been an economic disaster, the likes of which the west hasn't seen in decades but the beeb still should have been impartial don't ya think?

Jaggo

c_man wrote: »

Dunno about you, I think that tv stations (especially Gov run ones) should be neutral and objective in regards to elections/referendums.

The BBC were accused of being anti-Indy ref back in 2014. Scottish independence at that time would have been an economic disaster, the likes of which the west hasn't seen in decades but the beeb still should have been impartial don't ya think?

The reports cited above refer to post referendum news content, often after A50 had been signed - none of which could effect the referendum/EU exit. Hence they are accusing the BBC of trying to change peoples' opinions after any such opinion is important. An increditably stupid policy for the BBC, no?

Or you can think that the BBC are doing their job, highlighting the huge difficulties facing the UK and asking Ministers what they can do about it?

Speaking of balanced debate, during the campaign, there was one reasonably respectable economist who backed Brexit - Patrick Minford. He faced off, pretty much on his own against the entire economic profession who were on the Remain side. Because the BBC were giving a "balanced" debate, Minford was rolled out for the Brexit side on nearly all economic debates. This skewed the debate by massively, massively over representing the economic support for Brexit.

Minford should be noted, was a Freidman monetarist economist, who has form in this type of self-publicizing, go it alone, thinking. He was the sole defender of Thatchers monetary economic policy in 79-81 (a policy that lead to mass unemployment and a collapse in the economy). It was dumped a short time later for the more conventional policies for which Thatcher later became famous. Minford is the Dr. Nick Riviera of the economics profession but with less integrity.

c_man

No, that's fair enough. I missed that bit and thought it was referring to the pre-vote period.

Zubeneschamali

c_man wrote: »

Dunno about you, I think that tv stations (especially Gov run ones) should be neutral and objective in regards to elections/referendums.

The Brexit campaign was a pack of lies - the only way to be neutral would be not to cover it.

c_man

Ok, you're not in favour of being impartial in coverage of elections/refs. Gotcha.

Imagine RTE pushing for one side in (say) an abortion ref here. You've got to be thankful for the laws prohibiting such nonsense. Well I am.

First Up

c_man wrote: »

Ok, you're not in favour of being impartial in coverage of elections/refs. Gotcha.

Imagine RTE pushing for one side in (say) an abortion ref here. You've got to be thankful for the laws prohibiting such nonsense. Well I am.

Are you accusing the BBC of being biased in its coverage of the Brexit referendum?

Zubeneschamali

c_man wrote: »

Imagine RTE pushing for one side in (say) an abortion ref here. .

Imagine the pro abortion campaign is nothing but a pack of lies. Do you think RTE should be allowed to report "These claims by the pro-choice campaign are untrue"?

oscarBravo

c_man wrote: »

Ok, you're not in favour of being impartial in coverage of elections/refs. Gotcha.

There's a problem with enforced equality of coverage.

Remember the referendum to introduce a new Court of Appeals back in 2013? Remember all the discussion of that proposal on RTE? No? That's because there wasn't any.

It was pretty much universally considered a good idea. There was almost nobody who disagreed with it, which meant that RTE were prohibited by law from allowing anyone to argue in favour of the proposal, because they would have been required to devote equal time to someone arguing against it, and there was nobody to do so.

The result? 425,000 people voted against the proposal. It passed by a comfortable margin, but more than a third of the electorate voted against the idea.

The requirement to devote equal time to both sides of a referendum campaign reminds me of the old axiom that for every complex question there's an answer that's simple, obvious, and wrong.

Jaggo

I heard one as well,

There is some reference in the Irish Constitution where the state gives special protection to "women in the home". It is a generic enough phrase, nothing really sexist but while it doesn't say women should stay in the home there is a suggestion/implication that maybe that is their place.

To amend the constitution you need a referendum. If you have one, referendum law insists you have to have balanced debate with people from both sides. Hence you could have position where the State is funding people to argue in favour of women back in the kitchen.

Hilarious.

AnGaelach

Jaggo wrote: »

I heard one as well,

There is some reference in the Irish Constitution where the state gives special protection to "women in the home". It is a generic enough phrase, nothing really sexist but while it doesn't say women should stay in the home there is a suggestion/implication that maybe that is their place.

To amend the constitution you need a referendum. If you have one, referendum law insists you have to have balanced debate with people from both sides. Hence you could have position where the State is funding people to argue in favour of women back in the kitchen.

Hilarious.

That's not what the article is about at all. It's about the State promising that a woman will not need to find work out of economic necessity. If she wants to be a stay-at-home mother then the State will support her.

The people who would argue for its repeal would be people who think welfare needs to be gotten rid of and that we should go back to the days of the mid 1800s.

oscarBravo

AnGaelach wrote: »

That's not what the article is about at all. It's about the State promising that a woman will not need to find work out of economic necessity. If she wants to be a stay-at-home mother then the State will support her.

The people who would argue for its repeal would be people who think welfare needs to be gotten rid of and that we should go back to the days of the mid 1800s.

Actually, the people who would argue for its repeal would be people who disagree with the 1950s-era stereotype that only female parents should stay at home, or need to find work out of economic necessity.

AnGaelach

oscarBravo wrote: »

There's a problem with enforced equality of coverage.

Remember the referendum to introduce a new Court of Appeals back in 2013? Remember all the discussion of that proposal on RTE? No? That's because there wasn't any.

It was pretty much universally considered a good idea. There was almost nobody who disagreed with it, which meant that RTE were prohibited by law from allowing anyone to argue in favour of the proposal, because they would have been required to devote equal time to someone arguing against it, and there was nobody to do so.

The result? 425,000 people voted against the proposal. It passed by a comfortable margin, but more than a third of the electorate voted against the idea.

The requirement to devote equal time to both sides of a referendum campaign reminds me of the old axiom that for every complex question there's an answer that's simple, obvious, and wrong.

If I recall correctly, the opposition to it wasn't because of their opposition to the Court of Appeals, but it was a break from the "Court speaks with one voice" tradition - effectively giving every Judge a say on a case rather than just the majority/dissenting. I know barristers and academics who supported a Court of Appeals but opposed that aspect of the change.

Seeing people voting "no" and going "well they're obviously just not well informed" doesn't mean they don't have legitimate opposition to it.

And even if they weren't well-informed, their vote and their opinion still matters as much as yours or mine. Saying "well you're wrong so you don't get to tell anyone your side" is the kind of stupidity you've ranted against with "tyranny of the majority" before.

ancapailldorcha

Mod: Back on topic please. Discussion of abortion is beyond the remit of this thread.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Mod: Back on topic please. Discussion of abortion is beyond the remit of this thread.

Post deleted. No more abortion discussion here please.

johnp001

Irish court case on Brexit struck out today

Irish Times wrote:

Legal challenge to Brexit struck out by High Court
A legal challenge initiated in the Irish courts with a view to halting Brexit is not proceeding and has been struck out on consent.
The president of the High Court, Mr Justice Peter Kelly, was told on Monday by Maurice Collins SC, for the State, and Martin Hayden SC, for the plaintiffs, the action could be struck out on consent of the sides with no order.
The judge struck out the case which was initiated by a British barrister, Jolyon Maugham QC, along with Northern Ireland Green Party leader and MLA, Steven Agnew, Jonathan Bartley, co-leader of the Green Party of England and Wales, and Green Party MEP for the south-east of England, Keith Taylor.
The proceedings were aimed at establishing if Britain can halt Brexit after triggering Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.
More...

Bit cynical

johnp001 wrote: »

Irish court case on Brexit struck out today

Although the UK probably can revoke article 50, it is good for Ireland (and the UK) that this will not be determined in the ECJ during negotiations. Well done the Irish State for having this thrown out. Bad luck anti-Brexiters.

oscarBravo

Bit cynical wrote: »

Although the UK probably can revoke article 50, it is good for Ireland (and the UK) that this will not be determined in the ECJ during negotiations.

That's a really weird take on it.

The revocability of Article 50 can only be determined by the ECJ. As for the timing, a decision on its revocability has to be made before the UK exits the EU - in other words, during the negotiations - or else the decision is moot (at least as far as Brexit is concerned).

The only basis that I can see for believing that it's good that the ECJ shouldn't rule on the revocability of Article 50 during negotiations is a desire to exit at any cost. I get that there are people who feel that way, but I've yet to hear a rational basis for it.

Bit cynical

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a really weird take on it.

The revocability of Article 50 can only be determined by the ECJ. As for the timing, a decision on its revocability has to be made before the UK exits the EU - in other words, during the negotiations - or else the decision is moot (at least as far as Brexit is concerned).

The only basis that I can see for believing that it's good that the ECJ shouldn't rule on the revocability of Article 50 during negotiations is a desire to exit at any cost. I get that there are people who feel that way, but I've yet to hear a rational basis for it.

Well the Irish State thought that it was best that the case should be thrown out. I think they recognize that Ireland and the UK are broadly on the same side in these negotiations, that brexit is going ahead no matter what, and that therefore strengthening the hand of the UK negotiators in whatever way possible is in Ireland's interest.

They still need to put up an official pro-EU front when meeting our Partners in Europe (and to placate EU types at home) but when it comes to action it has to be in Ireland's interest.

Ted_YNWA

The case wasn't raised by Irish Gov though

Bit cynical

Ted_YNWA wrote: »

The case wasn't raised by Irish Gov though

That is correct. The case was brought by UK anti-brexit campaigners. It was opposed by the Irish Government. Had the case gone unopposed, then the Irish courts would have referred it to the ECJ.