Brexit discussion thread III

EdgeCase

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

39% of Survation respondents have a "limited understanding" of the Irish border issue, 19% have heard nothing about it!

http://survation.com/brexit-vote-two-years-on-survation-for-good-morning-britain/

39% sounds a bit low.

Capt'n Midnight

seamus wrote: »

One of the things from the Airbus statement, that I hadn't considered:
Service businesses can tear down a shop and set up in another location in a matter of weeks, days even.
Manufacturing can't. It can take years for the processes and supply chains to become fully established. Plants can have lead-in times of years where they're fully staffed and operational, but not producing anything yet.

High tech businesses need to re-invest all the time.

In extreme cases the cost of upgrading isn't that far off building a new factory elsewhere , especially when you include grants.

What the car industry and aircraft industry have in common is that when a new model comes out you've to start a new line. But you can do it anywhere.

Yes Airbus UK has 10 years of orders but if they have to stockpile billions worth of parts it's dead money that might get a better return elsewhere, like investing in a factory in the EU.


Sneaky businesses would let UK plants wither on the vine and dump as much of the groups debts on it by transfer pricing or whatever.


It's not just Airbus.
Bombardier up North too could be affected too.
And this is on top of the Rolls Royce job cuts and the exclusion of the UK from EU space projects.

Rhineshark

Airbus have plants in China and those divisions are going after the UK sections wing-making contracts.

China is aiming to dominate infrastructure in particular, including energy production (see Hinckley Point power station contract for one), but probably not a surprise that they'd be going for industry too.

McGiver

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Peregrinus wrote: »

the Association Agreement is used as a vehicle for third countries which are looking to get closer to the EU, with a view to eventual membership, not members that are looking to draw away.

That's how it has been used up to now, but we are in new territory anyway. I don't think the EU would object if the UK can finally agree on a pathway and it involves an Association Agreement.

Yep. The EP Brexit paper from 2016 very much predicts that DCFTA similar to the one with Ukraine is the most likely outcome of the Brexit given all HMG red lines. But even that may fail.

BonnieSituation

EdgeCase wrote: »

39% sounds a bit low.

Are ya kidding?

This is a country where the day after the vote to leave the EU occurred, the second most popular search on Google was "What is the EU?"

39% sounds high to me. Civics knowledge in Britain (well, England and Wales) is woeful. We don't know how engaged we are in comparison.

McGiver

swampgas wrote: »

It does expose just how fact-free British politics has become. Within the UK there is so much blatant propoganda, and outright lying, which is not being properly challenged by the press or even by the opposition. The UK Government have been avoiding uncomfortable and politically damaging truths for years, and are now backed into a corner. They have, perhaps, two unappealing options:

- Bite the bullet. Admit that the UK has no leverage, that Brexit was a mistake.
Try to mend bridges with the EU and avoid economic hardship.
This would be hugely humiliating for the current government, nationally and internationally.

- Play for time. Stiff upper lip, keep calm and carry on, and hope that it will work out somehow.
Then crash out of the EU in April 2019.

My money is on the second option.

The British ruling class will never admit they were wrong. Never ever. They had never apologised for massacres of civilians in India, for example.

Seth Brundle

McGiver wrote: »

The British ruling class will never admit they were wrong. Never ever. They had never apologised for massacres of civilians in India, for example.

In fairness that was all the Indians fault for allowing themselves to get killed.

Nody

Seth Brundle wrote: »

In fairness that was all the Indians fault for allowing themselves to get killed.

Exactly; the it's not the Brits faults the Indians kept jumping in front of the bullets fired to kill the stampeding elephants behind them. Of course there was a stampede that is why they were there firing in the first place to protect the civilians; they were invited after all by the local Indian government due to the stampeding elephants. It was very common at the time and the UK Empire offered to help deal with the situation. It's tragic that a few civilians died but the stampede was stopped which is the important part to remember.

Leroy42

Last paragraph from a Guardian article dealing with the Airbus news (on phone so link is difficult).

This is exactly the risk that UK now has, which was given evidence before in the EU moving some regulation offices out of UK and the recent Galileo spat.


"Why would a European plane-maker cut jobs in France or Germany when it needs EU support against Donald Trump and Boeing? Far easier to cut back in Britain, with its cabinet at war, its economy drifting away from the European mainland, and its jar of corporate sweeties already heavily raided. In lots of other industries, lots of other companies will soon be arriving at the same conclusion."

Lemming

Junkyard Tom wrote: »

Germany, France, Italy and Spain all have well established aerospace industries who'd be only to pleased with the business. It would be in Europe's strategic interests to locate any manufacturing migrating from Britain in Italy, Spain or indeed Greece.

One of the two guys that I know who work for Airbus (or did last I checked ... ) works in the satellite end of the business, and he traveled back and forth to Madrid frequently in his capacity as a project manager. He was of the opinion that if Brexit happened, his entire project (and possibly division) would just up and move lock, stock, and barrel to the continent as the infrastructure and at least some of the technical expertise is already there, working on the same project(s).

McGiver

FrancieBrady wrote: »

funkey_monkey wrote: »

Repealing the 8th only directly affects a subset of females - similar with marriage. So a straightforward 50+1 there for me.
GFA affect everyone so I would say margin for it.

Do you think that it is right and correct that a 2% should lead to this carnage? Many people voted No as they were disenchanted by the Tory gov who had an unliked PM, were cutting many services and benefits. Also including the neglect of the northern regions.

This turned brexit into a protest vote. Not by all, but maybe enough to swing it to remain.

Had it gone the other way, Leave voters would have been complaining about 2 per cent keeping then in the carnage of the EU.

You have to accept a majority decision, you can't start qualifying it because you happen to think this is carnage.
Leave seem to think things are grand.

Democracy is not about accepting a majority 51:49 decision. That is a rule of the mob or dictate of the majority. Democracy is about achieving and accepting a consensual decision. That applies especially for constitutional changes and mature democracies would typically require super-majority or have some sort of checks and balances in place for such decisions. 52:48 result indicates severe split in the society rather than a consensus, which is exactly what democracy is not about.

Capt'n Midnight

https://www.cer.eu/insights/ukraine-model-brexit-dissociation-just-association

The Ukraine model for the UK is off the table for the same reason as the Swiss deal. In both cases the EU was trying to entice countries to join. The UK is leaving and so won't get the introductory offer.

The EU views the Ukraine association agreement as a tool for encouraging the country to respect Western liberal values, and to lure it away from corruption and Russian autocracy.
...
The DCFTAs’ exclusion of freedom of movement illustrates why such an agreement would be inappropriate for the UK. The EU does not want high levels of immigration from Ukraine, Georgia, or Moldova, where living standards and wages are lower.

Then again the ECJ is a red line for Theresa May

countries only have improved access to those sectors where their laws are aligned (‘approximated’) to European ones. If a dispute arises relating to regulatory approximation or to an interpretation of EU law, the arbitration panel that oversees the agreement must request a ruling from the European Court of Justice, whose verdicts are legally binding (known as a ‘preliminary reference’). Other than on such issues, the arbitrators oversee the agreement without any ECJ involvement.

McGiver

Nody wrote: »

Seth Brundle wrote: »

In fairness that was all the Indians fault for allowing themselves to get killed.

Exactly; the it's not the Brits faults the Indians kept jumping in front of the bullets fired to kill the stampeding elephants behind them. Of course there was a stampede that is why they were there firing in the first place to protect the civilians; they were invited after all by the local Indian government due to the stampeding elephants. It was very common at the time and the UK Empire offered to help deal with the situation. It's tragic that a few civilians died but the stampede was stopped which is the important part to remember.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jallianwala_Bagh_massacre
And what HM The Queen said? No apology.
But instead she said:
It is no secret that there have been some difficult episodes in our past – Jallianwala Bagh, which I shall visit tomorrow, is a distressing example. But history cannot be rewritten, however much we might sometimes wish otherwise. It has its moments of sadness, as well as gladness. We must learn from the sadness and build on the gladness.
Difficult episodes, right. Shooting 1500 rounds of ammo into unarmed civilians.
Funnily enough, and that brings us back to the Brexit, Cameron got the closest to what could be called an apology in this case.

Leonard Hofstadter

Never mind all this doom and gloom, if Airbus goes ahead with their 'threat' to pull out of the UK because of Brexit, HMG is threatening to cancel the MoD contracts with Airbus. Sure don't you know that Airbus are re-igniting Project Fear, and stuff like JIT production, integrated supply chains and all that malarkey are EU conspiracies (or something):rolleyes:?

That'll teach 'em for sure!

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/06/22/airbus-accused-reigniting-project-fear-issuing-brexit-threat/

McGiver

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

https://www.cer.eu/insights/ukraine-model-brexit-dissociation-just-association

The Ukraine model for the UK is off the table for the same reason as the Swiss deal. In both cases the EU was trying to entice countries to join. The UK is leaving and so won't get the introductory offer.

The EU views the Ukraine association agreement as a tool for encouraging the country to respect Western liberal values, and to lure it away from corruption and Russian autocracy.
...
The DCFTAs’ exclusion of freedom of movement illustrates why such an agreement would be inappropriate for the UK. The EU does not want high levels of immigration from Ukraine, Georgia, or Moldova, where living standards and wages are lower.

Then again the ECJ is a red line for Theresa May

countries only have improved access to those sectors where their laws are aligned (‘approximated’) to European ones. If a dispute arises relating to regulatory approximation or to an interpretation of EU law, the arbitration panel that oversees the agreement must request a ruling from the European Court of Justice, whose verdicts are legally binding (known as a ‘preliminary reference’). Other than on such issues, the arbitrators oversee the agreement without any ECJ involvement.

The EP 2017 Brexit impact paper speculates that the likely outcome, given UK red lines etc, would be a Strategic Partnership + CFTA, in between CETA and DCFTA.
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2017/595374/IPOL_STU(2017)595374_EN.pdf pages 25 and 26.

LeinsterDub

McGiver wrote: »

Democracy is not about accepting a majority 51:49 decision. That is a rule of the mob or dictate of the majority. Democracy is about achieving and accepting a consensual decision. That applies especially for constitutional changes and mature democracies would typically require super-majority or have some sort of checks and balances in place for such decisions. 52:48 result indicates severe split in the society rather than a consensus, which is exactly what democracy is not about.

A referendum isn't about super-majorities. In general if you see a referendum requiring a super-majority it's corrupt. I'm not aware of any constitution that requires a super majority to be changed when referred to the people. The minority are protected from the the tyranny of the majority the courts and the constitution.

FrancieBrady

McGiver wrote: »

Democracy is not about accepting a majority 51:49 decision. That is a rule of the mob or dictate of the majority. Democracy is about achieving and accepting a consensual decision. That applies especially for constitutional changes and mature democracies would typically require super-majority or have some sort of checks and balances in place for such decisions. 52:48 result indicates severe split in the society rather than a consensus, which is exactly what democracy is not about.

A referendum is about as 'consensual' as it gets in what we call democracy.
Their track record is that they work.

If you start qualifying them by extra percentages where does it end?

Super majorities are normally requested by those who fear the outcome.

robindch

Theresa May delivers on her promise to deliver a video on her promise to deliver on the will of the people to deliver Brexit.

Only it looks like a kidnap video.

https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/1009529579940261888

funkey_monkey

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I'm not aware of any constitution that requires a super majority to be changed when referred to the people.

In 2006, the Constitution of Florida was amended to require a 60% majority to pass new constitutional amendments by popular vote.

For the Montenegrin independence referendum held in 2006 the European Union envoy Miroslav Lajčák proposed independence if a 55% supermajority of votes are cast in favor with a minimum turnout of 50%. Such procedure, ultimately accepted by the government of Montenegro, was somewhat criticized as overriding the traditional practice of requiring a two-third supermajority, as practiced in all ex Yugoslav countries before (including the previous referendum in Montenegro).

In 2016, the Constitution of Colorado was amended to require a 55% majority to pass new constitutional amendments by popular vote.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority

FrancieBrady

funkey_monkey wrote: »

In 2006, the Constitution of Florida was amended to require a 60% majority to pass new constitutional amendments by popular vote.

For the Montenegrin independence referendum held in 2006 the European Union envoy Miroslav Lajčák proposed independence if a 55% supermajority of votes are cast in favor with a minimum turnout of 50%. Such procedure, ultimately accepted by the government of Montenegro, was somewhat criticized as overriding the traditional practice of requiring a two-third supermajority, as practiced in all ex Yugoslav countries before (including the previous referendum in Montenegro).

In 2016, the Constitution of Colorado was amended to require a 55% majority to pass new constitutional amendments by popular vote.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supermajority

And what data suggests this is anymore harmonious or better?

What data shows that ordinary referendums harm societies?

If Leave had lost by 20 per cent, do you think the UK would have lived happily ever after?

Anthracite

robindch wrote: »

Theresa May delivers on her promise to deliver a video on her promise to deliver on the will of the people to deliver Brexit.

Only it looks like a kidnap video.

A little bit light on specifics, I would venture.

oscarBravo

LeinsterDub wrote: »

A referendum isn't about super-majorities.

What a referendum should be about is a clear decision with well-understood outcomes.

For example, in our most recent referendum we knew that a "yes" vote would result in a change to the Constitution. We knew the precise form that change would make, and we had a good indication of the legislation that would become possible as a result of that change.

In short, we were able to make an informed decision.

The Brexit referendum was precisely the opposite. You could try to make the case that the people knew what they were voting for - to leave the EU - but, as we've seen since (and as many of us knew in advance), what that even means isn't clear.

The ridiculous idea that Brexit must happen because it's "the will of the people" needs to die in a fire. There's nothing democratic about Brexit. It's bare majoritarianism, and the cries of "democracy!" are nothing more than a cudgel being wielded by the same type of people who decry Parliament as the enemy of the people for having the cheek to try to actually fulfil its constitutional role.

Holding the referendum was a catastrophic mistake. Slavishly adhering to the outcome of that catastrophic mistake, no matter how god-awful the consequences, is like driving a car off a cliff because the sat-nav told you to. There's nothing noble about stubborn stupidity, even if that stubborn stupidity is dressed up as democracy.

EdgeCase

The content of her speeches reminds me a lot of someone attempting to waffle through a undergraduate presentation, having spent the entire year out in the pub.

No specifics, plenty of jargon, delivered with gusto and a certain nervous energy.

LeinsterDub

oscarBravo wrote: »

Holding the referendum was a catastrophic mistake. Slavishly adhering to the outcome of that catastrophic mistake, no matter how god-awful the consequences, is like driving a car off a cliff because the sat-nav told you to. There's nothing noble about stubborn stupidity, even if that stubborn stupidity is dressed up as democracy.

I agree with all this. That's why it's important for referendums to be carefully considered, clear and concise.

Strazdas

oscarBravo wrote: »

What a referendum should be about is a clear decision with well-understood outcomes.

For example, in our most recent referendum we knew that a "yes" vote would result in a change to the Constitution. We knew the precise form that change would make, and we had a good indication of the legislation that would become possible as a result of that change.

In short, we were able to make an informed decision.

The Brexit referendum was precisely the opposite. You could try to make the case that the people knew what they were voting for - to leave the EU - but, as we've seen since (and as many of us knew in advance), what that even means isn't clear.

The ridiculous idea that Brexit must happen because it's "the will of the people" needs to die in a fire. There's nothing democratic about Brexit. It's bare majoritarianism, and the cries of "democracy!" are nothing more than a cudgel being wielded by the same type of people who decry Parliament as the enemy of the people for having the cheek to try to actually fulfil its constitutional role.

Holding the referendum was a catastrophic mistake. Slavishly adhering to the outcome of that catastrophic mistake, no matter how god-awful the consequences, is like driving a car off a cliff because the sat-nav told you to. There's nothing noble about stubborn stupidity, even if that stubborn stupidity is dressed up as democracy.

The Brexiteers talk about democracy and the will of the people when in truth Brexit has probably killed off the use of referenda in the UK.

How can they ever hold one again? For a start, the narrative has been created that a referendum result must be implemented into law no matter what, even if the result is 50.1%-49.9% and this implementation can never be reversed by any government or parliament.

That means the use of referendums in Britain is completely toxic and no government would even dream of holding one again (the subtext of this would be admitting that the Brexit referendum was a complete catastrophe but nobody can state this in public of course).

It makes sense for referenda to have either a supermajority or a minimum turnout.

Certain topics will always have a more active side that will go out in a storm to vote. That side is usually the one of drastic change because people don't feel fired up to vote for what they have.

A minimum turnout is generally a better solution to that in my opinion.

gimli2112

The Brexit guys are so eager to make their arguments it doesn't matter if it makes sense. Watching two analysts on sky news
Brexit: It may well be that the UK can then join what is now the comprehensive progressive trans pacific partnership
Remainer: Yes because we have so many pacific coastlines
Brexit: It doesn't matter

The Brexit analyst also thinks Airbus are bluffing as they said they'd leave if the referendum voted go

Enzokk

gimli2112 wrote: »

The Brexit guys are so eager to make their arguments it doesn't matter if it makes sense. Watching two analysts on sky news
Brexit: It may well be that the UK can then join what is now the comprehensive progressive trans pacific partnership
Remainer: Yes because we have so many pacific coastlines
Brexit: It doesn't matter

The Brexit analyst also thinks Airbus are bluffing as they said they'd leave if the referendum voted go

They are clutching to any straw they can find. They want to leave their closest trading union and join one miles away which in most people's eyes seem ridiculous but to a Brexiteer it is a lifeline.

On Airbus, I found this article very interesting.

Lawless voted leave in the EU referendum but said he did not regret his decision.“I was in two minds. I wanted to leave but obviously a lot of people were asking questions before about if we were to leave, how it would affect us,” he said.

“People were saying it would never affect us here because it’s too big a company. I’m still happy I voted for it but I thought we had more of a hold and a footing here in Broughton.”

Meanwhile, Peter Sinnott, 55, who has worked at the site since 1980, said workers had been expecting the news since the Brexit vote. “Once we had a border (with Europe), it was always going to happen,” he said.

“Mr [Nigel] Farage knew the vote wouldn’t affect him either way. It’s every common man it affects. There are young men in there, lads with families and mortgages. It is them who this will affect the most.”

The person quoted first is 34 years old. I really cannot fathom how anyone can work in a multi-national corporation with a complicated supply chain thought that just because they existed meant they were safe. Idiocy to the highest degree. Your company warned you what could happen yet you decided you knew better and voted leave.

Nody

Enzokk wrote: »

The person quoted first is 34 years old. I really cannot fathom how anyone can work in a multi-national corporation with a complicated supply chain thought that just because they existed meant they were safe. Idiocy to the highest degree. Your company warned you what could happen yet you decided you knew better and voted leave.

They scary part he is still happy with his Brexit vote even after Airbus said they are likely to shut down; the main company to drive the whole region and the only saving grace after the steel mills were closed...

murphaph

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And what data suggests this is anymore harmonious or better?

What data shows that ordinary referendums harm societies?

If Leave had lost by 20 per cent, do you think the UK would have lived happily ever after?

Yes! The issue would have been buried for good if it had been 60/40 remain.

Blaas4life

Strazdas wrote: »

How can they ever hold one again? For a start, the narrative has been created that a referendum result must be implemented into law no matter what, even if the result is 50.1%-49.9% and this implementation can never be reversed by any government or parliament..

Tbf what's the point of being a democracy or holding referendums,if your going to let the government/parliament reverse majority decisions??
Seriously dangerous path your proposing


I cannot fathom how the British government hasn't collapsed as it seems fairly obvious thersea may hasn't the support of a fairly sizable portipn of her party,but is only being left out to dry as noone appears to want to be the the PM that negotiated brexit

Blaas4life

McGiver wrote: »

Democracy is not about accepting a majority 51:49 decision. That is a rule of the mob or dictate of the majority. Democracy is about achieving and accepting a consensual decision. That applies especially for constitutional changes and mature democracies would typically require super-majority or have some sort of checks and balances in place for such decisions. 52:48 result indicates severe split in the society rather than a consensus, which is exactly what democracy is not about.

I'm far from a brexit supporter...but Jesus democracy is about accepting the decision of the majority??


Is there any country in the world that forces people who get majority of the votes to be ignored as their majority isn't big enough

An Ciarraioch

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It makes sense for referenda to have either a supermajority or a minimum turnout.

Certain topics will always have a more active side that will go out in a storm to vote. That side is usually the one of drastic change because people don't feel fired up to vote for what they have.

A minimum turnout is generally a better solution to that in my opinion.

Indeed - let's suppose that in a Border poll, 55% in NI vote for a united Ireland, and an improbably high 95% of nationalists also do so - should that outcome be overruled by a supermajority requirement of 60%? Setting the turnout bar at a 70% minimum seems the best means of ensuring a proportional result.

An Ciarraioch

Deleted User wrote: »

It makes sense for referenda to have either a supermajority or a minimum turnout.

Certain topics will always have a more active side that will go out in a storm to vote. That side is usually the one of drastic change because people don't feel fired up to vote for what they have.

A minimum turnout is generally a better solution to that in my opinion.

Would agree with this approach, setting the turnout bar at 70% would ensure a representative result.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

What a referendum should be about is a clear decision with well-understood outcomes.

For example, in our most recent referendum we knew that a "yes" vote would result in a change to the Constitution. We knew the precise form that change would make, and we had a good indication of the legislation that would become possible as a result of that change.

In short, we were able to make an informed decision.

The Brexit referendum was precisely the opposite. You could try to make the case that the people knew what they were voting for - to leave the EU - but, as we've seen since (and as many of us knew in advance), what that even means isn't clear.

The ridiculous idea that Brexit must happen because it's "the will of the people" needs to die in a fire. There's nothing democratic about Brexit. It's bare majoritarianism, and the cries of "democracy!" are nothing more than a cudgel being wielded by the same type of people who decry Parliament as the enemy of the people for having the cheek to try to actually fulfil its constitutional role.

Holding the referendum was a catastrophic mistake. Slavishly adhering to the outcome of that catastrophic mistake, no matter how god-awful the consequences, is like driving a car off a cliff because the sat-nav told you to. There's nothing noble about stubborn stupidity, even if that stubborn stupidity is dressed up as democracy.

Is not holding a referendum because you fear of are politically against one of the possible outcomes closer to a democracy? I don't think so.

CalamariFritti

I don't really post here but I wanted to say that this brexit 'discussion' is really futile in my opinion. The way I see it, and I think this became pretty obvious very soon after the actual brexit declaration, there is no interest in a soft brexit. There seems to be a powerful minority in the UK that has conned the great unwashed into this brexit vote and they must expect to benefit from this. They want this at all cost and the harder the better for them. So they sent their biggest clowns to put on a 'negotiation' show with the EU but thats all it is. It really has shown stern democracies up in my opinion. It was never clearer than in this brexit thing how the populace is just paraded through the ring while vested interests call the actual shots. And they dont give a sh1t about progress or the people or anything. They want money and power which translates into money again. It really is a shambles.

J Mysterio

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A referendum is about as 'consensual' as it gets in what we call democracy.
Their track record is that they work.

If you start qualifying them by extra percentages where does it end?

Super majorities are normally requested by those who fear the outcome.

LeinsterDub really liked your post!

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

What a referendum should be about is a clear decision with well-understood outcomes.

For example, in our most recent referendum we knew that a "yes" vote would result in a change to the Constitution. We knew the precise form that change would make, and we had a good indication of the legislation that would become possible as a result of that change.

In short, we were able to make an informed decision.

The Brexit referendum was precisely the opposite. You could try to make the case that the people knew what they were voting for - to leave the EU - but, as we've seen since (and as many of us knew in advance), what that even means isn't clear.

The ridiculous idea that Brexit must happen because it's "the will of the people" needs to die in a fire. There's nothing democratic about Brexit. It's bare majoritarianism, and the cries of "democracy!" are nothing more than a cudgel being wielded by the same type of people who decry Parliament as the enemy of the people for having the cheek to try to actually fulfil its constitutional role.

Holding the referendum was a catastrophic mistake. Slavishly adhering to the outcome of that catastrophic mistake, no matter how god-awful the consequences, is like driving a car off a cliff because the sat-nav told you to. There's nothing noble about stubborn stupidity, even if that stubborn stupidity is dressed up as democracy.

It may have been a mistake to hold one, but not holding one because you are politically against or fear one of the possible outcomes is not democracy either.

What the government chose to do with the outcome of this advisory referendum is the problem, not the instrument itself.

LeinsterDub

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It makes sense for referenda to have either a supermajority or a minimum turnout.

Certain topics will always have a more active side that will go out in a storm to vote. That side is usually the one of drastic change because people don't feel fired up to vote for what they have.

A minimum turnout is generally a better solution to that in my opinion.

Issues like abortion, same sex marriage or approving the GFA? My issue is that you either apply the minimum turn out or super majority to every referendum vote or none because if not the processes will be abused by those who are setting the referendum. Also a major issue with a minimum turnout is the boycott.

FrancieBrady

oscarBravo wrote: »

What a referendum should be about is a clear decision with well-understood outcomes.

For example, in our most recent referendum we knew that a "yes" vote would result in a change to the Constitution. We knew the precise form that change would make, and we had a good indication of the legislation that would become possible as a result of that change.

In short, we were able to make an informed decision.

The Brexit referendum was precisely the opposite. You could try to make the case that the people knew what they were voting for - to leave the EU - but, as we've seen since (and as many of us knew in advance), what that even means isn't clear.

The ridiculous idea that Brexit must happen because it's "the will of the people" needs to die in a fire. There's nothing democratic about Brexit. It's bare majoritarianism, and the cries of "democracy!" are nothing more than a cudgel being wielded by the same type of people who decry Parliament as the enemy of the people for having the cheek to try to actually fulfil its constitutional role.

Holding the referendum was a catastrophic mistake. Slavishly adhering to the outcome of that catastrophic mistake, no matter how god-awful the consequences, is like driving a car off a cliff because the sat-nav told you to. There's nothing noble about stubborn stupidity, even if that stubborn stupidity is dressed up as democracy.

It may have been a mistake to hold one, but not holding one because you are politically against or fear one of the possible outcomes is not democracy either.

What the government chose to do with the outcome of this advisory referendum is the problem, not the instrument itself.

Dymo

gimli2112 wrote: »

The Brexit analyst also thinks Airbus are bluffing as they said they'd leave if the referendum voted go

I think there bluffing too, probably looking for better or more incentives, Toyota did it last year and the government came to an agreement, so Airbus are trying to do the same they have nothing to lose by "warning", and BMW has gotten in on the act.

Dymo

gimli2112 wrote: »

The Brexit analyst also thinks Airbus are bluffing as they said they'd leave if the referendum voted go

I think there bluffing too, Toyota got a deal with the government last year so Airbus are also looking for more incentives or benefits and its it only a "warning". If they were thinking of moving they would have plans in place at this stage.

Or do they wait for no deal Brexit.

LeinsterDub

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It makes sense for referenda to have either a supermajority or a minimum turnout.

Certain topics will always have a more active side that will go out in a storm to vote. That side is usually the one of drastic change because people don't feel fired up to vote for what they have.

A minimum turnout is generally a better solution to that in my opinion.

Certain votes such as the repeal, divorce, marriage equality or approving the GFA?

Who gets to decide this one has a minimum turnout? I suppose I'd consider it less an attempt at gerrymandering if every vote had to have a minimum turnout, super majority or both.

And of course you've to be very careful with minimum turn outs as a side who knows they won't win can nullify the referendum by boycotting

Rhineshark

Enzokk wrote: »

They are clutching to any straw they can find. They want to leave their closest trading union and join one miles away which in most people's eyes seem ridiculous but to a Brexiteer it is a lifeline.

[Link deleted as new poster can't quote links]


The person quoted first is 34 years old. I really cannot fathom how anyone can work in a multi-national corporation with a complicated supply chain thought that just because they existed meant they were safe. Idiocy to the highest degree. Your company warned you what could happen yet you decided you knew better and voted leave.

Having spent quite a lot of time talking with British people on forums (and ofc what the media and politicians talk about), the problem seems to be that the majority of British people do not understand what the EU actually is.

Brexiters think they are negotiating with a lot of...hm...Johnny Foreigners who better sit up and listen. They're negotiating (well, incoherently cajoling, threatening and attempting to blackmail) the entire trading system of 27 countries and while the system can be flexible, people can't just make up rules and pretend they work. Britain of all places should know it's flexible- if it's approached sensibly and taking it seriously. And when actually understanding what is and isn't possible, let alone practical.

Brexiters were told over and over that ultimately, it's a small change in terms of negatives and lots of good things will happen as soon as they are free of the European yoke around their necks. And successive UK governments have taken the credit for popular EU policies and blamed the EU for unpopular domestic ones. So what real negatives can possibly come from leaving this source of all woes? The good stuff was all our idea and we can keep doing it.

Inertia and a certain taking for granted that everything will/would work out has done an awful lot of psychological damage. These islands have always been good at using fudge to get over bumps and that's fine when it's a small group of nations that are used to it and can work with fudge. But fudge won't work here.

They will, sadly, have to learn the hard way that choices do have consequences and no, things don't just automatically work out okay just because they have before.

Rhineshark

Enzokk wrote: »

They are clutching to any straw they can find. They want to leave their closest trading union and join one miles away which in most people's eyes seem ridiculous but to a Brexiteer it is a lifeline.

[Link deleted as new poster can't quote links - and by 'eck trying caused everything to choke]


The person quoted first is 34 years old. I really cannot fathom how anyone can work in a multi-national corporation with a complicated supply chain thought that just because they existed meant they were safe. Idiocy to the highest degree. Your company warned you what could happen yet you decided you knew better and voted leave.

Having spent quite a lot of time talking with British people on forums (and ofc what the media and politicians talk about), the problem seems to be that the majority of British people do not understand what the EU actually is.

Brexiters think they are negotiating with a lot of...hm...Johnny Foreigners who better sit up and listen. They're negotiating (well, incoherently cajoling, threatening and attempting to blackmail) the entire trading system of 27 countries and while the system can be flexible, people can't just make up rules and pretend they work. Britain of all places should know it's flexible- if it's approached sensibly and taking it seriously. And when actually understanding what is and isn't possible, let alone practical.

Brexiters were told over and over that ultimately, it's a small change in terms of negatives and lots of good things will happen as soon as they are free of the European yoke around their necks. And successive UK governments have taken the credit for popular EU policies and blamed the EU for unpopular domestic ones. So what real negatives can possibly come from leaving this source of all woes? The good stuff was all our idea and we can keep doing it.

Inertia and a certain taking for granted that everything will/would work out has done an awful lot of psychological damage. These islands have always been good at using fudge to get over bumps and that's fine when it's a small group of nations that are used to it and can work with fudge. But fudge won't work here.

They will, sadly, have to learn the hard way that choices do have consequences and no, things don't just automatically work out okay just because they have before.

Rhineshark

Test? Can I post at all after the quoted link choked?

Will edit if this goes through. I'm getting 404d now.

Rhineshark

Do I need to sacrifice a goat to stop getting 404d when trying to post in here?

Rhineshark

Forgive me processing hamsters and just let this post work! I will never quote a link again!!!

Test

Rhineshark

Maybe responsive site will work...

Test.

Trasna1

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Certain votes such as the repeal, divorce, marriage equality or approving the GFA?

Who gets to decide this one has a minimum turnout? I suppose I'd it less an attempt at gerrymandering if every vote have to have a minimum turnout, super majority or both.

And of course you've to be very careful with minimum turn outs as a side who knows they won't win can nullify the referendum by boycotting

The functioning of a referendum in Ireland, while superficially similar to the way its done in the UK, in reality couldn't be more different. This is down to PR-STV which ensures the minority voice gets heard. FPTP allows extremists to control the conversation (as an aside, its interesting to note that FF tried twice to introduce FPTP twice in Ireland).

If abortion was overturned on a 52/48 vote, while the constitution would be changed, the issue wouldn't be fully settled. Its likely the government would have had to make concessions on 12 weeks within the subsequent legislation. In fact, if public opinion had in reality been so finely balanced, 12 weeks wouldn't have been proposed.

At this stage its hard to see anything other than talks breaking down and the default of a hard brexit emerging. The UK seems to be gambling on EU unity breaking - and it might get lucky if it happens due to some external factor (of which there are many these days), such as migration, populists in Italy or a Trump trade war but this hasn't shown any signs of happening and time is running out for it to do so.

The breakdown in EU unity may well come too late for the UK to take advantage - which may well come as the EU grapples to deal with the consequences of a hard brexit.