Brexit discussion thread VII (Please read OP before posting)

MrMusician18

Hurrache wrote: »

Don't be so rash, MrMusician18 is about to provide an example which sets precedent that MPs will now resign their seat upon leaving their party they were members of when elected.

Douglas Carswell
Mark Reckless

There's two for you from the past few years.

Strazdas

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Yes - the talks only started at 6.30, so must have just been a 30-minute chat.

Did Juncker cut himself shaving or something?

https://twitter.com/Ruptly/status/1098307550733205504

LeinsterDub

Strazdas wrote: »

"Legally binding" also means the same government are free to call a second referendum, within months if necessary.

A legally binding referendum that does not have the option to be immediately reversed would be profoundly undemocratic.

I thought the High Court ruled after Nice or Lisbon that the same question can't be returned to the people on such a short timescale?

lawred2

Strazdas wrote: »

Did Juncker cut himself shaving or something?

https://twitter.com/Ruptly/status/1098307550733205504

she doesn't look best pleased...

I don't get what she's getting out of all this!? I really really don't.

Strazdas

LeinsterDub wrote: »

I thought the High Court ruled after Nice or Lisbon that the same question can't be returned to the people on such a short timescale?

I'm not sure about the time frame but binding referendum simply means the result must be implemented by the Dáil. But governments are perfectly free to hold another referendum.

Brexiteers seem to be thinking of a binding referendum as one which must be implemented no matter what and cannot be voted on again. if they actually had a constitution and binding referendums, they could never even have held their referendum of course : Cameron would have to announce he was leaving the EU and put that decision to the public to be voted on.

MrMusician18

lawred2 wrote: »

The vote to change the constitution is legally binding..

The subsequent legislation is for the Oireachtas as it is their job to legislate so as to reflect the provisions (or amendments) of our constitution. Abortion was a single issue piece of legislation.

I don't think you'll find anyone who will argue otherwise.

But there is no comparison between a clearly defined single issue referendum versus a vague all things to all people in/out advisory survey.. Even the out campaign put forward a vision of Brexit that they would now conclude to be the softest of Brexits.. (and a surrender to the EU etc etc - imagine surrendering to the cheese eating surrender monkeys - the horror)

Since when were politicians bound to arrogance and the blind stupidity of a previous administration?

I agree with all that, but that's not the comparison I was making. The white paper on abortion legislation formed a central part of the campaign for the 36th amendment, even though that's not what was actually, legally, voted on. If the government has turned around and said "nah, we're going to leave the old 19C law in place" people would have rightly felt short changed, to put it mildly. It would be a full blown crisis. The white paper was part of the campaign and people thought that's what they were getting. That was politically binding.


Bringing this back to Brexit, during the campaign, Cameron promised he would submit art. 50 the very next day after the result, that the process would begin, undefined and all as it was and 52% said ok, do that.

The electorate then had an opportunity to put the brakes on the process, when they could see that there was no plan, and they still voted over 4:1 for parties that promised to implement the referendum result.

Can't you see why it would be so difficult to abandon it now? The referendum must be implemented, or really you would have to lose faith in democracy.

If the polls showed there was an appetite for a second referendum, id agree there should be one. But unfortunately they don't.

Capt'n Midnight

Hurrache wrote: »

Might get a laugh in Germany anyway

It's not just the car industry that uses parts from Europe.

The UK have a £10Bn deal with the Saudi's for Eurofighters. But some of the parts come from Germany.

Being outside the EU won't help the UK solve this one.

Seth Brundle

Kate Hoey continurs to display her kniwledge of Ireland by predicting Irexit after the UK leaves...

"I'm absolutely confident - and I get shouted down by some people in Ireland for saying this - but long term, when we get out of the EU, the Irish Republic is quite likely to have this similar situation which we have."

https://www.joe.ie/news/kate-hoey-confident-ireland-leave-eu-659076

First Up

lawred2 wrote:

Referenda are legally binding in Ireland.

Not exactly. Referenda are needed to change the Constitution to enable certain legislation to be introduced. The legislation still needs Dail and Seanad approval.

It is quite conceivable that a Constitutional change could pass but the resulting legislation could be defeated in the Dail.

lawred2

MrMusician18 wrote: »

I agree with all that, but that's not the comparison I was making. The white paper on abortion legislation formed a central part of the campaign for the 36th amendment, even though that's not what was actually, legally, voted on. If the government has turned around and said "nah, we're going to leave the old 19C law in place" people would have rightly felt short changed, to put it mildly. It would be a full blown crisis. The white paper was part of the campaign and people thought that's what they were getting. That was politically binding.


Bringing this back to Brexit, during the campaign, Cameron promised he would submit art. 50 the very next day after the result, that the process would begin, undefined and all as it was and 52% said ok, do that.

The electorate then had an opportunity to put the brakes on the process, when they could see that there was no plan, and they still voted over 4:1 for parties that promised to implement the referendum result.

Can't you see why it would be so difficult to abandon it now? The referendum must be implemented, or really you would have to lose faith in democracy.

If the polls showed there was an appetite for a second referendum, id agree there should be one. But unfortunately they don't.

To be honest, it's shady manipulative campaigns of dubious origins which are leading to the destabilisation of modern democracies that I would find more disconcerting.

Faith in democracy seems an almost quaint concern at this stage.

Hurrache

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Douglas Carswell
Mark Reckless

There's two for you from the past few years.

Carswell triggered it by his own choosing, and he then resigned his seat altogether after realising his mistake of joining the party he moved to.

Reckless also triggered it himself.

So one thing both these have in common is that they both done so in order to stand as UKIP candidates.

The other thing they have in common is they both got reelected despite switching party, of which the current 11 haven't.

So all this shows it was a waste of time because people voted for the candidate and what they electioneered on over the party..

lawred2

Seth Brundle wrote: »

Kate Hoey continurs to display her kniwledge of Ireland by predicting Irexit after the UK leaves...



https://www.joe.ie/news/kate-hoey-confident-ireland-leave-eu-659076

She gets shouted down all the time about it but still holds steadfast to her own baseless notion.

That's lunatic stuff. It's like reality no longer matters

An Ciarraioch

Interesting reply by Nick Gutteridge:

http://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1098312980935200774

prawnsambo

lawred2 wrote: »

To be honest, it's shady manipulative campaigns of dubious origins which are leading to the destabilisation of modern democracies that I would find more disconcerting.

Faith in democracy seems an almost quaint concern at this stage.

Indeed. Only today, Microsoft reported what they believed to be a concerted attack being planned on the Euro elections. I'll dig for the details and come back on it.

Edit: Here's a report from AP

Hurrache

An Ciarraioch wrote: »

Interesting reply by Nick Gutteridge:

http://twitter.com/nick_gutteridge/status/1098312980935200774

So basically how we understood the backstop back when it was first drawn up.

lawred2

Temporary nature of backstop?

Don't they mean 'until and when'?

While close to temporary, that ain't the same thing at all.

MrMusician18

Hurrache wrote: »

Carswell triggered it by his own choosing, and he then resigned his seat altogether after realising his mistake of joining the party he moved to.

Reckless also triggered it himself.

So one thing both these have in common is that they both done so in order to stand as UKIP candidates.

The other thing they have in common is they both got reelected despite switching party, of which the current group hasn't.

So all this shows it was a waste of time because people voted the candidate and what they electioneered on.

No, they originally got elected on a conservative manifesto, and when they defected to they sought a new mandate as what they stood for changed.

What the independent group now stand for is different from the manifesto they got elected under, therefore they should seek approval of their constituents to pursue this different policy in parliament.

The precedent Carswell and Reckless set is directly comparable.

We all know the only reason they won't do it is because they'll lose. CU for example is in one of the safest Labour seats, they could stick a red rosette on a Labrador and it would win there. Can't see why that's hard for Irish people to acknowledge?

Hurrache

lawred2 wrote: »

Temporary nature of backstop?

Don't they mean 'until and when'?

While close to temporary, that ain't the same thing at all.

I think it's just semanatics. They say there will be a permanent future relationship at some stage, so the backstop will be temporarily in force until that point.

Mr.Wemmick

lawred2 wrote: »

she doesn't look best pleased...

I don't get what she's getting out of all this!? I really really don't.

She started this and through gritted teeth is seeing it through..

God help us all.

MrMusician18

prawnsambo wrote: »

Indeed. Only today, Microsoft reported what they believed to be a concerted attack being planned on the Euro elections. I'll dig for the details and come back on it.

Could the euro elections be completely postponed I wonder?
Extending art. 50 might be the cover the EU would need to do so.

lawred2

Hurrache wrote: »

I think it's just semanatics. They say there will be a permanent future relationship at some stage, so the backstop will be temporarily in force until that point.

But this is what it has always been!?

How has this any more chance of getting through to parliament?

Or is it the plan simply - here you chaps, vote for this or it's lights out!?

Akrasia

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Are you saying that the referendum result should be ignored? Do you not think that it would be a betrayal of democracy to do so?

How could anyone claim the referendum result is being ignored? Even if brexit never actually happens, the result of that referendum have dominated every aspect of british politics and economics for the last 3 years.

Every single General election is won based on election manifestos that include promises that never get delivered either because circumstances change, or they weren't properly thought through, or because they were empty promises in the first place. Id love to see the pre election manifestos of all the 'will of the people' MPs to see how many of their own promises they have failed to deliver on and hear their justifications for why those broken election manifestos dont count as a 'betrayal of democracy'

An Ciarraioch

Hurrache wrote: »

So basically how we understood the backstop back when it was first drawn up.

Indeed - we wouldn't complain, but the Tories invariably would.

Capt'n Midnight

RobertKK wrote: »

Brexit is like being promised a Ferrari F1 car,

A better analogy is being promised a Lamborghini*

No wait. Better make that an Aston Martin DB9 because it's not foreign.


But DB means David Brown and its not actually a 9 but a 990.

So what you are getting is a clapped out David Brown 990 tractor and all the while being told "it's the will of the people"



*Lamborghini also make tractors.

Hurrache

MrMusician18 wrote: »

The precedent Carswell and Reckless set is directly comparable.

No, that's not what a precedent is, they're anomalies, literally exceptions to the rule.

Strazdas

MrMusician18 wrote: »

I agree with all that, but that's not the comparison I was making. The white paper on abortion legislation formed a central part of the campaign for the 36th amendment, even though that's not what was actually, legally, voted on. If the government has turned around and said "nah, we're going to leave the old 19C law in place" people would have rightly felt short changed, to put it mildly. It would be a full blown crisis. The white paper was part of the campaign and people thought that's what they were getting. That was politically binding.


Bringing this back to Brexit, during the campaign, Cameron promised he would submit art. 50 the very next day after the result, that the process would begin, undefined and all as it was and 52% said ok, do that.

The electorate then had an opportunity to put the brakes on the process, when they could see that there was no plan, and they still voted over 4:1 for parties that promised to implement the referendum result.

Can't you see why it would be so difficult to abandon it now? The referendum must be implemented, or really you would have to lose faith in democracy.

If the polls showed there was an appetite for a second referendum, id agree there should be one. But unfortunately they don't.

That seems a very flimsy / shallow reason to be implementing the most massive constitutional change on a country, change that will impact for decades to come ; "people will be upset if we don't implement the result and will lose faith in democracy".

There's not much in the way of legal talk going on here, more stuff about "emotions" and "feelings" (and what about the 35 million adults in the UK who didn't vote for Brexit.....where do they fit into the equation and is anyone bothered about what they think of the democratic process?).

Hurrache

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Could the euro elections be completely postponed I wonder? .

Not a chance.

Hurrache

lawred2 wrote: »

How has this any more chance of getting through to parliament?

Or is it the plan simply - here you chaps, vote for this or it's lights out!?

I honestly don't think it will, the ERG just don't want a deal regardless. If they get pushed right to the edge and realise the corner they painted themselves into who knows.

prawnsambo

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Could the euro elections be completely postponed I wonder?
Extending art. 50 might be the cover the EU would need to do so.

Probably not. It's the EU. There'll be a raft of rules that would have to be amended and it won't really help.

Akrasia

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Would it be a betrayal? Maybe, but don't forget that in legal terms it was an opinion poll with no constitutional force. It was an advisory referendum, the British government is well within its rights to look at the advice the people gave it, and reject it for being really bad advice.

Nor would it be unheard of for a government not to implement the result of a referendum. I have to laugh at Irish Brexiteers who get very worked up about respecting democracy and yet never once mention that one of our own referendums, the 7th amendment back in 1979 was never properly implemented.

The irony is that the courts found that Vote leave broke election law and would have possibly ordered a re-run except that they couldnt because as an advisory referendum they didnt have authority to do so.

In other words the referendum result is only valid because it was non binding. If it was actually binding, it would have been overturmed by the electoral commission

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-44856992