Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

Professor Moriarty

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well I think the UK joined the EU (EEC then) without a referendum initially. The 1975 referendum was to confirm that they were to stay in that organisation.

However, yes we can treat the 2016 referendum as the second referendum, the first being in 1975. Even so, I don't think there's a democratic problem with rerunning in this situation. The problem comes with running a second referendum without implementing the first.

In this regard, there's no problem having a third referendum but to be democratic, a) the previous referendum must be implemented and b) some time must pass. How much time? I don't know. But immediately rerunning the referendum I would suggest is problematic.

How about:

You asked us to leave the EU. Here's our plan to leave. Are you happy to go ahead with it? Please tick yes or no.

Zubeneschamali

Bit cynical wrote: »

The problem comes with running a second referendum without implementing the first.

Many in the Leave campaign, including Farage and Rees-Mogg, said at the time that a confirmatory referendum would be a good idea once a deal was negotiated.

robinph

Bit cynical wrote: »

The problem comes with running a second referendum without implementing the first.

What is problematic about asking for confirmation?

Do you want to jump of a cliff? Yes.
Off you go then, and no changing your mind until after you've hit the bottom.

Oh, sorry you meant you wanted to jump off a cliff in a wing suit. Well you should have said beforehand. Too late now though.

Strazdas

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Many in the Leave campaign, including Farage and Rees-Mogg, said at the time that a confirmatory referendum would be a good idea once a deal was negotiated.

As did Cummings.

VinLieger

dublinjock wrote: »

This a good question, i would not be able to answer at the moment because ive not up on all the above deals.But i would be more in the area of the Norway deal.



I dont have all the answers and dont pretend to. This why we have elected politicians, but they seem to have any idea of what to do.

What were they told by their constituents via the referendum to do?


Also the Norway deal sounds great but what do you do when EFTA don't want you joining it as they are afraid you will mess it up?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/07/norwegian-politicians-reject-uks-norway-plus-brexit-plan

murphaph

dublinjock wrote: »

I understand what your saying about the President being like a head od state. But its an important role and they get to have say more than any other head of state would on matters.
Im a firm believer any head of state should stand for an election and be voted in by the people.

How would that work then? If every citizen in the EU could vote directly for the President of the Commission it'd end up being a German all the time.

Perhaps it's better when EuCo chooses this person.

The EU is way more democratic than the UK by the way.

Seth Brundle

dublinjock wrote: »

I did vote yes thats correct.
The leave vote won.

OK so you voted to leave the EU.
Did you vote to leave the single market?
Did you vote toe leave the customs union?
Did your vote take into account the other legal aspects affected by exiting the EU such as poorer trade deals, trade tarrifs and so on?
Did your vote take into account the complexities of Northern Ireland and how existing legal agreements made in part by the UK mean that Brexit cannot happen without negatively affecting the political, economic and social status of Northern Ireland? This in turn would have ramifications on the Uk's reputation across the world (for breaking an agreement registered with the UN).

dublinjock wrote: »

The house of commons dont want to leave the EU. They are a total disgrace and as i have said im learning that the saying i was told is so true.

So what should the HoC do?
Should they accept the deal that May agreed with the EU?
Should they accept the default exit i.e. a crash out which will be a massive economic and social disaster for the UK?
What should they do because nobody in there seems to agree with the person sitting beside them!

jm08

murphaph wrote: »

How would that work then? If every citizen in the EU could vote directly for the President of the Commission it'd end up being a German all the time.

Perhaps it's better when EuCo chooses this person.

The EU is way more democratic than the UK by the way.

Ursula von der Leyen is the first German Commission President which is surprising since in the UK everyone thinks that Germany runs the EU! We've had one from Luxembourg, Italy, Portugal, France and the UK (Roy Jenkins).

Zubeneschamali

VinLieger wrote: »

Also the Norway deal sounds great

I thought from very early on, before May's red lines, that they would end up in Hard Brexit, not Norway.

Any idiot can see that Norway is a worse deal than Remaining. Take all the rules, pay all the moneys, have no say in decisions. I thought Hard Brexit allows them to pretend they did not make a horrible mistake voting Leave, and they won't admit that until they've tried it, so...

But things have dragged on so long that now I think some have admitted to themselves they were wrong, and a re-run might well vote Remain.

Bit cynical

robinph wrote: »

What is problematic about asking for confirmation?

Do you want to jump of a cliff? Yes.
Off you go then, and no changing your mind until after you've hit the bottom.

Oh, sorry you meant you wanted to jump off a cliff in a wing suit. Well you should have said beforehand. Too late now though.

But democratic decisions are like that. For example might not agree with Marxism and I don't want such a government to be in power. However to the extent that I am democratic I have to allow that party to be in government for the duration of the term if that is the outcome of the election. Again to the extent that I am democratic, I don't want some other authority deciding that the people's decision was wrong, did not take this or that factor into account, etc. and therefore should not be respected and that the election is held again.

Therefore as I said earlier it might be for the best overall that the UK reruns the referendum or even revokes A50 but it is democratically problematic.

Strazdas

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I thought from very early on, before May's red lines, that they would end up in Hard Brexit, not Norway.

Any idiot can see that Norway is a worse deal than Remaining. Take all the rules, pay all the moneys, have no say in decisions. I thought Hard Brexit allows them to pretend they did not make a horrible mistake voting Leave, and they won't admit that until they've tried it, so...

But things have dragged on so long that now I think some have admitted to themselves they were wrong, and a re-run might well vote Remain.

This should have been debated before the referendum. It's downright criminal that nobody knew if they were voting for Single Market membership or not.

fash

dublinjock wrote: »

I think your right about referendums being undemocratic. Im so so learning this.
I know there was much lies and shenanigans went on but this is the way with politicians.
But i have never been happy with the way the EU is run and how undemocratic it is. What i didnt know and i am also learning is how undemocratic the UK house of commons is. Voting it seems changes nothing.

Have you ever wondered if the lying spivs in the HOC might have been lying about how the EU is run and how undemocratic it is? Honest question.

greenfield21

How Europe does democracy

https://twitter.com/Holbornlolz/status/1171489355422040067

Bit cynical

Strazdas wrote: »

This should have been debated before the referendum. It's downright criminal that nobody knew if they were voting for Single Market membership or not.

However does an EU government have the automatic right move from full EU membership to Single Market? It may be the case but I don't think it is stated in any of the treaties. The only thing they have the certain right to is to leave the EU after a period of negotiation. Perhaps it could be written into a future treaty that this was an option to countries leaving but then on the other hand, the EU might not want to make it too easy to switch.

Strazdas

Bit cynical wrote: »

But democratic decisions are like that. For example might not agree with Marxism and I don't want such a government to be in power. However to the extent that I am democratic I have to allow that party to be in government for the duration of the term if that is the outcome of the election. Again to the extent that I am democratic, I don't want some other authority deciding that the people's decision was wrong, did not take this or that factor into account, etc. and therefore should not be respected and that the election is held again.

Therefore as I said earlier it might be for the best overall that the UK reruns the referendum or even revokes A50 but it is democratically problematic.

Wrong! If Tommy Robinson was elected PM, would you feel you had to support him because people had voted for him? In a democracy, you are totally free to oppose an election result or a referendum result and to campaign to have it overturned.

I don't know where on earth you and the 17m have gotten the idea it is "undemocratic" to disagree with an election result.

prawnsambo

greenfield21 wrote: »

How Europe does democracy

https://twitter.com/Holbornlolz/status/1171489355422040067

What does she do?

Bit cynical

Strazdas wrote: »

Wrong! If Tommy Robinson was elected PM, would you feel you had to support him because people had voted for him? In a democracy, you are totally free to oppose an election result or a referendum result and to campaign to have it overturned.

I don't know where on earth you and the 17m have gotten the idea it is "undemocratic" to disagree with an election result.

No of course it is not undemocratic to disagree with an election or referendum result which is why I never said that.

In fact earlier I specifically gave an example of not merely an individual candidate but an entire government with which I disagreed. So if Tommy Robinson was voted in I would not agree with him or with those who voted for him, but I hope you can see that that is not the issue.

Cork Boy 53

If the Supreme Court upholds the Scottish Court`s decision then I would say that, shortly afterwards, Johnson can expect a summons from the Palace for a "little chat" with the Queen.

Strazdas

Bit cynical wrote: »

No of course it is not undemocratic to disagree with an election or referendum result which is why I never said that.

In fact earlier I specifically gave an example of not merely an individual candidate but an entire government with which I disagreed. So if Tommy Robinson was voted in I would not agree with him or with those who voted for him, but I hope you can see that that is not the issue.

The "respecting the result of the referendum" argument makes no sense. Someone heading to the House of Commons with a flamethrower and hand grenades would be someone not respecting the result. Merely saying you disagree with the result and want to see it overturned is absolutely fine.

To be honest, I think the respecting the result thing is just a deeply cynical attempt by the Brexiteers and the right wing press to shut down any criticism of or opposition to Brexit.

Akrasia

Bit cynical wrote: »

Rerunning a referendum is unsatisfactory from a democratic point of view, yes. Not the only perspective; there are other considerations. But from the perspective of democracy, problematic I think.

Real democracy is based on informed consent

Voting for what was essentially a 'mystery box' where the remain side were saying 'be careful what you wish for, voting to leave will have lots of bad consequences' and the 'leave' side said 'don't believe them, that's just project fear'

is not informed consent when the consequences of the vote were so blatantly misrepresented by the leave side

And they're still doing it by the way. Today they're refusing to release the 'Operation yellowhammer' reports, not because they think they're not worth reading, but because they know that if the public knew the truth, they'd be much less likely to support the current government policy of shooting the economy in the face.

When the people in power lie to you as a first resort, and then hide the truth from you until it's too late to change anything, and then try to shut down the institutions of the state to prevent any oversight... I think it's not hard to decide whether they are really on your side

A Dub in Glasgo

dublinjock wrote: »

So i take it im not able to vote for either?

I do find the Brexiter attitude on the EU officials bizarre to say the least. Only yesterday, ex PM May appointed a whole load of failures to the upper house in the UK Houses of Parliament so dublinjock, how did you vote for them? For me as a UK resident, how do I vote for them?

Zubeneschamali

Strazdas wrote: »

I don't know where on earth you and the 17m have gotten the idea it is "undemocratic" to disagree with an election result.

And if a rerun of a referendum is unacceptable, why did the UK re-run the 1975 Europe referendum?

Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?

How long is long enough for a change of mind? 40 years? 10? 3?

And note also that Farage is on record saying that if Remain won by a small margin, he would not regard the question as closed but would fight on. Why should Remain do any different?

prawnsambo

Strazdas wrote: »

The "respecting the result of the referendum" argument makes no sense. Someone heading to the House of Commons with a flamethrower and hand grenades would be someone not respecting the result. Merely saying you disagree with the result and want to see it overturned is absolutely fine.

Not only to want to see it overturned, but to actively campaign against it and use any legal means to do so is also quite democratic.

Bit cynical

Strazdas wrote: »

The "respecting the result of the referendum" argument makes no sense. Someone heading to the House of Commons with a flamethrower and hand grenades would be someone not respecting the result. Merely saying you disagree with the result and want to see it overturned is absolutely fine.

My view is that you have a right to protest and indeed call for a democratic result to be overturned, but that calling for the result to be overturned is not democratic although it could be argued to be for the the best in other respects.

Getting back to the Tommy Robinson example. I don't agree with him and would not vote for him and like I said I do not agree with those who voted for him. But calling for a by-election on the basis that people did not know what they were voting for or some other reason is an undemocratic request. On the other hand, disagreeing with him and supporting MPs who disagree with him and campaigning against him is not undemocratic in my view.

J Mysterio

Strazdas wrote: »

Wrong! If Tommy Robinson was elected PM, would you feel you had to support him because people had voted for him? In a democracy, you are totally free to oppose an election result or a referendum result and to campaign to have it overturned.

I don't know where on earth you and the 17m have gotten the idea it is "undemocratic" to disagree with an election result.

I've heard this in the US first hand, it's totally bizarre:

"I may not like the guy, but he is mah president".

Referring to GW Bush at the time.

SeaBreezes

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well I think the UK joined the EU (EEC then) without a referendum initially. The 1975 referendum was to confirm that they were to stay in that organisation.

However, yes we can treat the 2016 referendum as the second referendum, the first being in 1975. Even so, I don't think there's a democratic problem with rerunning in this situation. The problem comes with running a second referendum without implementing the first.

In this regard, there's no problem having a third referendum but to be democratic, a) the previous referendum must be implemented and b) some time must pass. How much time? I don't know. But immediately rerunning the referendum I would suggest is problematic.

It's my understanding the leave referendum was ADVISORY, not a mandate. So another ref with options was expected. (In fact, JRM himself assured parliament there would be another with the options) So surely the democratic thing is to go back to the people with ALL options on the table to make an informed choice? Problematic? Why? Democratic? Definitely..

But it won't happen, as JRM and Boris and co. won't pay their taxes on offshore accounts and that's all that Brexit was ever about...

Otherwise why the mad rush? Why not an orderly phased leave over 5 years? Why the self imposed deadline and crash?

prawnsambo

Things are getting a little spicy now. The government didn't ask for a stay until the Supreme Court heard it, so moves are afoot to restore parliament.

Tippex

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

How about:

You asked us to leave the EU. Here's our plan to leave. Are you happy to go ahead with it? Please tick yes or no.

That would make logical sense but considering they have failed miserably coming up with a plan in the 3 years post vote there was bo way they were coming up with one in order to have it as part of the vote. That would entail far too much foresight.

Bit cynical

Akrasia wrote: »

Real democracy is based on informed consent

Voting for what was essentially a 'mystery box' where the remain side were saying 'be careful what you wish for, voting to leave will have lots of bad consequences' and the 'leave' side said 'don't believe them, that's just project fear'

is not informed consent when the consequences of the vote were so blatantly misrepresented by the leave side.

Yes, but what this means is that both sides are given the opportunity to put their case forward. It was always the case that Brexit would involve some leap into the unknown. Of course Brexiteers are going to downplay the risks just like Remainers are going to emphasise them. There's no obligation on either side to be balanced in their campaigns.

MadYaker

hill16bhoy wrote: »

See, where have I said anything about tolerating the DUP's bigotry?

I said nothing of the sort, and I do think they're a crowd of hateful, bigoted wee shltes, to use Northern terminology.

What I do respect is their right to their British identity and their opposition to an NI backstop on that basis, as I do with all unionists who oppose it.

Respecting Irish/British/both identities is the cornerstone of the Good Friday Agreement.

I find it hard to respect any politician who puts their misguided principles over the prosperity and well being of themselves and their constituents. Regulatory alignment between Ireland and NI would be a huge benefit to the north after brexit but the DUP fought it tooth and nail for reasons I’ll never understand and are now likely going to end up with it anyway. None of them are fit to hold any sort of public office.

The backstop in the Irish Sea would likely bring lots of prosperity to the north as they would have unique to both EU and UK markets. How is that going to affect their “British” identity.

The idea that they are British exists only in their own heads anyway. The English consider them Irish and so do most Irish people.