Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

You claimed that the "parties didn't hold a referendum", that is was all the Conservatives doing.

A cursory glance at how the parties voted in 2015 shows that holding an EU referendum was widely endorsed and voted in favour of by all, except the SNP.

That evidence contradicts the claim you've made.

Can you provide a link?

serfboard

Interesting commentary here from Esther Duflo, winner of this year's Nobel Prize:

In her new book Good Economics for Hard Times ... she notes that problems such as “ballooning inequality, lack of faith in government, fractured societies”, are “eerily familiar to those used to studying in the developing world”.

One symptom of these maladies is Brexit. But rather than denouncing it as an act of economic self-harm, Duflo takes a more self-critical approach. “As economists, we should take a lot of the blame for not seeing that people’s pain was real,” she said. Instead, economists were guilty of “telling people that ‘you are voting against your economic self-interest’, when they were voting to say that their economic self-interest had been sacrificed”.

Duflo excoriated the Conservative Party’s austerity programme, which she blames for the Leave vote. “I think even politicians now realise how big a mistake austerity was. It basically hit people when they were down… It just seems crazy that you would lower the welfare of people who are already victims of a shock that they didn’t cause or want.”

She was also unequivocal in her defence of the free movement of people: “All the evidence shows that migrants are not competing with native workers for wages. Even when there has been a big influx of migrants they haven’t cut the wages of natives. This is the consensus view based on the empirical evidence.”

What policies would she advocate to address the UK’s economic and social woes? “Spend more money on public services that are labour-intensive and will therefore create good jobs for people such as childcare and education.” She also emphasised the importance of high-quality training schemes and praised the Danish model of “flexicurity”, which combines a flexible labour market with a generous social security system.

Unfortunately in “telling people that ‘you are voting against your economic self-interest’, when they were voting to say that their economic self-interest had been sacrificed”, people don't realise how much more their economic self-interest is about to be sacrificed.

The Tories Leave campaign basically said to people - because we've imposed austerity which has made you worse off, you should punish us by making yourselves even more worse off by voting Leave. Madness.

McGiver

fash wrote: »

Are you similarly against a federalised Germany, a federalised United States, a federalised Canada?

The irony is that the federal arrangement in Germany gives immensely more power to the local regional governments and authorities aka "the people" than in the UK - look at the Welsh or the Scots. And actually even much more so than in the Republic of Ireland (which in fact is quite centralised from governance point of view). And all that while Germany is the EU member.

Turns out the degree of democratic power, autonomy and decentralised government etc comes entirely to the individual nation state's arrangements and have nothing to do with the EU.

EDIT: HMG is the conman here. Not the EU. If the UK populace can't see it then they're doomed. UK could have highly decentralised, federalised arrangement with power resting with regions and "countries" whilst being an EU member but this is entirely prevented by Westminster, the highly unrepresentative political system and the UK population who perpetuate this whole unfair system.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Can you provide a link?

See below:

Deleted User wrote: »

You claimed that the "parties didn't hold a referendum", that is was all the Conservatives doing.

A cursory glance at how the parties voted in 2015 shows that holding an EU referendum was widely endorsed and voted in favour of by all, except the SNP.

That evidence contradicts the claim you've made.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

There is no moral argument because the parties didn't hold the referendum. Only the governing party held it and that was the Conservatives. They've been responsible for all of this, from start to finish.

26000 Elephants

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I phrased it as a moral argument; and then went on to supply arguments to justify that claim.

Which is equally daft as saying an elephant is, in fact, a chair, and then going on to supply arguments to justify that claim.

It's an empty strategy by those with thin arguments, and dont be surprised when people don't engage.

Deleted User

Here again is the moral argument I've cited earlier:

Deleted User wrote: »

Au contraire, the "non-binding" legal component is massively drowned out by the moral argument, which states that every leading major player indicated that the referendum result would be implemented.

I can't think of one major player, on both sides of the argument, who claimed it was merely an "advisory" result and, even if Leave did win, it wouldn't be enacted automatically. Furthermore, the General Election of 2017 had parties - 80+% of whom stated that they would "respect the implement the referendum result". Let's not ignore that either, nor the mass support in parliament for invoking Article 50.

Unless you can provide me with one example to the contrary, we must therefore assume that the referendum was held with complete intent, by all parties and independents, as I have already assumed. This "non-binding" argument only grew in strength once Remain had lost.

Furthermore, had "Remain" won, what's to stop me arguing that it was a "non-binding" referendum and therefore a second version of same should be held? The answer: nothing at all. But I wouldn't have done that. I would have respected the original result. That's what differs my political consistency and legitimacy over those who play legal pedantics to overturn the democratic result of the 2016 referendum.

Again, I provide consistency - whereas Remainers manufacture reasons to overturn the referendum result because they simply cannot accept that they lost.

It really is as simple as that.

McGiver

Deleted User wrote: »

Here again is the moral argument I've cited earlier:

The referendum result is legally non-binding. There is no morality in legal position. Either something has a legal implication or not. End of story.

The referendum could be said to have been politically binding in theory. But nothing like that exists in reality - political promises aren't delivered all the time due to various reasons but the primary being that politics is about compromise and that results in inability to deliver promises.

Also, the government who promised to implement the referendum doesn't exist and the person who promised it ran away the day results were published. So I could argue that the "political promise" is void.

Enzokk

Deleted User wrote: »

See below:

I think he meant a link to your claim that it is on all the parties that the referendum was held and not just a Conservative policy that they are responsible for.

It was a Conservative policy that passed with a Conservative PM and government in charge. To now try and claim that in the 2 elections since then the referendum result compels all parties to keep to a promise from David Cameron, who isn't even in politics any longer, seems a stretch. Do you think the Tory-Lib Dem coalition should have looked at Labour policies they made in their previous manifesto and pass those?

McGiver

McGiver wrote: »

The referendum result is legally non-binding. There is no morality in legal position. Either something has a legal implication or not. End of story.

It's barely the first chapter of the story.

If what you're claiming is true, then what is the answer to these 2 questions:

a) Why did no leading player, on both sides, claim its non-binding status during the referendum? In other words, if there's nothing to worry about as you can just forget the result ever happened, why bother?

b) If it's non-binding, what's to stop me arguing for a second referendum if Remain had won? My guess is that, if Leavers did argue this on losing, you'd be the first to espouse my moral argument above. Or would you claim something different?

Enzokk

McGiver wrote: »

The referendum could be said to have been politically binding in theory. But nothing like that exists in reality - political promises aren't delivered all the time due to various reasons but the primary being that politics is about compromise and that results in inability to deliver promises.

Agreed, once a new election was held then the promises from the previous government was voided. There is an argument that Labour said they would implement Brexit, but seeing as they lost then they have no power to try and ensure their promises are met as they will not be brought forward for votes.

With another election again it is silly to try and argue that the 2015 and 2017 manifesto's still carry any weight.

26000 Elephants

[Deleted User] wrote: »

if Leavers did argue this on losing, you'd be the first to espouse my moral argument above. Or would you claim something different?

That sounds like you accept the specious nature of the whole "moral argument" thing.

Leroy42

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think you understand the position of many Brexiteers - namely, that we are willing to take an economic hit in order to restore democratic control of our money, laws and borders.

It's the principle that matters, not GDP going down a few points (which is debatable).

Not everything can be reduced to money. Some things matter more.

Great. What will be the economic hit due to brexit be and how should it be paid for? Higher taxes, reduction in services. Maybe cancel Trident? Nato monies? Investment in schools?

But I thought everything negative was project fear?

And how long do you think this hit will last for?

Its fine to say your are willing to pay the price, but you need to know what that price will be before you can compare the costs surely?

McGiver

Deleted User wrote: »

It's barely the first chapter of the story.

If what you're claiming is true, then what is the answer to these 2 questions:

a) Why did no leading player, on both sides, claim its non-binding status during the referendum? In other words, if there's nothing to worry about as you can just forget the result ever happened, why bother?

Why would they? To look like clowns? This is the default position of the UK constitutional arrangement - referenda are not legally binding unless they are made so by the sovereign Parliament. They conveniently didn't mention it. So botchery, stupidity or malice, pick one.

Deleted User wrote: »

b) If it's non-binding, what's to stop me arguing for a second referendum if Remain had won? My guess is that, if Leavers did argue this on losing, you'd be the first to espouse my moral argument above. Or would you claim something different?

Correct, nobody can stop anyone from changing their mind, campaign for changing laws etc. This is called democracy.

RobMc59

According to sky news other countries want compensation from the EU and UK following brexit due to a changing market.
https://news.sky.com/story/amp/australia-and-others-seek-compensation-for-brexit-trade-changes-11861698#aoh=15738287021275&referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s

Enzokk

Deleted User wrote: »

It's barely the first chapter of the story.

If what you're claiming is true, then what is the answer to these 2 questions:

a) Why did no leading player, on both sides, claim its non-binding status during the referendum? In other words, if there's nothing to worry about as you can just forget the result ever happened, why bother?

b) If it's non-binding, what's to stop me arguing for a second referendum if Remain had won? My guess is that, if Leavers did argue this on losing, you'd be the first to espouse my moral argument above. Or would you claim something different?

It doesn't matter who said what, legally the referendum result has no standing.

"Brexit Referendum Was Corruptly Won, But Result Stands Thanks To Loophole"

The EU referendum was won based on a corrupt campaign, but the courts can't void the result because the referendum only advisory, according to the barrister who took the government to court.

Based on Electoral Commission findings about overspending by Vote Leage, British people living in Europe launched a legal case arguing the referendum result should in effect be set aside. Last week, Court of Appeal judges denied them permission to appeal after losing the case.

Jessica Simor had argued that it was wholly unreasonable for the Prime Minister to proceed with Article 50 on the basis that the referendum was lawful, knowing what is now known about proven illegalities.

Speaking today to James O'Brien, she said the result would have already been quashed if the referendum was binding.

But because it was only advisory - even if the Prime Minister isn't treating it as such - they could not overturn the result.

Be careful what you wish for, because if you as a leaver want to argue that the result was binding then the courts could overturn it as a result of the illegal activities from the campaigns.

If I was you I would forget about this line of argument. I wish the result was binding because then the courts could get involved. But because it is not, it means the illegal activities of Johnson and his campaign is allowed to go unpunished without any serious consideration. There would be more scrutiny if the result was thrown in doubt due to their illegal acts but because there was none it has been allowed to be forgotten.

McGiver

McGiver wrote: »

Why would they? To look like clowns? This is the default position of the UK constitutional arrangement - referenda are not legally binding unless they are made so by the sovereign Parliament. They conveniently didn't mention it. So botchery, stupidity or malice, pick one.

Correct, nobody can stop anyone from changing their mind, campaign for changing laws etc. This is called democracy.

Democracy is enacting results from the voting process; something you non-chalantly brush aside in this individual case.

Furthermore, are you suggesting that the lead players of the Remain Campaign - who argued that it was a once-in-a-lifetime decision and that it involves leading the CU and SM, and so forth, were lying to the public about its delivery?

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

See below:

I asked for a link. This is not a link. You said that the parties supported the 2015 act calling for the referendum.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I asked for a link. This is not a link. You said that the parties supported the 2015 act calling for the referendum.

No problem - here it is.

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

No problem - here it is.

Fair enough.

However, your moral argument is still invalid. You claim that in 2017 parties claimed to honor the mandate given by the referendum but there can be no mandate as the result can be interpreted in far too many ways.

McGiver

Deleted User wrote: »

Democracy is enacting results from the voting process; something you non-chalantly brush aside in this individual case.

Yes and democracy is also the right to campaign against, modify it or abolish it altogether.

Deleted User wrote: »

Furthermore, are you suggesting that the lead players of the Remain Campaign - who argued that it was a once-in-a-lifetime decision and that it involves leading the CU and SM, and so forth, were lying to the public about its delivery?

Correct. As evidenced by the fact that the person who "promised" to deliver ran away.

McGiver

McGiver wrote: »

Yes and democracy is also the right to campaign against, modify it or abolish it altogether.

Correct. As evidenced by the fact that the person who "promised" to deliver ran away.

That's why my moral argument is so powerful and retains the legitimacy that it does - namely:

1 - that no lead player on either side of the campaign dared to make the claim that the result was automatically invalid. You cannot mislead the public into believing their vote was a negligible one with zero legitimacy.

2 - after the referendum result, all major parties claimed that the result should be respected and implemented.

3 - Article 50 was triggered by 498 MPs.

4 - During the Election of 2017, more votes were cast for Leave parties than Remain, and both Corbyn and May's manifestos claimed that they would both respect the result and implement the referendum.

So, in 5 cases (when you include Cameron's 2015 GE), the general public and parliament have worked together under the assumption that Brexit would be delivered.

That's the moral argument - and, like all moral cases, it trumps any legal facts, anywhere, anytime.

Christy42

Deleted User wrote: »

That's why my moral argument is so powerful and retains the legitimacy that it does - namely:

1 - that no lead player on either side of the campaign dared to make the claim that the result was automatically invalid. You cannot mislead the public into believing their vote was a negligible one with zero legitimacy.

2 - after the referendum result, all major parties claimed that the result should be respected and implemented.

3 - Article 50 was triggered by 498 MPs.

4 - During the Election of 2017, more votes were cast for Leave parties than Remain, and both Corbyn and May's manifestos claimed that they would both respect the result and implement the referendum.

So, in 5 cases (when you include Cameron's 2015 GE), the general public and parliament have worked together under the assumption that Brexit would be delivered.

That's the moral argument - and, like all moral cases, it trumps any legal facts, anywhere, anytime.

Wait? Why do you want to believe their election manifesto and ignore their referendum promises (staying in the customs union etc.). Either leave campaigners should go back to those promises or the current politicians should be allowed feel like not leaving is in their best interest. Leave won. Therefore they should be trying to deliver their promises of staying in the single market.

May tried to leave. Had Boris and his allies come on board at the start they probably would have left by now. Boris has helped keep the UK in the EU. He is part of that problem.

While it may not feel that way you vote in people. People who have their own beliefs on Brexit. Maybe people should have done more research on who they were voting for and how they really felt on Brexit?

Christy42

Christy42 wrote: »

Wait?

While it may not feel that way you vote in people. People who have their own beliefs on Brexit. Maybe people should have done more research on who they were voting for and how they really felt on Brexit?

If Remain had won by 52 to 48% and Cameron decided, for whatever reason, that the country should still Leave the EU because the result is non-binding, how would you have reacted? Imagine if terms such as Soft Remain and Hard Remain were manufactured, too; that because Remain only had a marginal win, Leave voters should be accommodated and the UK should leave in some capacity to appease them.

Or, put another way, imagine the UK in 2016 was voting to join the EU. Join won by a margin of 52:48, yet Cameron decides that it's a non-binding referendum and that the UK should be forced to stay outside the EU.

In both of these cases, Remainers would have been collectively psychotic.

Replace Remain with Leave above, and you can perhaps come close - just a little - to understanding the fury that Brexiteers have over what has, and continues to, transpire.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

That's why my moral argument is so powerful and retains the legitimacy that it does

Wha' ?

I still don't understand why you're bringing morality in to this. It's a legal and procedural matter. Morals have no place in the discussion.

Deleted User wrote: »

2 - after the referendum result, all major parties claimed that the result should be respected and implemented.

3 - Article 50 was triggered by 498 MPs.

And that was the end of Chapter 2: the referendum was held, the result was acted upon by 498MPs, i.e. a majority of the UK's sovereign Parliament; and the country put on the road to exiting the EU. The (supposed) Will of the People was respected.

Deleted User wrote: »

4 - During the Election of 2017, more votes were cast for Leave parties than Remain, and both Corbyn and May's manifestos claimed that they would both respect the result and implement the referendum.

Now you're talking about a whole different scenario. The 2017 election was not a proxy referendum, it was a general election and (as you have already acknowledged) it is "normal" for politicians seeking (re)election to make all kinds of unkeepable promises. So regardless of what you or any other voter may have thought at the time, no-one voted for a "Remain" party or a "Leave" party. All the votes cast were for individual MPs, who went on to take their seats in Westminster and voted in Brexit votes according to their own priorities. End of Chapter Three.

Deleted User wrote: »

So, in 5 cases (when you include Cameron's 2015 GE), the general public and parliament have worked together under the assumption that Brexit would be delivered.

That's the moral argument - and, like all moral cases, it trumps any legal facts, anywhere, anytime.

Like it or not, you're wrong: in a functioning democracy, legal facts trump morals every time. That's why Johnson was found guilty of unlawfully proroguing Parliament, for example. That's also why, whether Remainers like it or not, the funding of the referendum campaign by non-British agents of dubious .... morality :rolleyes: was deemed to be insufficient reason for annulling the referendum result.

The general public and Parliament have't "worked together" - Parliament works on behalf of the general public, based on who the public elects as their MP. Unfortunately for the UK, the general public has chosen to accept a voting system that allows Parliament to function with a pseudo-majority based on the votes of just 40% of the electorate. In 2017, however, the electorate chose a combination of "Leave"-leaning MPs who were unable to agree on what exactly Brexit meant, and the current Leave-leaning Prime Minister, having twice voted to prevent Brexit under Theresa May's premiership, has again prevented Brexit by calling an election instead of letting Parliament proceed with ratifying the agreement that he says is "brilliant".

Once again, your argument on the basis of "morality" fails when faced with the inherent "immorality" of the FPTP electoral system. That's nothing to do with the EU, and won't be fixed by Brexit.

Christy42

Christy42 wrote: »

Wait? Why do you want to believe their election manifesto and ignore their referendum promises (staying in the customs union etc.). Either leave campaigners should go back to those promises or the current politicians should be allowed feel like not leaving is in their best interest. Leave won. Therefore they should be trying to deliver their promises of staying in the single market.

That's not true. During the referendum campaign, both leading players in the Remain and Leave sides stipulated a Vote to Leave was a vote to depart from the Single Market:

You'll find spurious videos around with Nigel Farage, but they are misquotes. When he talks about Norway, he's making the claim that Norway has more controls outside the EU, but - once you see the complete quotes - that the UK would seek a UK-specific arrangement and not one "based on Norway".

But yes, that video above shows that the Remain side during the campaign were honest with the public that a vote to Leave was leaving both the SM and CU.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

But yes, that video above shows that the Remain side during the campaign were honest with the public that a vote to Leave was leaving both the SM and CU.

Honest? But you told us that it's acceptable for politicians to lie to get the result they want, and Cameron wanted a Remain result, so it stands to reason that he would lie about what Leave meant - in other words, Leave did not mean quitting the SM or CU.

And bear in mind that your idol, Boris Johnson, has described NI's version of his pot-noodle Brexit as incredibly good - and that means being effectively in (or as closely aligned as makes no difference to) the SM and CU.

In any case, regardless of what you think, the Leaver MPs in the HoC, until its dissolution by Johnson to prevent ratification of the WA, have successively disputed what exactly was meant by a "Leave" vote, even to the point of defeating the government's motions to embark on the next phase of Brexit.

CelticRambler

CelticRambler wrote: »

Honest? But you told us that it's acceptable for politicians to lie to get the result they want, and Cameron wanted a Remain result, so it stands to reason that he would lie about what Leave meant - in other words, Leave did not mean quitting the SM or CU.

But they weren't lying; they were telling the truth, which was consistent with what the Leave side were saying.

Here is Michael Gove:

They want access to trade with the rest of the EU, but would not try to keep Britain inside the single market, the EU's trading territory where goods, services and people can move freely across the continent

This canard of all Leave players wanting to remain in the single market is a total con.

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

But they weren't lying; they were telling the truth, which was consistent with what the Leave side were saying.

Here is Michael Gove:



This canard of all Leave players wanting to remain in the single market is a total con.

What about the NHS bus? Was that telling the truth?

What about Michael Gove's claim that Britain held all the cards, a claim that reality wasted no time in sinking.

Furthermore, here is Nigel Farage talking about the Norway option in its full context and how it's perfect for what Norway has independently chosen to do, but it's not something that Farage wants for the UK (first 1min 45 seconds)

From 2 min 34 seconds, Nigel Farage declares that he does not want the UK to be a member of the single market.

This is what happens when the Remain side is exposed to facts they did not know existed. Inside their own bubble of propaganda, they've rechurned these canards about the single market without having done an iota of research beyond a silly YouTube collection of misquotes.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

But they weren't lying; they were telling the truth, which was consistent with what the Leave side were saying.

How do you know? The long and the short of it is that the referendum text only asked about leaving the EU - there was no mention of also leaving the SM and the CU, both of which are accessible to non-EU members.

You're still going around in this same pointless circle of, on the one hand, desperately trying to believe that the politicians you listen to are telling the truth, while proclaiming that any of those who are found to have lied are doing so for the greater good (of the 40% of the electorate that vote for them).