Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Shelga

Also, money matter an awful lot if you have hardly any of it.

Deleted User

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.

Also, on the question of holding a second referendum as the first was "non-binding", nobody has even come close to answering these points.

Joe_ Public

[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.

Thats great, truly. If we can indeed point out the truth to people that brexit is going to carry an unknown economic hit (government own projections are available), make peoples lives worse, damage nhs and other key services, but - praise the lord - we will have less foreigners living beside and among us, then i think we would be making progress. Not sure how well it would fly in the event of a referendum however.

Btw on the subject of owning up to economic hits, do you think everyone has got the memo:

https://twitter.com/1828uk/status/1184182679077568513?s=20

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

Also, on the question of holding a second referendum as the first was "non-binding", nobody has even come close to answering these points.

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.

RobMc59

Shelga wrote: »

Do you think that it is selfish to force an economic hit on the nearly 50% of the country who didn’t vote for it, in order to satisfy the whims of your ideology?

Not only that, it's obvious to all,even those who voted to leave the UK voters were lied to by the brexiteers.
A 2nd referendum with everyone knowing all the facts and implications(which wasn't the case in 2016)would settle it once and for all.

CelticRambler

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.

Now you see: that is a perfectly valid position to hold as an individual Leave voter - provided that you don't claim to speak for the other 17,399,999 people who voted Leave.

This is where the problem with enacting Brexit comes from, and why it's unfair to blame Remainers for frustrating the process. Leaving aside the debate about "Project Fear" and the various prediction, the Remain position was really quite simple: stay in, everything stays the same, no change. That's what the 48% voted for.

But the Leave position was - and still is - open to all kinds of interpretation, which is why you have all the factions of the Leave camp fighting with each other to get the kind of Brexit they want - Labour's BRINO vs. the ERG/BP's pure-no-deal-whatsoever future vs. Johnson's oven-ready-pot-noodle Brexit vs. the DUP's no-no-no-never-(PS-we'd-actually-prefer-to-remain-now-but-don't-tell-the-Shinners) stance.

Even at it's simplest, if you look at the objectives of the two major parties, the Tories want a "good" Brexit so that they can sell the country to the highest bidder; while Labour (under Corbyn) want a "good" Brexit so that they can buy back everything that the Tories have already sold off.

In summary: British politics is totally f**ked-up and Brexit won't change anything.

johnnyskeleton

Deleted User wrote: »

Second, I'll always offer examples as to why I think a federalised/militarized Europe is a bad idea

I think we should start another thread on this topic if you feel passionate about it as it affects Ireland more than it affects the UK/Brexit, as they are leaving.

I have no plans to "run away' - though many on here have openly asked for me to be "banned" or that I espouse "complete delusion", but those condemnations, without evidence, are now considered acceptable opinion.

Mod - Please report anyone who asks for you to be banned so that we can review it.

That's fine, I just happen to take a different view. For me, objectivity matters.

CrabRevolution

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

The Tories are trying to buy the election with promises of a magic money tree that could only be paid for if the economy improves.

And that depends on getting good trade deals or WTO magic claims (lies?) from those who don't understand the WTO.

Most of the countries they need deals with are already screaming.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-50419130
How much trade does the UK do outside of EU/US/Oz/NZ/India and Brazil ?

The UK already dances to China's tune. Vetoing EU tariffs on Chinese steel. Putting lots of EU steelworkers jobs at risk to save the average UK family a fiver on cheap imported shoes.

Let's not forget that Moldova was blocking UK access to $1.7 Trillion of procurement until Feb.

Heard this on the radio this morning and was reminded a lot of the commentary on how the EU should have stayed out of it and Ireland should have somehow agreed a side deal with the UK to simply ignore the border because we were just bluffing and nobody really cared about the issues with the border. "What does it matter if some beef gets smuggled?!" "Only 50 trucks a day pass the border" etc.

Even when we've agreed a deal in principle there are countries with concerns. Imagine how much worse their complaints would be if it were let to be a free for all extremely advantageous to one country.

Strazdas

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.

This also makes a nonsense of the "respecting the result of the referendum" argument. It was a Tory referendum held by a Tory PM who had a majority in Parliament. It has nothing to do with any other party - those parties didn't consult the public for their "advice" on anything.

Cameron clearly said "We (the Tory Government) will implement whatever you decide".

CelticRambler

CelticRambler wrote: »

Now you see: that is a perfectly valid position to hold as an individual Leave voter - provided that you don't claim to speak for the other 17,399,999 people who voted Leave.

This is where the problem with enacting Brexit comes from, and why it's unfair to blame Remainers for frustrating the process. Leaving aside the debate about "Project Fear" and the various prediction, the Remain position was really quite simple: stay in, everything stays the same, no change. That's what the 48% voted for.

But the Leave position was - and still is - open to all kinds of interpretation.

That is not true.

As I stated elsewhere, those who voted for Remain may have done so "on balance', many of whom disapprove of free movement, disapprove of further political integration, disapprove of the European Defence Pact, and the general direction the EU appears to be heading toward.

Remain split in its interpretations on the direction of the EU.

The poll also suggests - not surprisingly - that Remain voters overwhelmingly (80%) support free movement.

But a third of Leave voters (33%) also support it.

If you were to believe your claim, then those 20% of Remainers who oppose free movement would be written off completely.

Ribs1234

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes, once the first referendum result has been implemented; in the same way we hold general elections after the result has been implemented, not before.

Thanks for reaffirming my position.

It has been: article 50 submitted, and withdrawal agreement agreed between UK government and EU - so onwards and upwards.
I feel we are making real progress here to heal the wounds and alienation caused by the 2016 vote. If other Brexiteers could be as likeminded and solution focused as you are, there is a real chance to move on from these divisions and improving the country rather than focusing on the past.

ancapailldorcha

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.

A question, if the Liberal Democrats win the next General Election with a majority (admittedly, a ridiculously low chance), would they have a mandate to revoke Article 50?

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

A question, if the Liberal Democrats win the next General Election with a majority (admittedly, a ridiculously low chance), would they have a mandate to revoke Article 50?

Of course they would.

Strazdas

Deleted User wrote: »

A question, if the Liberal Democrats win the next General Election with a majority (admittedly, a ridiculously low chance), would they have a mandate to revoke Article 50?

In my opinion, yes. They had nothing to do with the holding of the advisory referendum three and half years ago and campaigned strongly against the thing that was narrowly voted for (and still do). I cannot see how there would be any moral compunction on them to implement the result of an advisory referendum they had absolutely no involvement with.

ancapailldorcha

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.

Deleted User wrote: »

A question, if the Liberal Democrats win the next General Election with a majority (admittedly, a ridiculously low chance), would they have a mandate to revoke Article 50?

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Of course they would.

So, you accept the mandate of the majority Liberal Democrat result to unilaterally revoke Article 50, whereas when the Conservative Party won a majority in 2015 on holding an EU In/Out referendum, you take the opposite view.

How can you hold both views at the same time?

Incidentally, the European Union Referendum Act 2015 was supported by all parties except the SNP, so the idea that the "parties didn't hold a referendum" is quite simply false.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

That is not true.

As I stated elsewhere, those who voted for Remain may have done so "on balance', many of whom disapprove of free movement, disapprove of further political integration, disapprove of the European Defence Pact, and the general direction the EU appears to be heading toward.

Remain split in its interpretations on the direction of the EU.

Yes, but as part of the EU (i.e. "no change") they were in a position of power to influence all of that. Take the infamous "freedom of movement" for starters: they could have insisted that the UK government immediately apply the full measure of control granted to it under existing EU law - sending EU migrants home if they weren't financially independent within three months (as enforced in other EU countries) and tightening up controls on non-EU migrants.

Instead, by voting to Leave, the UK has lost all control over migration - because it works both ways, and skilled, hard-working, tax-paying EU migrants have opted to leave the country; while non-EU future trading partners have told the UK that lots and lots of visas is their price for entering negotiations.

The same loss of control by "taking back control" that you already had is repeated across just about every area cited as a reason for Leaving.

ancapailldorcha

Deleted User wrote: »

So, you accept the mandate of the majority Liberal Democrat result to unilaterally revoke Article 50, whereas when the Conservative Party won a majority in 2015 on holding an EU In/Out referendum, you take the opposite view.

How can you hold both views at the same time?

Incidentally, the European Union Referendum Act 2015 was supported by all parties except the SNP, so the idea that the "parties didn't hold a referendum" is quite simply false.

What? You said that the parties held the referendum. Only one party won in 2015 and it did so. They had a mandate and they executed it.

I have no idea what you're getting at here.

ancapailldorcha

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

What? You said that the parties held the referendum. Only one party won in 2015 and it did so. They had a mandate and they executed it.

I have no idea what you're getting at here.

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.

Strazdas

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.

Lib Dems voted to block the triggering of A50 (which they had every right to do.....they thought it was a terrible idea).

Strazdas

Strazdas wrote: »

Lib Dems voted to block the triggering of A50 (which they had every right to do.....they thought it was a terrible idea).

Fine, but 498 MPs voted to trigger Article 50 - to "leave the EU with or without a deal".

Strazdas

Deleted User wrote: »

Fine, but almost 500 MPs voted to trigger Article 50.

Corbyn messed up by voting for it. There was no moral or legal requirement for him to support it and May had enough MPs to see it triggered.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

Fine, but 498 MPs voted to trigger Article 50 - to "leave the EU with or without a deal".

Grand. Can we agree, then, that the result of the referendum was respected by Parliament?

Strazdas

Strazdas wrote: »

Corbyn messed up by voting for it. There was no moral or legal requirement for him to support it and May had enough MPs to see it triggered.

Well, he didn't.

His forthcoming manifesto pledged to deliver on the referendum result as per Article 50 - something he has conveniently decided to renege.

26000 Elephants

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Also, on the question of holding a second referendum as the first was "non-binding", nobody has even come close to answering these points.

Because you refuse to accept the objective and tangible arguments that literally prove brexit is a terrible idea, so you go down the route of trying to frame it in gaseous, ethereal terms like 'morality' ( which has absolutely nothing to do with it). Please dont hate on people who value their time sufficiently to refuse to walk down these blind alleys with you.

26000 Elephants

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Because you refuse to accept the objective and tangible arguments that literally prove brexit is a terrible idea, so you go down the route of trying to frame it in gaseous, ethereal terms like 'morality' ( which has absolutely nothing to do with it). Please dont hate on people who value their time sufficiently to refuse to walk down these blind alleys with you.

That is a clear admission that you have no tangible response to the legitimate questions I posed.

26000 Elephants

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Well, he didn't.

His forthcoming manifesto pledged to deliver on the referendum result as per Article 50 - something he has conveniently decided to renege.

What are you saying here? He has already reneged in his forthcoming manifesto?

I'm not clear what you mean

26000 Elephants

[Deleted User] wrote: »

That is a clear admission that you have no tangible response to the legitimate questions I posed.

You framed it as a moral question. It's not.

26000 Elephants

26000 Elephants wrote: »

You framed it as a moral question. It's not.

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

Thus far, those arguments have yet to be addressed.

What are you saying here? He has already reneged in his forthcoming manifesto?

I'm not clear what you mean

I meant, the forthcoming manifesto from when Article 50 was invoked; the 2017 General Election.

CelticRambler

Deleted User wrote: »

That is a clear admission that you have no tangible response to the legitimate questions I posed.

Deleted User wrote: »

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

Thus far, those arguments have yet to be addressed.

You can't frame your own position in terms of "morality" while at the same time arguing that it is acceptable for a government to lie and deceive if it serves the good of the governing party.

There is no "morality" in politics, only in personal values. So while it is legitimate for you to believe whatever you want about the pros and cons of Brexit, once you expect others to support your position and/or live with the consequences, you need to come back to fact-based reality.

I don't know what arguments you're waiting to have addressed, because everything you're advanced as an opinion has been discussed.

Ribs1234

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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

Thus far, those arguments have yet to be addressed.



I meant, the forthcoming manifesto from when Article 50 was invoked; the 2017 General Election.

Is it labour or the Lib Dem’s you are asking about? Trying to work out what you mean.
Conservatives include referendum in their 2015 manifesto. They hold an advisory referendum in 2016.
Lib Dem’s vote against A50 while labour and conservatives put a 3 line whip in place to get it through
Lib Dem’s have Revoke A50 as main message into this election. Meanwhile Brexit Party have no-deal as their message.
In unlikely event of Lib Dem’s (or BP) winning a majority in this election, you ask if they have moral authority to revoke a50 (presumably opposite for BP to immediately sever all negotiations and agreements with EU)?
Is that it?