|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2019 8:30:49 GMT
I mean, we have a general election approximately every five years or so, so it's clearly understood by everyone that democracy doesn't mean "vote once and that's it forever", especially as a lot can happen in five years and people can change their minds or the world situation can change. It's absolutely gobsmacking that this simple piece of common sense apparently falls out of everyone's heads when it comes to one single non-legally-binding ADVISORY referendum.
|
|
952 posts
|
Post by vdcni on Apr 2, 2019 8:33:23 GMT
The leave side broke the law during the referendum, the government's own lawyer has admitted if it had been a legally binding referendum then it would have been annulled because of it and there is plenty of indication that opinion has shifted in the meantime.
The most rabid leavers in the House Of Commons have consistently voted against May's deal and now the soft Brexit options in the indicative votes even though all of those options meet the criteria of leaving from the referendum so what are we to do.
A second referendum wouldn't be the same as the first - it would be saying. Right here is actually what leave means now we've negotiated it - do you want that or would you rather remain.
|
|
573 posts
|
Post by Dave25 on Apr 2, 2019 9:05:29 GMT
You suggest though that a victory - and it was a clear victory by over a million votes - should be ignored or reconfirmed by the public in what is a dangerous precedent. Why should there be a second vote? Because the remainers keep making a noise? Where then does it end? If we have a second one, why not another one the year after to see if the Brexiteers now have more support? Why not let Scotland have another independence vote just to see if they really meant they wanted to stay in the union? Should we start holding two votes every general election to make sure the people mean what they really said? We voted and we decided. At the very least, we need to first leave before we discuss whether there is a public appetite for rejoining - you can’t just ignore the electorate. The original referendum was based on misguidance, deception, false promises and a complete lack of truthful information. That in itself should undermine the validity. Re-checking this after years is democracy. Now there are double standards, because the MP's change their votes on a weekly basis. There is a whole new generation entitled to vote since 2016. And now there is actual information on the table to make a well considered choice, unlike in 2016. Also, both Vote Leave and Leave EU committed multiple offences under electoral law. This is in conflict with the validity of the referendum. Also, it was an advisory referendum, not legally binding. The leave side broke the law during the advisory referendum indeed, the government's own lawyer has indeed admitted if it had been a legally binding referendum then it would have been annulled because of it. Why is this information not clear to any mp debating? And, like another poster beautifully stated: If May had come back with a deal that fulfilled all of the promises that were given by leave in the referendum then it would pass the Commons. What she offers is so incredibly short of those promises then it could only pass through blackmailing parliament and, apart from the very weakest politicians such as Johnson, Raab, Rees Mogg et al, it has not worked. That is, in any circumstance, unacceptable. If they can’t fulfil the promises that were made then the result is undeliverable. If the result is undeliverable then ask the people what they would prefer instead. |
|
3,040 posts
|
Brexit
Apr 2, 2019 9:11:43 GMT
Post by crowblack on Apr 2, 2019 9:11:43 GMT
The British Parliament must be the laughing stock of the world I don't think there is any government anywhere currenly secure enough to 'sit back and get popcorn' as the twitter memes suggest. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2019 10:10:26 GMT
Why should there be a second vote? Because it's been several years, during which people have gained a far greater understanding of what leaving the EU — and the various options available for doing so — will mean. Because the heavy age bias in the voting means that many of the people who voted to leave are now dead and there are many more people now eligible to vote whose future is being decided by people who won't be affected by it. Because that first result happened in a context that simply doesn't exist any more.
If it really is the will of the people to have a hard Brexit then another referendum will make no difference. If it isn't then why should the country be forced into a future they don't want? It seems to me that most of the opposition to another vote is from people who know that they got the result they wanted through deceit and trickery the first time around and they're terrified that they won't be able to pull the same stunt a second time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2019 11:55:19 GMT
The British Parliament must be the laughing stock of the world I don't think there is any government anywhere currenly secure enough to 'sit back and get popcorn' as the twitter memes suggest. Still, British Parliament are currently making Trump look positively genius. |
|
3,040 posts
|
Brexit
Apr 2, 2019 12:08:03 GMT
Post by crowblack on Apr 2, 2019 12:08:03 GMT
British Parliament are currently making Trump look positively genius. But who do we blame for this situation? I see my Twitter timeline full of blue tickers complaining about the abject quality of this generation of politicians, but that begs the question, where do people think politicians come from? Does the stork bring them? If someone has the talent, public appeal and connections to become a blue ticker and is interested in politics, why didn't they go into it? Why leave it to others who are clearly dolts? Is this the EU paradox - did the idea that power was now centred in Brussels and with a handful of big businesses make the sort of person who would once have chosen a career in Westminster go into the more glamorous, better paid media, arts or City instead? Also, amusing though satire is, I think the combination of stuff like The Thick of It and Paxman's sarcastic 'why is his lying bastard lying to me' attitude have also served to put good people off entering the field. |
|
|
|
Brexit
Apr 2, 2019 12:09:54 GMT
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2019 12:09:54 GMT
British Parliament are currently making Trump look positively genius. But who do we blame for this situation? I see my Twitter timeline full of blue tickers complaining about the abject quality of this generation of politicians, but that begs the question, where do people think politicians come from? Does the stork bring them? If someone has the talent, public appeal and connections to become a blue ticker and is interested in politics, why didn't they go into it? Why leave it to others who are clearly dolts? Is this the EU paradox - did the idea that power was now centred in Brussels and with a handful of big businesses make the sort of person who would once have chosen a career in Westminster go into the more glamorous, better paid media, arts or City instead? Also, amusing though satire is, I think the combination of stuff like The Thick of It and Paxman's sarcastic 'why is his lying bastard lying to me' attitude have also served to put good people off entering the field. The real question is not "who do we blame for the situation?" its how do we get out of it? |
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Apr 2, 2019 12:22:55 GMT
Interesting, why don’t clever and engaged young people actually try to become MPs? You are right crowblack, the other jobs offer more for less. And crucially allow for privacy, a personal life with nobody loitering outside your house with a microphone and challenging your kids. Takes a particularly leather skinned person to put up with that and sometimes not the sharpest knife in the box, as it were...
That's why the old politicians appear so. I hope wiser. They are in fact not having to bother with all that, they sit nodding on the benches or in their clubs and cosy sitting rooms with all the wisdom of hindsight.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Brexit
Apr 2, 2019 12:26:47 GMT
sf likes this
Post by crowblack on Apr 2, 2019 12:26:47 GMT
Our political systems need completely restructuring. It's not going to happen quickly, and nothing can ever be the same again. |
|
5,073 posts
Member is Online
|
Brexit
Apr 2, 2019 12:27:00 GMT
Post by Phantom of London on Apr 2, 2019 12:27:00 GMT
Yeap politicians make false promises, Theresa May’s manifesto effectively went into the bin, with that fatal General Election, when it became undeliverable, when they lost their majority and became a lame duck government.
Now we know what Brexit looks like the British electorate can now make a more informed decision, how they want their future, it could be very possible with a second referendum that people may vote leave again. Then the government will need to act on this,
I say again there will be no cliff edge hard Brexit, Some Tory MPs would vote a vote of no confidence, therefore triggering a General Election than to have a hard Brexit. Some of the votes yesterday wanted to see how Theresa May’s 4th attempt fared, if that vote was after the 4th vote it could be very different, as MPs want to see how the land lies.
No need to get excited and start to stockpile Euros.
|
|
|
|
Brexit
Apr 2, 2019 12:35:41 GMT
Post by Deleted on Apr 2, 2019 12:35:41 GMT
they're terrified that they won't be able to pull the same stunt a second time Conversely, as Mr Rumpole always said, "never ask a question to when you are not entirely sure of the answer." That, in fact happened to Mr Cameron. It is quite possible it is the only thing politicians have learned from all of this. Anecdotally, from the people I know who voted remain, most would now change their vote - so it may not be quite the change expected. Further, if there were to be a "minimum margin" imposed, the screams of "fix" could destroy politics. This interests me. Do you know what reason they would vote differently? |
|
|
|
Brexit
Apr 2, 2019 12:42:11 GMT
Post by sparky5000 on Apr 2, 2019 12:42:11 GMT
I voted remain. Would I prefer it if we didn’t leave the EU? Of course, because although I don’t like the EU as an institution I viewed it as a case of will we be better off in or out, and decided better off in. However, we did have a referendum and the leaves won it by over a million votes, and I think it’s very dangerous to try and overturn that. However we leave the EU I think, reluctantly, we still need to leave, because if Brexit never happens I think this country will face a huge constitutional crisis, and like others have said, where does it all end.
The government has just made a total hash job of the whole thing though. The moment Theresa called an early general election and lost the majority was the moment it shoulda been obvious that there would need to be some sort of parliamentary consensus to deliver an orderly Brexit, rather than spending years negotiating a deal with the EU that no one was ever sure would pass. But now we are where we are, the general lack of compromise by MPs to deliver an orderly Brexit is just astounding, and if as a result we fall into the precipice of a no deal Brexit then I see both the conservatives and labour breaking apart.
|
|
2,763 posts
|
Brexit
Apr 2, 2019 14:06:39 GMT
sf likes this
Post by n1david on Apr 2, 2019 14:06:39 GMT
I say again there will be no cliff edge hard Brexit, Some Tory MPs would vote a vote of no confidence, therefore triggering a General Election than to have a hard Brexit. Some of the votes yesterday wanted to see how Theresa May’s 4th attempt fared, if that vote was after the 4th vote it could be very different, as MPs want to see how the land lies. The problem is that it isn't just down to us. I agree with you that no UK parliament is ever going to head into No Deal, but we need the consent of the EU. Right now we have been given until April 12 (which has actually become April 10 when the EU summit is) and we've been told by the EU that we can only get a further extension if we demonstrate a new plan - and right now we don't have one. I really don't think that the EU is keen for us to fall out with no deal either, but their patience is running out, and it does require unanimous consent from the EU27 for a further extension. I don't think a No Deal exit is likely. But I think it's a lot more possible than it was six months ago. |
|
1,972 posts
|
Post by sf on Apr 2, 2019 14:40:06 GMT
Why should there be a second vote? Because the remainers keep making a noise? No. There should be a second vote because the 2016 referendum asked a binary question, there was more than one possible way forward based on the result, and the result in 2016 was close enough that the government didn't have a mandate for a hard Brexit, so it's perfectly reasonable to put the question back to the electorate now that we know what the version of Brexit this government has negotiated will look like. And that's before we start considering the lies told by the Leave campaign, or the fact that the deal on the table, however strenuously the ERG's MPs try to gaslight the electorate, looks nothing like what was promised, or the implications of the deal on the table for the border in Ireland and the border between Spain and Gibraltar. And on top of THAT, the referendum has created huge divisions within our electorate - pointlessly, since an in/out referendum on the EU was never necessary in the first place - and I strongly suspect that while another referendum campaign will undoubtedly be very, very ugly, there's not going to be a way of starting to bridge that divide without another public vote. I think if we get to a point where Parliament has a direct choice between revoking Article 50 and crashing out without a deal, it's going to cause a huge amount of damage either way: people will be harmed if we crash out without a deal, and the economic consequences would be devastating, and would be most devastating in the parts of the country that can least afford to weather the devastation (which, yes, are mostly the parts of the country where the Leave vote was highest in 2016). If Parliament revokes the Article 50 notice in those circumstances, as I think they would have to do, that's going to erode trust in politicians even further, because people who voted Leave will justifiably argue that their vote is being ignored, and it doesn't matter that the Leave campaign won in 2016 on the back of a set of undeliverable promises that they should never have made in the first place. They sold a plausible, seductive, carefully-vague vision of a post-EU UK, people voted for it, and it's going to cause enormous resentment if Parliament simply calls the whole thing off.
If we had clever, courageous politicians leading our two largest parties, as opposed to Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn, there might be another way. If politicians on the Leave side did what they should have done two years ago and stepped up and admitted the vision they sold during the referendum campaign was more or less entirely built on lies, there might be another way forward, but they aren't going to do that. If anybody seriously seemed interested in pausing the process so that there could be a full inquiry into electoral misconduct during the referendum campaign - something that certainly should happen, in any other kind of election in this country the result would have been declared void based on the Electoral Commission's findings - there might be another way forward, but there doesn't seem to be the political will for that to happen. May's deal is dead, there's no viable solution for Ireland or Gibraltar that doesn't include full membership in both the single market and the customs union, the clock is ticking, there's no majority in Parliament for any of the possible outcomes, and every single outcome that leaves us outside the EU, according to the government's own research, will cause significant damage to the economy, and some of them will cost (at least) hundreds of thousands of jobs. People were promised they'd be better off if we leave the EU, not poorer; Parliament seems understandably reluctant to produce a majority for anything that will make constituents worse off, and they're also - understandably - reluctant to void the result of the 2016 referendum. Either way, MPs would be blamed, and there would be consequences at the next election. A confirmatory referendum may well be the only viable way out of this mess.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Brexit
Apr 2, 2019 15:08:25 GMT
via mobile
Post by kathryn on Apr 2, 2019 15:08:25 GMT
The problem is that a confirmatory referendum will only work if the campaigning is honest about the actual outcome of the options on the ballot.
If we have another cake and unicorns campaign then we just end up back at Square one - with an undeliverable promise that politicians feel bound by but know they can’t deliver.
|
|
1,972 posts
|
Brexit
Apr 2, 2019 15:20:27 GMT
Post by sf on Apr 2, 2019 15:20:27 GMT
The problem is that a confirmatory referendum will only work if the campaigning is honest about the actual outcome of the options on the ballot. If we have another cake and unicorns campaign then we just end up back at Square one - with an undeliverable promise that politicians feel bound by but know they can’t deliver. Which is why we'd need a long extension to the deadline in order to have another referendum, rather than 3-6 months. If we're going to go down that road, it has to be done very, very carefully, and we need checks and balances in place to keep the campaign honest. Setting that up is going to take time, because the last referendum showed us loudly and clearly that the systems we have at the moment aren't fit for purpose. |
|
4,156 posts
|
Brexit
Apr 2, 2019 16:18:56 GMT
sf likes this
Post by kathryn on Apr 2, 2019 16:18:56 GMT
I don't understand that at all - they've responded to negotiations exactly as expected! They've done everything they can to protect the interests of their remaining member states. They've leveraged process to control the negotiations as much as possible, presented a united front, and stuck to their rules of engagement.
It's exactly how they've always negotiated - it's a very effective technique. The only difference is we're on the receiving end as a soon-to-be non-member state.
|
|
|
|
Brexit
Apr 2, 2019 16:24:12 GMT
Post by sparky5000 on Apr 2, 2019 16:24:12 GMT
his interests me. Do you know what reason they would vote differently? Sure. One or two just "want to get it over" and think it will help consolidate. The general feeling, though, is that the way the EU responded to negotiations awoke latent concerns about both how the EU operate and more importantly, the EU's vision of federalisation. With other federal ideas like an EU army and the copyright rules legislation now approaching, they are feeling more strongly that it isn't a path they want to go down. I agree with this. Of course it was the UK’s decision to leave the EU and so this idea that the EU were just gonna bow down to its demands (like Boris seems to think!) was always ridiculous. However, the EU hasn’t handled the negotiations well either imo. This was an opportunity for them to sit back and consider why it is that there is so much distrust in amd dislike of the EU as an institution these days, and the approach it’s taking, and why there’s a rise in popularity of nationalist and anti EU parties throughout Europe. But it didn’t take that opportunity, it just doubled down, and like theatremonkey says I don’t think the public have liked what they’ve seen. Like I said earlier, I voted remain because I felt it was better to be in than out, but the EU has a lot of problems, and I do think a lot of leave voters had genuine reasons for voting the way they did that weren’t predicated by lies. Not all leave voters are part of the “I’ve got my country back” contingent. |
|
1,972 posts
|
Post by sf on Apr 2, 2019 16:28:09 GMT
I don't understand that at all - they've responded to negotiations exactly as expected! They've done everything they can to protect the interests of their remaining member states. They've leveraged process to control the negotiations as much as possible, presented a united front, and stuck to their rules of engagement. What our side never understood is that this is less a negotiation and more simply an exercise in choosing from a menu. The EU is a treaty-based organisation and they aren't going to bend their rules simply because some upstart country with delusions of still ruling an empire demands it. Provided they maintain a united front, which they have, the EU is far stronger than we could ever hope to be on our own, which means all they have to do is offer us a sliding scale: the access we get to their market depends on how many of their rules we're prepared to submit to, and how much we're prepared to pay. The more you pay, the more rules you sign up for, the closer you get to the deal we have as full members - but nothing they offer is ever going to equal the deal we have as full members, because it can't. This was loudly obvious before the referendum campaign even got under way. I find it genuinely shocking that so few people understood the way a Leave win would inevitably play out. It's hardly rocket science. |
|
4,156 posts
|
Brexit
Apr 2, 2019 16:34:21 GMT
Post by kathryn on Apr 2, 2019 16:34:21 GMT
Sure. One or two just "want to get it over" and think it will help consolidate. The general feeling, though, is that the way the EU responded to negotiations awoke latent concerns about both how the EU operate and more importantly, the EU's vision of federalisation. With other federal ideas like an EU army and the copyright rules legislation now approaching, they are feeling more strongly that it isn't a path they want to go down. I agree with this. Of course it was the UK’s decision to leave the EU and so this idea that the EU were just gonna bow down to its demands (like Boris seems to think!) was always ridiculous. However, the EU hasn’t handled the negotiations well either imo. This was an opportunity for them to sit back and consider why it is that there is so much distrust in amd dislike of the EU as an institution these days, and the approach it’s taking, and why there’s a rise in popularity of nationalist and anti EU parties throughout Europe. But it didn’t take that opportunity, it just doubled down, and like theatremonkey says I don’t think the public have liked what they’ve seen. Like I said earlier, I voted remain because I felt it was better to be in than out, but the EU has a lot of problems, and I do think a lot of leave voters had genuine reasons for voting the way they did that weren’t predicated by lies. Not all leave voters are part of the “I’ve got my country back” contingent. What do you think they should have done instead? Because I genuinely can't think of what they could have done differently, given the circumstances handed to them by a UK government that literally doesn't know what it actually wants out of the negotiation. |
|
5,707 posts
|
Brexit
Apr 2, 2019 16:55:13 GMT
Post by lynette on Apr 2, 2019 16:55:13 GMT
The EU knew that free movement of people was a BiG thing in U.K. and that Cameron has tried to modify this with changes to the benefit system. They also knew that many of the immigrants get to the U.K. illegally and that other member countries turn a blind eye to this and don’t help to process them or help them settle in other countries. France I’m looking at you. The subsequent crisi of people coming to Europe to Italy and Greece only served to prove the inadequate EU policies and panic, leaving these countries to sort it out themselves with minimum help. Merkel's intervention of taking a million people seemed to make the problem worse with some extreme reactions from other EU countries. Barbed wire anyone. Hungary I’m looking at you. The EU knew all this and refused to acknowledge a problem. Of course those people wan to come to the UKand preferably to London because this is where the work is and surprisee surprise they speak English and are not left in sordid campsites when they arrive. ( I know UK detention centres are not the Savoy but comparatively speaking) And despite everything the U.K. is tolerant and and allows people to get on with their lives. I’m the granddaughter of immigrants and my heart goes out to these young men who will do anything to get here. My grandparents took a similar journey. Not to mention the kids on their own. A challenge for our generation. But we are not up to it.
|
|
952 posts
|
Brexit
Apr 2, 2019 17:03:21 GMT
via mobile
Post by vdcni on Apr 2, 2019 17:03:21 GMT
If anything the EU showed the strength of its union over ours by consistently showing its support for Ireland and making sure the deal was acceptable to them.
While our government is the one that didn't seem to care about the effect on the Good Friday agreement and had to be forced to acknowledge Northern Irish concerns. They're also happy to drag Scotland out against its will. And many Tories seemed to think they could bully the Republic into going along with us.
I noted how many people in the pro Brexit gathering continually referred to England not Britain.
|
|
5,073 posts
Member is Online
|
Brexit
Apr 2, 2019 17:03:37 GMT
Post by Phantom of London on Apr 2, 2019 17:03:37 GMT
The problem with having a second referendum is that on the first one was a question between;
In versus Out (Take Control)
The second I’m referendum would be, no buses with £10 billion a week for the NHS, but;
In versus Demorcracy (Take Control)
So here is the rub, when faced with no option that save demorcracy, it is a harder one for remainders to bat away.
No clause 50 will not be cancelled, no Prime Minister will ever do that, they will keep moving the goalposts.
|
|
|
|
Brexit
Apr 2, 2019 17:06:21 GMT
Post by londonpostie on Apr 2, 2019 17:06:21 GMT
I don't understand that at all - they've responded to negotiations exactly as expected! They've done everything they can to protect the interests of their remaining member states. They've leveraged process to control the negotiations as much as possible, presented a united front, and stuck to their rules of engagement. What our side never understood is that this is less a negotiation and more simply an exercise in choosing from a menu. The EU is a treaty-based organisation and they aren't going to bend their rules simply because some upstart country with delusions of still ruling an empire demands it. Well, the UK economy is the same size as the 19 smallest EU member states. Put another way, you could replace 19 countries instead of the UK and the single market would be the same size.
It's Germany's largest export market .. there are a thousand numbers. It was a catastrophic error by Mrs Merkel to send David Cameron away effectively empty handed.
|
|
