Brexit

[SanguinePar]

4 hours ago, Vinnie said:

Alternatively, lets just disband all government, reject any kind of political voting, because the results shouldnt matter if we dont like them.  

All that is happening now is that we are infighting each other.  Politics is divisive as it is, without the option of debating every result.  As much as anyone might disagree with the results of votes, surely we understand that some we win, some we lose - or do we only accept that when we get our own way? 

I take the point, but the deal on offer from May does not honour the referendum either.

Nobody voted for this deal. Nobody voting leave actually knew what they were voting for (and that's not meant in the patronising way it's sometimes used) because it hadn't even been worked out yet. Different people had very different ideas of what Brexit meant yet all they had was a supposedly homogeneous 'Leave'. Just look at the multiple options being bandied about, still, as alternatives to this deal. 

Even if you leave aside the package of lies and utopian bulls**t spotted by Farage and Johnson and Gove and the rest, there is no way you can coherently claim that everyone who voted Leave would support this deal, or Norway+, or No Deal. The mistake is to group them as the same thing, when in fact they are hugely different with some crossovers here and there.

The government has spent 2 years trying to find a deal to keep almost everyone happy and has managed to find one which keeps hardly anyone happy. The deal they were after was never a realistic possibility IMO.

As a result our government is in paralysis and parliament (from which its authority derives) will be next when it cans May's deal. The next logical step is to move to the place from which parliament's authority is derived, namely the people.

This time, it shold be a legally binding vote, it should have more detailed options than were available before and it should include the option to stay in the EU now that people have more information on the utter s**tshow our attempts to leave have been.

 

[Teuchter]

2 hours ago, Vinnie said:

Im not convinced the referendums themselves were flawed, so I do feel we will have different ideas about what flaw there may or may not be?

The flaw in this referendum was that it was never designed to address a genuine and overwhelming desire to leave the EU. It was stuck in the Conservative manifesto to plug the haemorrhage of votes on the right from the Tories to UKIP. It was also assumed by Cameron that it would help him put the lid on the box of Euro - Sceptics in the party. At no time was there ever a mass grassroots driven campaign against the EU. Nothing at all like the constitutional convention in Scotland that built the consensus for devolution.

For various reasons, Cameron's plan failed and really no one at all, least of all Johnson and Farage, had a coherent plan or vision of how to proceed.

Attlee's quote on referendums was that they are a "device of dictators and demagogues". At that point they had been used by the likes of Hitler and Mussolini to, among other things, enable single party government. Attlee's quote was in the wake of Churchill proposing to hold a referendum to continue the wartime coalition as opposed to holding an election.

It is really only the last couple of days that I have thought about the devolution referendum and the consensus that was built in the years leading up to it. The choice was fairly clear for that referendum and the parliamentary bills all but drafted.

The choice in the Brexit (and the independence poll) was between the status quo and something else that was not very well defined. We know what has happened since, and as SP argues above, there is no way you can say the alternative choice to the status quo was an informed choice.

No one really had a plan. If there had been a groundswell of opinion what would have happened would have been the following. A party wins an election on a leave EU platform. Using their parliamentary majority, they start the process to leave, negotiate with the EU, and then offer the clear choice in a referendum (assuming there is an appetite for one). 

If there had been PR in the UK, while I think there would have been a reasonably large anti EU presence in Parliament, the present debacle would have been avoided, if for no other reason, spleen venting, left and right, would have borne fruit for punters at elections in that smaller parties could gain representation.

 

 

 

 

 

[Vinnie]

I really cant disagree with any of that @SanguinePar. 

May has tried to find a deal to appease Remainers, whilst following through on meeting the nations decision to leave.  I think she has missed that Remainers dont want to leave regardless of her dealing.

Brexit does mean different things to different Leave voters.  And its not really patronising to say folk didnt know what they voted for... Its a fact, its blind faith that our politicians are actually in touch with voters.

What I dont understand is why so many want a second Scottish independence referendum, voting on a blind faith notion of how they want the political landscape to look, despite now knowing how much of a bollock ache the whole process can be?

[Yorkie]

It still irks me that 62% of the electorate didn't vote to leave. For something as momentous and game changing as this why oh why was there no threshold introduced. 

When they keep coming out with " it's the will of the people ". No it ****** isn't.  Run the Brexit referendum again but this time do It properly.

[Vinnie]

62%? Wanted to stay? I assume you mean of Scots?

As much as I didnt like the result of the Scottish independence referendum, the No's won. We are still part of the UK, and it was a UK vote on Brexit.

Lets also remember that the EU werent all open arms about Scotland being independent, there were no guarantees of membership.

@Yorkie, assuming we had voted for Scottish independence, and got your wish, and there was a second vote, would you want that? Would you want that your victory could be overturned?

[Yorkie]

Sorry, didn't make that clear, I was referring to the UK Brexit referendum. Only 38% of the UK electorate voted to leave, 36% voted to remain and about 26% didn't bother voting.

it was anything but an overwhelming endorsement. Remember the first Scottish independence referendum back in the 70s, the YES vote required to get beyond a 40% hurdle because of the importance of the vote. You can't compare it to a General Election which might come round every 4-5 years and the electorate has the chance to change their mind.

[Teuchter]

9 minutes ago, Vinnie said:

 

@Yorkie, assuming we had voted for Scottish independence, and got your wish, and there was a second vote, would you want that? Would you want that your victory could be overturned?

That is the flaw with referendums. If there is no overwhelming majority then they do not work. Have you heard anyone seriously question devolution?

Had Remain won by the same narrow margin then an unashamed campaign for a second referendum would be in full swing now.

It is entirely disingenuous to continually spout about the “will of the people” when clearly it wasn’t and isn’t. It was a narrowly won vox pop.

[Guest The Beer Baron]

Was it so close? We're supposed to be equal nations in this pathetic union. Scotland and Northern Ireland both overwhelmingly voted remain, can't remember Wales' vote and England voted leave.

 

I'm going to assume that Wales voted either remain or was a close contest. That's hardly a fair conclusion then?

[Vinnie]

42 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

Sorry, didn't make that clear, I was referring to the UK Brexit referendum. Only 38% of the UK electorate voted to leave, 36% voted to remain and about 26% didn't bother voting.

Slightly flawed analysis of the figures - we dont know how the 26% would have voted.  Though I see your point.  Of course, it might be that those 26% were borderline voters, see the possibilities of both arguments.  Perhaps these are the 26% that Teresa May hoped to gain support from with her half-***ed deal, along with a percentage of the Leavers and Remainers? 

43 minutes ago, Teuchter said:

That is the flaw with referendums. If there is no overwhelming majority then they do not work. 

The flaw is that this was situation was not envisaged.  For the referendum to work, there should have been a caveat stating that a minimum turnout of 75% (for example) was required.  There should have been a margin of victory whereby the result stands - lets say that should be 65%/35%.   

I also believe that both referendums started off flawed in that in both cases, nobody knows how the final divorce settlement will look.  There should be, have been, a basic set of deals in place for folk to vote on, with the understanding that other issues would be settled and negotiated should the result require.  Im sure that had we had such a blueprint for the future, particularly in the Scottish referendum, we'd have seen a different result. 

I was a borderline Yes voter in the Scottish Referendum, Im a borderline Remainer (there are some aspects of leaving that I can see working for the UK if handled properly - as we know it hasnt been so far, but thats a different story).  Im happy to abide by both results, Im not passionate enough about either issue to argue too much for it.  

[Fifes Elite]

At this stage I don't think the deal on offer is that bad. Remember this is only the departure deal for the transition, albeit it makes clear the principles of the future relationship. What really bothers me is the leavers (the politicions that is) attitude, they don't seem to want to take into account this is probably the most complicated breakup of a union in world history if you take into account how entwined we are in the modern world. I predicted that in order to leave the EU in an orderly manner it would take at least 10 years for everyone  to diversy their economies and prepare. They also don't seem to realise big promises that were made arnt coming to fruition.

Anyway I don't think May will last much longer so I have started to look at the odds for the next leader. It doesn't fill me with hope. I might punt some coin on Gove or Mogg. If May goes there may even be the break up if the Tory party to some extent.

 

[Vinnie]

May doesnt have too much longer. In order for Brexit to work, Im sure we would all agree that the leader of that transition should be a Brexiteer? - Someone who believes in it to fight for it. Boris and Gove had their chance so Id be tempted to look at Raab, or Mogg.  

It may be an unpopular opinion, but will shes been a ****e PM, I do admire the way May stepped up to the plate and took on the challenge, in contrast to others who stirred the pot then ****ed off into hiding. 

[Vinnie]

The calls for a second referendum are growing louder.  The government is in disarray.  The opposition is also weak, they should be exploiting the current uncertainty and calling a vote of no confidence. 

Given that May and Corbyn really arent Prime Minister material, is there any point having a referendum when the transition period will potentially be overseen by weak politicians? 

[GG Riva]

Brexit has been a complete shambles, ever since Cameron gave the green light for the referendum that should never have taken place. As others have alluded, it was promised to arrest the loss of Tory votes to UKIP before the 2014 GE. The almighty flaw is that the average voter didn't have a clue - and still doesn't - whether the UK would be better off in or out of the EU. MPs are elected to serve the best interests of its citizens, so they should have voted on it themselves. Reports at the time suggested that around 550 MPs were Remainers, allegedly, in which case Brexit would never have happened. And as Teuchter has pointed out, referenda rarely prove decisive, one way or another, when clear and accurate information about the potential consequences isn't provided to the electorate before they vote.

All we got was misinformation, half truths and downright lies, appealing to the nationalistic fears of those on the right of the political divide, from Boris, Farage and Co. and a fear campaign by the Remain politicians. And now we're reaping the fruits of those fine seeds they sowed.........

Let's be clear, the EU is a corrupt, bureaucratic monster, which has seen countless £billions of public cash wasted/misappropriated, but no one ever fixed anything by running away from it. 

 

 

[Vinnie]

The only way the public in general would be able to make an informed decision would be, as I said a few posts up, for a basic set of deals in place for folk to vote on, with the understanding that other issues would be settled and negotiated should the result require.  It wouldnt be the full deal, but at least those on the fence could make a decision based on policy rather than fear. 

34 minutes ago, GG Riva said:

Let's be clear, the EU is a corrupt, bureaucratic monster, which has seen countless £billions of public cash wasted/misappropriated, but no one ever fixed anything by running away from it. 

So explain to me, if the EU is corrupt, and throwing away money left right and centre, why would we not run away from it?  

[GG Riva]

1 hour ago, Vinnie said:

The only way the public in general would be able to make an informed decision would be, as I said a few posts up, for a basic set of deals in place for folk to vote on, with the understanding that other issues would be settled and negotiated should the result require.  It wouldnt be the full deal, but at least those on the fence could make a decision based on policy rather than fear. 

So explain to me, if the EU is corrupt, and throwing away money left right and centre, why would we not run away from it?  

I thought I explained that in the very last sentence of my previous post, Vinnie. Why not stay in and help to fix the problems by withholding part of our contribution as a bargaining chip?