Brexit...

[Matt]

2 hours ago, rubecula said:

WTF IS GOING ON? ]

the general public voted (by a small majority I admit) to leave the EU   and there are politicians actively saying that the leaving would  be undemocratic…  I do not understand,  the more they  dig in the heels over this  the more it will drag ot out and it will become more painful when we do leave.  i  do not like Boris by the way  but he is right to throw out the rebels.

What’s going on? British parliamentary democracy actually doing what it’s supposed to for a change!

[MikeO]

36 minutes ago, Chach said:

Now we are going to have a GE on whether there should be a second referendum or no deal which is the same thing anyway but much much muddier.

But Labour saying they'll oppose a GE unless no-deal legislation is passed first to ensure Johnson doesn't do the dirty (unthinkable!) and move the election date to November. If they don't vote for it there would be no GE so Boris would presumably have to go to the Queen and tell her he can no longer form a government; under those circumstances she would then invite the leader of "her" opposition to see if he could form an agreement with the smaller parties to take over.

That's my take on it anyway (at the moment, it could all change any time, we're in uncharted territory).

[StevO]

If there was a second referendum, and the will of the people is to leave the EU, what would be the harm in having remain as an option? Surely leave would still be victorious? 

From a leave voter. 

[MikeO]

Already quoted that notable enemy of democracy Winston Churchill on this but going back a bit further.

In 1774, [Edmund] Burke's Speech to the Electors at Bristol at the Conclusion of the Poll was noted for its defence of the principles of representative government against the notion that elected officials should merely be delegates:

"It ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."

[StevO]

5 minutes ago, RPG said:

Simple. It splits the vote. If there were to be a second referendum it would have to be binary between leave with no deal or leave with a specific deal proposed by Parliament.

And Parliament would have to agree to abide by the outcome in advance - otherwise there would be no point whatsoever in having a second referendum - something I believe flies in the face of democracy anyway and should not happen.

You seem like someone who gets into the detail about things they are passionate about. So after the meddling of Cambridge Analytica for Leave.eu, can the referendum really be considered democratic?  

[MikeO]

54 minutes ago, RPG said:

Unfortunately, that is not what is happening in 99% of cases where MPs are voting contrary to their constituents wishes.

There is a lot of self interest at play and very little judgement in the interests of the constituents imho.

I fail to see how 21 Tories were acting in self interest when they effectively resigned because they acted (in their judgement) in their constituents best interests. What has Nicholas Soames (for example) gained from it?

Was Mr Johnson thinking of self interest when he defied the party whip? By far the more plausible example surely.

[johnh]

7 hours ago, Matt said:

What’s going on? British parliamentary democracy actually doing what it’s supposed to for a change!

So the people don't count.  The remainers in Parliament are destroying democracy in this country. End of.

[Matt]

10 minutes ago, johnh said:

So the people don't count.  The remainers in Parliament are destroying democracy in this country. End of.

In parliamentary democracy no. Their vote is for their local representatives who go to parliament on their behalf to make the decisions for them regarding the country.

Thats not remainers destroying , that’s just how British democracy works.  It’s shit, but that’s how it works. Oh, and I think you’ll find a lot of Leavers continue to rule against any deal to leave and not just remainers, another simple fact. Only people ruining democracy are politicians in general  and the ignorant to or refusers of the rules

[MikeO]

17 minutes ago, MikeO said:

I fail to see how 21 Tories were acting in self interest when they effectively resigned because they acted (in their judgement) in their constituents best interests. What has Nicholas Soames (for example) gained from it?

Was Mr Johnson thinking of self interest when he defied the party whip? By far the more plausible example surely.

 

5 minutes ago, RPG said:

Well, I guess we will never agree on that.

Interesting you quote my questions and then fail to respond to them, are you a politician?

[MikeO]

7 minutes ago, RPG said:

There are, I am told, over 90 Labour constituencies which voted Leave (many by large majorities) yet have MPs who support Remain and all that goes with it. An election is not far away. How do you think that will play out in those Labour constituencies?

Farage must be salivating at the opportunities this presents for the Brexit Party.

That's a question for the voters in those constituencies, many people (even on here) have changed their minds in the last three years having got a clearer understanding of the situation; I'm sure that's pretty widespread, in both directions probably.

The Tories (whatever happens) are now the "de facto" leave party; Farage will be humiliated.

[MikeO]

1 minute ago, RPG said:

Try telling the people they don't count when it comes to an election in the 90 Labour constituencies that voted Leave but who are saddled with Remainer MPs.

The people will count (literally) then.

...and again.

[MikeO]

2 minutes ago, RPG said:

I disagree. Those 90 Labour constituencies may not feel like changing from Labour to tory, but a pact between tory and Brexit parties would probably see a large number of those constituencies elect a brexi MP. Now, imagine a Tory/Brexit Party coalition with support from DUP and the Labour party will be in a small minority opposition I think.

Now you're assuming that the British public, in whom you have so much faith to make the right decisions, will treat a GE as a second referendum and not take any other manifesto issues into account. I give them a bit more credit than that.

Besides that Farage has already said that he won't enter an agreement with Johnson unless the Tories dismiss any notion of a deal and commit to "no deal," which isn't going to happen.

[MikeO]

15 minutes ago, RPG said:

I was referring to the MPs who have been ardent Remainers from day one. They have pretended to just want to stop a no deal brexit but, in reality, have been trying to overturn brexit, without having the decency (apart from in a rare few cases) to honestly declare their agenda.

OK, so how have any of those MPs (pick whichever one you like, the most obvious example is fine because you must have many to choose from) acted in their own self interest in the way they've voted?

The fairy at the top of the Christmas Tree when it comes to voting for personal gain is Boris Johnson, hands down and completely unopposed. He set out to be PM, plotted it for years and now (hopefully for a very short while) he's achieved it. No Labour back bencher or Tory rebel is in the same ball park.

[pete0]

2 minutes ago, RPG said:

Sure,

Let me answer you with one word. Corbyn.

At heart he is an ardent brexiteer. There are countless videos of him espousing Eurosceptic comments. But he thinks that the way to No.10 is now to head up a Remain party (totally contrary to Labour party manifesto for the last election) and he has totally compromised (some would say suppressed) his own beliefs for (in his opinion) a chance to get his grubby mitts on the levers of power. It may even work. But it will never dilute the argument against him.

In that regard, there is nothing to choose between Corbyn and Johnson.

He's a eurosceptic who's (eventually) settled with his party and his fans point of view. 

Strangely if we were to leave he probs would have been the best man for the job. May and Cameron were both remain and Boris is just whatever is best for himself. 

[MikeO]

9 minutes ago, RPG said:

Sure,

Let me answer you with one word. Corbyn.

At heart he is an ardent brexiteer. There are countless videos of him espousing Eurosceptic comments. But he thinks that the way to No.10 is now to head up a Remain party (totally contrary to Labour party manifesto for the last election) and he has totally compromised (some would say suppressed) his own beliefs for (in his opinion) a chance to get his grubby mitts on the levers of power. It may even work. But it will never dilute the argument against him.

If you trust Johnson over him you are truly delusional. You might not agree with his politics but he's a conviction politician, Johnson is an opportunist.

[MikeO]

 

[Chach]

 

[rubecula]

13 hours ago, Chach said:

For the love of god, it's not spin it's a good faith argument. There is a good faith argument both ways which is why a second referendum is the only way of getting a final decision and some closure.

Now we are going to have a GE on whether there should be a second referendum or no deal which is the same thing anyway but much much muddier.

I do not think so as remainers have voted the general election down.  My own opinion is tht the whole thing could have been avoided years ago if the polititions involved were not so scared of doing the job they were elected to do, instead of hanging on the coat tails of euro polititions who are doing the best they can for Europe.

[rubecula]

15 hours ago, MikeO said:

By that logic he wouldn't be PM because he'd have been thrown out himself in March.

I agree  100 %

[rubecula]

13 hours ago, Matt said:

What’s going on? British parliamentary democracy actually doing what it’s supposed to for a change!

precisely  we are suffering with the abject mockery of our parliament  in order to destroy our democracy.

questions for you to ponder on   to yourselves:

1.  Why did we have a referendum in the first place ?

2.Why did we have a leave vote when we did?

3. What is the point of having a result if politicians who disagree with the result can  countermand  the result by saying things like "The people who voted to leave didn't understand what they were voting for."

4.  I was thinking that if the vote had gone the or=ther way  would you honestly have been prepared to argue for a seond referendum or a posting of arguments against the vote

[Matt]

You’re complaining that now British democracy is “functioning” as it should that it’s destroying democracy, ie destroying itself? We can only hope!

1. The legally non-binding opinion poll that was the referendum was a power play from Cameron that back fired. A purely internal political strategy. The people were just supposed to be the alibi for his next step. 

2. See point 1  basically because it suited the Tory/Cameron agenda and timeline  

3. The result, which excluded millions of people from voting and split not only the population but also the “United” Kingdom (with 2 countries voting overwhelmingly to remain, but tough shit, they have to do what Brussels.... I mean London says - see hypocrisy), can be challenged by people not knowing what they were voting for because there was and is still no plan. If there’d been a clear plan, who knows how much better this would’ve gone. If people voted leave and fuck the plan, then fine! But people all had different interpretations which of course they did because it’s monumentally complicated topic that even the specialists are struggling, let alone Bob down the pub

4. If the result was that close but the other way around, and Leavers started arguing for a 2nd, my only argument would be “show and explain me your plan”.  I’d still be against it because I need my EU citizenship to live and work in Europe, but at least there’d be some sense of logic other than “I want out but don’t know how” 

[Chach]

11 hours ago, rubecula said:

I do not think so as remainers have voted the general election down.  My own opinion is tht the whole thing could have been avoided years ago if the polititions involved were not so scared of doing the job they were elected to do, instead of hanging on the coat tails of euro polititions who are doing the best they can for Europe.

Only until if/when Hillary Benn's bill has passed and then the GE is on, only voted down until no deal is off the table.

In a GE (someone correct me if I'm wrong) Labour's position will be a second referendum

What will the Tories position be? No deal and a deeply unholy alliance with the Brexit party seems to be their own chance and ipso facto a referendum on those two positions.

 

 

[Chach]

1 hour ago, RPG said:

We knew exactly what we were voting for. Cameron explained it time and time again.

Not sure if you remember but Cameron was a remainer, he wasn't the one saying we will leave the EU and have all the same trade benefits.

[Matt]

1 hour ago, RPG said:

Absolutely correct.

We knew exactly what we were voting for. Cameron explained it time and time again.

It was not advisory at all (as falsely alleged elsewhere)  as the government gave a solemn undertaking to action the result of the referendum.

All that has happened now is that the actions of the Remain element in Parliament have finally broken the last vestiges of trust that existed between Parliament and the People.

The next General Election will give a lot of politicians a bloody nose I think.

It was advisory, and a non-legally binding referendum 

https://fullfact.org/europe/was-eu-referendum-advisory/

[Formby]

4 hours ago, Matt said:

You’re complaining that now British democracy is “functioning” as it should that it’s destroying democracy, ie destroying itself? We can only hope!

1. The legally non-binding opinion poll that was the referendum was a power play from Cameron that back fired. A purely internal political strategy. The people were just supposed to be the alibi for his next step. 

2. See point 1  basically because it suited the Tory/Cameron agenda and timeline  

3. The result, which excluded millions of people from voting and split not only the population but also the “United” Kingdom (with 2 countries voting overwhelmingly to remain, but tough shit, they have to do what Brussels.... I mean London says - see hypocrisy), can be challenged by people not knowing what they were voting for because there was and is still no plan. If there’d been a clear plan, who knows how much better this would’ve gone. If people voted leave and fuck the plan, then fine! But people all had different interpretations which of course they did because it’s monumentally complicated topic that even the specialists are struggling, let alone Bob down the pub

4. If the result was that close but the other way around, and Leavers started arguing for a 2nd, my only argument would be “show and explain me your plan”.  I’d still be against it because I need my EU citizenship to live and work in Europe, but at least there’d be some sense of logic other than “I want out but don’t know how” 

1. I'm unsure of your reasoning here. Cameron wanted, and voted, to Remain. He had already got a deal that secured some concessions from the EU that gave us special status among the bloc. I think he was happy with that. What do you think was 'his' next step? Or did you mean the Tories' next step? Many Labour MPs wanted a referendum, too. What was their agenda?

2. Again, what was Cameron's personal agenda?

3. I agree there should have been a plan. That was, indeed, a monumental error, but to say a referendum shouldn't have been offered because it's complicated is elitist and patronising. You're saying (I guess) that more people fell for lies and spin on the Leave side than the Remain side, and that is why we ended up voting to Leave. That's your take, I guess, but somewhat undermined by your comment in (4), that you were against it because you need your EU citizenship and want to live and work in Europe. That is a personal reason for wanting to Remain. It is not a considered judgement of the issues (though you may have weighed these up, too). It's a gut reflection of how a Leave vote may affect you. Many people on both sides took a similar view - how it affects them personally. As you rightly say, very few of us, if any, understand the implications fully. But, to say, that only those fully qualified to understand Brexit (maybe 10? 100?) should have the right to vote on this, is real effrontery  to (any form of) democracy. At the very least, the referendum showed that a broad church of voters, for many different reasons, some more partisan than others, wanted to leave the EU. That is a sounding of popular opinion that any government should be aware of.

4. I think that if the vote had been to Remain, everyone would have moved on by now. Remain MPs and Remain popular vote. Job done.    

[Matt]

14 minutes ago, Formby said:

1. I'm unsure of your reasoning here. Cameron wanted, and voted, to Remain. He had already got a deal that secured some concessions from the EU that gave us special status among the bloc. I think he was happy with that. What do you think was 'his' next step? Or did you mean the Tories' next step? Many Labour MPs wanted a referendum, too. What was their agenda? - Usual agenda, try and consolidate more power for the party. If he gets the people on his side, as well as continuing to work on and with the EU, he cements his position and his partys position for a decade. Unless he failed like, which is what I assume labour was banking on... 

2. Again, what was Cameron's personal agenda? Again, see above.

3. I agree there should have been a plan. That was, indeed, a monumental error, but to say a referendum shouldn't have been offered because it's complicated is elitist and patronising. Not at all, it's how the Parliamentary democracy has worked for god knows how long. If you disagree, then I also assume you think we should have a referendum on any matter, complicated or not? Personally I think that'd be great, because it moves to Direct democracy which does actually allow the people to make their decisions.  You're saying (I guess) that more people fell for lies and spin on the Leave side than the Remain side, and that is why we ended up voting to Leave. I'm saying that no one was informed, no one had any guidance other than misdirection and lies, predominantly on the Leave side. Remain had the easier option but got complacent. That's your take, I guess, but somewhat undermined by your comment in (4), that you were against it because you need your EU citizenship and want to live and work in Europe. That is a personal reason for wanting to Remain. Pretty much everyone voted for a personal reason, not sure I get your point? It is not a considered judgement of the issues (though you may have weighed these up, too) I went for freedom of movement (I don't even agree with Schengen, we should be in it - at least then the lie about control over our borders would have some weight behind it), collaboration with neighbouring countries, knowing that strength in numbers is better than going it alone, learning from an international live. It's a gut reflection of how a Leave vote may affect you. Many people on both sides took a similar view - how it affects them personally. As you rightly say, very few of us, if any, understand the implications fully. But, to say, that only those fully qualified to understand Brexit (maybe 10? 100?) should have the right to vote on this, is real effrontery  to (any form of) democracy NO IT isn't!!! IT'S HOW REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY WORKS!!! At the very least, the referendum showed that a broad church of voters, for many different reasons, some more partisan than others, wanted to leave the EU. That is a sounding of popular opinion that any government should be aware of. Fine, be aware of it, then proceed with caution and as has already been pointed out, ignore them if it's not in the best interests of the country. Don't just say "oh, ok, we'll abandon our biggest trading partner etc. and make a fucking mess of it to the extent the country becomes a global laughing stock!

4. I think that if the vote had been to Remain, everyone would have moved on by now. Remain MPs and Remain popular vote. Job done.    Yup, but here's where remain really missed out. Instead of just saying "lets stay", they could've said "lets stay, but take your concerns to the EU and work with them". It would've made us much more influential in the bloc and would've been a much more positive approach.

 

[Chach]

1 hour ago, Matt said:

It was advisory, and a non-legally binding referendum 

https://fullfact.org/europe/was-eu-referendum-advisory/

You're doing what he does and selectively responding to the part of the argument that helps your position. The second part "as the government gave a solemn undertaking to action the result of the referendum" is the critical part of his argument. 

Can you provide anything where the government or opposition stated in parliament that the referendum was advisory only, with any caveats on when it would be ignored?

[Chach]

 

[MikeO]

1 minute ago, Chach said:

 

Priceless!

His sister is a hard-line remainer as well; not only is his party crumbling, so's his family.

[Matt]

25 minutes ago, Chach said:

You're doing what he does and selectively responding to the part of the argument that helps your position. The second part "as the government gave a solemn undertaking to action the result of the referendum" is the critical part of his argument. 

Can you provide anything where the government or opposition stated in parliament that the referendum was advisory only, with any caveats on when it would be ignored?

Read the link. It even has a highlighted picture from the official briefing document;
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-7212/CBP-7212.pdf

 

Quote

Types of referendum This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the UK’s continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. Instead, this is a type of referendum known as pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions. The referendums held in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in 1997 and 1998 are examples of this type, where opinion was tested before legislation was introduced. The UK does not have constitutional provisions which would require the results of a referendum to be implemented, unlike, for example, the Republic of Ireland, where the circumstances in which a binding referendum should be held are set out in its constitution.

Whilst that not explicitly used the word "advisory" (although it might as well have done), the paper from the high court doesn't leave any wiggle room for argument (I'll type out the important parts since it's a scanned document in the PDF:

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/r-miller-v-secretary-of-state-for-exiting-eu-amended-20161122.pdf#page=32
 

Quote

 

Page 32, para106

“a referendum on any topic can only be advisory for the lawmakers in Parliament unless very clear language to the contrary is used in the referendum legislation in question. No such language is used in the 2015 Referendum Act”

para 107

"Further, the 2015 Referendum Act was passed against a background including a clear briefing paper to parliamentarians explaining that the referendum would have advisory effect only. Moreover, Parliament must have appreciated that the referendum was intended only to en advisory as as the result of a vote in the referendum in favour of leaving the EU would inevitably leave for future decision many important questions relating to the legal implementation of withdrawal from the EU"

 

Anyway, that's my lunchtime wasted, back to work