Unfortunately, the consensus is that we'll be worse off after Brexit, and to make matters worse, this shambles of a government hasn't handled it well at all, what with the Prime Minister gambling on and then losing her majority, the scrapping of Chequers, multiple cabinet resignations (including two Brexit Secretaries), transgressing her own "red lines", and, of course, her withdrawal agreement, in respect of which she felt it necessary to delay a vote of MP's at the last minute earlier today, so as not to face the greater embarrassment of failing to get it through parliament, of which there was no hope from the start, as we've all known for quite some time.
My hope is that we're able to go back and renegotiate a better deal, meaning that we won't be as worse off as we'd be under the current deal, in spite of how many times it has been said that this is the "only deal" and "the best deal possible".
But how do you think you can justify a [i]second[/I] people's vote (which [i]is[/I] what it would be)? That would undermine the first one that we had back in 2016, and betray all of those 17.4 million people who voted to leave, as well as betray the trust of all of those who were lead to believe that it was a one off, binding vote. I don't think that you [i]can[/I] justify it, and I've heard a lot of the arguments in favour of it. Besides, recent polls still suggest that most people would vote the same way that they did the last time, and you can't just keep rerunning the referendum until you get the result that you want.
karl stoneDecember 11, 2018 at 06:04#2356980 likes
The 2016 referendum was corrupt in every respect. David Cameron was a long term eurosceptic who sabotaged his credibility on key issues with a pledge to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands, and with a renegotiation - that could not have been renegotiated overnight or unilaterally, and so only served to publicize a long list of complaints about the EU. Coming back from Brussels, when Cameron touched down on British soil - with his inevitable failure swirling about him, he appointed himself chief spokesman for Remain.
Meanwhile, the Leave campaign was farmed out to a shady organization called the Tax Payer's Alliance - a rabid right wing economic policy group. Other, unofficial Leave campaigns sprang up - and used stolen facebook data to design and target false and divisive propaganda.
David Cameron lost on purpose for Remain, in coordination with the main Leave campaign. We can know this because the rhetoric employed by the official Leave campaign, was written by David Cameron in the 2005 and 2010 Conservative Party manifestos. "Take back control of our borders" etc.
The cherry atop this huge shit sundae is that the current Prime Minister was David Cameron's Home Secretary - with responsibility for immigration. She dismantled the border force, allowed 635,000 immigrants into the country in 2015, (five years after Cameron's pledge) then published those figures weeks before the vote. Then, when Cameron lost on purpose for Remain and resigned, she stepped into his shoes - without a vote by anyone.
Brexit is an ongoing criminal conspiracy against the British people by the government; these are the facts - but if you imagine you can interest any MP or media organization in bringing them to light, you'd be wrong. No-one wants to know.
Reply to karl stone I was kind of with you until that nonsense about David Cameron sabotaging the Remain campaign, of which he played a prominent part in promoting, and about Brexit being an ongoing criminal conspiracy against the British people by the government.
karl stoneDecember 11, 2018 at 06:18#2357020 likes
I was kind of with you until that nonsense about David Cameron sabotaging the Remain campaign, of which he played a prominent part in promoting, and about Brexit being an ongoing criminal conspiracy against the British people by the government.
Nor am I. I'm a politics nut. Check my facts. David Cameron was a brexiteer who called the referendum, sabotaged the Remain position he then adopted, and lost on purpose for Remain.
My hope is that we're able to go back and renegotiate a better deal, meaning that we won't be as worse off as we'd be under the current deal, in spite of how many times it has been said that this is the "only deal" and "the best deal possible".
Haven’t the EU said that there’s nothing left to negotiate? Unless TM abandons her red lines, e.g an end to freedom of movement, this is the only deal on the table.
But how do you think you can justify a second people's vote (which is what it would be)?
There’s been a material change of circumstances: the lies, the overspending, Cambridge Analytica, etc. have been exposed; there’s actual advice on the repercussions of leaving; and now that we know what the Leave deal is we have real information about what we’d be voting for.
as well as betray the trust of all of those who were lead to believe that it was a one off, binding vote.
Yes it would. But that’s a price worth paying to avoid the much worse alternative, especially if May’s deal is voted down and we leave without a deal which will break the Good Friday Agreement. The reality is that the practicalities often require going back on promises, which is why manifesto pledges are rarely, if ever, all fulfilled.
There could be an optional preferential referendum, where people list their choices in order. Each of the options would have several paragraphs explaining what they entail. The options would be:
1. Hard Brexit, including hard borders between UK and Europe on movement of all people and goods, including a hard border around Northern Ireland.
2. The deal that was about to be voted on by Parliament.
3. Cancel Brexit and remain in the EU.
After the first round of counting, Ballots for the least popular option would be distributed to whatever option was indicated as 2, and not counted in the second round if no option was numbered 2.
That way people that prefer Hard Brexit but would rather stay in the EU than have the current deal could have their wishes respected, as would people that prefer to cancel Brexit but, if that's not popular enough, prefer Teresa May's deal to a hard border.
Reply to Michael Two thumbs up. As a Dutchman I'm simply appalled by the amount of misinformation, lying and downright incompetence of the UK government in respect of the Brexit negotiations. It is to me utterly inconceivable some are still banging on about the "Norway option". Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland do not want a fifth party in that treaty with the power to veto against the adoption of EU laws.
There was no way in hell that the EU would offer benefits in the area of the four pillars (freedom of movement of people, capital, goods and services) that equal the benefits EU-membership has as that would result in a Europe á la carte in the long run. The impossibility to stay in the customs union was a given from day 1 and that every other EU-member state would close rank on this was obvious as well. Why the fuck give the UK access to these benefits when they have to pay for it through EU contributions? It's all so pathetically obvious that UK politics in this respect is just cringeworthy.
I hate the UK is leaving, I think they are part of Europe and the EU and despite the technocracy of the EU still believe it is more a force for good than anything else. The UK especially has always traditionally been very good at avoiding the more ridiculous financial regulations were passed due to their experience and knowledge thanks to its financial centre in London. That wisdom will be sorely missed.
Reply to Michael What a funny name for it. We just call it preferential voting, and it seems as natural as breathing. I can't think of a single reason why anybody that understands how it works would not want it.
Preferential voting is like having a two-round election like they have in many countries, such as the French Presidential election. Except by marking the preferences on a single ballot, you avoid all the cost and wasted time of having to conduct a second ballot, without losing any of its nuance and functionality. The elimination of less supported candidates and narrowing down to a final two happens automatically.
There must have been a lot of misinformation about for it to have been rejected in 2011. I suppose the Tories prefer first past the post because Labour and Lib Dem would direct preferences to one another, and thereby be elected much more often than at present.
ChangelingDecember 11, 2018 at 11:47#2357690 likes
Putting all the wrangling to one side we are left with the fact that the majority of voters in the referendum indicated a wish to leave the EU. If a second ref is held will we be able to have a third one after two more years to address further lies by both sides. We are told a second ref will be on a more informed basis, but who will do the informing?
But how do you think you can justify a second people's vote (which is what it would be)?
No it wouldn't. It would be a third people's vote. The first vote was in 1973, and the result was to remain. But there is always something suspect and downright paradoxical on having the people decide who are the people.
...You are very likely going to get three yeses. But they constitute a trilemma of which only two can be had.
So if a question is framed in terms of 'them' coming 'here', and no one mentions 'us' going 'there', and the impositions of the trade deal we have, but only the benefits of the ones we don't, the response will be contradictory, and expectations will be hopelessly unrealistic.
I suspect what would be really popular would be to end the Good Friday agreement and give N. Ireland back to the Republic. It would save 'us' a fortune (more than leaving the EU), make Brexit easy, and apart from the pesky loyalists, everyone would be happy. But 'we' don't get to vote on that, any more than the EU gets to vote on Brexit, because - well why not? Because 'they' are not the people who get to vote on who 'we' are, the first paradox of a referendum, already mentioned.
There must have been a lot of misinformation about for it to have been rejected in 2011. I suppose the Tories prefer first past the post because Labour and Lib Dem would direct preferences to one another, and thereby be elected much more often than at present.
I didn't even realise it happened until much later. I was living in Thailand at the time and wasn't paying any attention to politics.
Terrapin StationDecember 11, 2018 at 12:53#2358050 likes
I don't live in the UK, but I'm in favor of there eventually being world unification/a one-world government, and I'm not in favor of restricting how people can choose to move around the world. I'm okay with screening for wanted criminals, known terrorist associates, etc., but that's it when it comes to immigration screening.
Reply to unenlightened Just to avoid confusion; I wasn't so much referring to the referendum per se - which has its flaws for sure - but how the government has pursued Brexit after that (and some of the behaviour by political parties before that).
The way I see it is: Since WW2 the UK has swung from left wing to right wing. One side is voted in because they appear to have moderate policies and the other side has become too far left, or right, depending which one is in power. Once in power they become gradually more extreme while the side in opposition creeps quietly to the middle, and so it goes, left, right, left, right. Each side occasionally has a bit of a makeover but the left wing right wing basis is still there. Why would either side embark on policies that will result in being voted out of power? It has to deliberate, the Establishment giving media coverage to two parties so that the majority of voters can be influenced not to break out of the pattern, then the left right swing gives an illusion of democracy whilst the Establishment runs the show.
Trouble is the Establishment influence in trying to keep the UK in the EU is starting to become a little bit obvious as a hard Brexit would seriously unbalance their political seesaw system. Will enough people see through it all to change it? I doubt it.
I don’t. I think Article 50 should just be revoked and Brexit cancelled.
The government of the day derives all of its legitimacy (in a political ethics sense, not a constitutional or legal sense) from parliament, and parliament derives all of its legitimacy from the people. So the decisions of government are at two removes from the source of legitimacy, and the decisions of parliament are at one remove, whereas the decision in a referendum is at zero removes from the source, and therefore has a legitimacy that the other two cannot match. It follows that the result of a referendum cannot legitimately (again, in an ethics sense) be overturned by parliament or government. So the only legitimate way for government or parliament to overturn the result of the 2016 referendum and revoke article 50 is to have another referendum.
Personally I would favour another one (I didn't vote in the last one), with everyone being told 'this time it will have to stick'. I know that sounds silly, but when your country is being run by the Keystone cops, as the UK currently is, what's an extra bit of silliness between friends (or enemies)? And if Remain wins, article 50 can be torn up, and if Leave wins again, then we can have another referendum where the choices are TM's deal or no deal, and the result of that will be implemented on 29th March. And whatever happens, the police will have to be paid overtime until the inevitable civil unrest dies down.
One thing's for sure. When the dust finally settles over this whole Brexit shambles, it'll be a long, long time before a government here in the UK lets us have another referendum.
unenlightenedDecember 11, 2018 at 14:57#2358410 likes
Trouble is the Establishment influence in trying to keep the UK in the EU is starting to become a little bit obvious as a hard Brexit would seriously unbalance their political seesaw system. Will enough people see through it all to change it? I doubt it.
Trouble is this Establishment v People mythology can be overlaid on the Right v Left mythology, and neither align with the leave v remain split, which is largely a concocted diversion from the real political problems which stem from the loss of power of democratic government of any flavour or territory to global economics. One can argue that the EU represents Global economic interests, or that it is sufficiently large to resist them somewhat - or, as I see it, that it is largely irrelevant either way.
To put it bluntly, the nation is no longer a fundamental unit of politics, and has become a trope of nostalgia. What is replacing national government and international relations are global corporations, and it is there that the democratic deficit need to be addressed; it is there that 'The Establishment' already resides.
ChangelingDecember 11, 2018 at 15:23#2358520 likes
I'm interested in hearing @jamalrob's opinion on proceedings.
To put it bluntly, the nation is no longer a fundamental unit of politics, and has become a trope of nostalgia. What is replacing national government and international relations are global corporations, and it is there that the democratic deficit need to be addressed; it is there that 'The Establishment' already resides.
Are you saying the global capitalist system should be democratised?
But how do you think you can justify a second people's vote (which is what it would be)? That would undermine the first one that we had back in 2016, and betray all of those 17.4 million people who voted to leave,
It's pretty clear that the complexities and complications of Brexit were not foregrounded enough by the overly complacent and disparate Remain campaign. That's their fault, but added to that, the Leave campaign has been shown to have lied and cheated, and in the end only won by a slim margin. So, there's a possibility that some who voted did so on the basis of incomplete or false information, and there might be enough who realize that now and have changed their minds to call the result into question. If that is the case, a second referendum will overturn the first and reverse the decision fairly and squarely. If it's not, it won't. And far from being betrayed, those of the 17.4 million who voted to leave and now realize they made a mistake will have a chance to rectify it. Just as if you buy a product and realize it doesn't function as advertised, you generally have a right to change your mind, if you vote for a change of policy in a referendum and there's a reasonable case to be made that you voted on the basis of false or incomplete information, you should also be given a chance to change your mind. And in a free and fair referendum, which involves a chance to not change your mind too, I don't see what's unethical. So, turning the tables, what's your justification for denying those who think they have made a terrible mistake in voting for Brexit a chance to rectify it (given that those who don't think they did have every opportunity to repeat their vote)?
you can't just keep rerunning the referendum until you get the result that you want.
The charge that the referendum is being re-run until the result required is achieved is weak on two counts. One, if a majority continue to oppose remaining, it doesn't matter how many times the referendum is re-run, it will always fail. Two, in practice, it would be almost impossible for any government to propose a quick third referendum given both that the justifications for the second won't apply with the same force and there is no time for it. You fall (or glide if you're lucky) off the cliff at the end of next March and there can be no simple glide back on. A second referendum is justified by the stark, imminent and in many ways unexpected threat of a no-deal scenario in a way further referendums can't be. Peak information and opportunity is now.
unenlightenedDecember 11, 2018 at 16:39#2358770 likes
Are you saying the global capitalist system should be democratised?
Well just as it is not the system of nation states, but each nation that should/could be democratised, so each global corporation needs - and I'm not sure that democracy is the right word - accountability of some sort.
What I see is that the function and power of national government is migrating to corporations - security firms, infrastructure firms - G4S, Amazon, the big finance companies, energy companies, Facebook, armament companies, and so on. So what government, and whether it is the sovereign nation or the enlarged trading block ceases to matter very much, because our lives are mainly ruled by corporate powers, which at the moment find that their interests lie in fomenting division and conflict, which serves to secure their position by dividing the opposition. Democracy is a restraint on the power of government, and we need a restraint on the power of corporations now, because that's where the power is; government is no longer in charge.
Haven’t the EU said that there’s nothing left to negotiate? Unless TM abandons her red lines, e.g an end to freedom of movement, this is the only deal on the table.
Yes, they've said statements like that, and I've acknowledged that they've said statements like that. But this is politics. It suits both May's and the EU's agenda to say that. But what other options have they got? It won't get through parliament and a no deal is unthinkable on both sides of the negotiating table, again, in spite of all of the hard talk. So that leaves this as the only viable option. And I don't think that there's a chance in hell that May will opt for a second referendum whilst she still clings to power. Under Corbyn, possibly, but Labour would have to get into power first.
Anyway, I heard that May had already compromised at least some of her red lines. That's what politicians are saying in the media.
ChangelingDecember 11, 2018 at 17:05#2358880 likes
Reply to unenlightened Is the fall of the nation state the reason for the resurgence in nationalism?
ChangelingDecember 11, 2018 at 17:34#2358960 likes
which at the moment find that their interests lie in fomenting division and conflict, which serves to secure their position by dividing the opposition.
Reply to andrewk Some state/local governments in the US have adopted ranked choice voting -- first choice, second choice, third choice -- for state/local elections. This system has been implemented in too few places and too recently (last 10 years) to tell how much of a difference it would make if adopted nationwide. I'd welcome it as a possible break of the lock the Democrat/Republican parties have on power.
There’s been a material change of circumstances: the lies, the overspending, Cambridge Analytica, etc. have been exposed; there’s actual advice on the repercussions of leaving; and now that we know what the Leave deal is we have real information about what we’d be voting for.
There's always lies in any political campaign, that's to be expected, and that doesn't warrant a second referendum. There has been overspending in the past, that also doesn't warrant a second referendum, it warrants being reported and dealt with by the authorities, as in any other case, which it has been, and ditto with Cambridge Analytica.
There [i]was[/I] actual advice on the repercussions of leaving [i]before now[/I], with the government spending millions on posting leaflets to every household, economists making predictions, and politicians and others being all over TV and in the papers talking about the repercussions of Brexit almost nonstop for the last couple of years. Have you been living under a rock?
This being a representative democracy, now that the withdrawal agreement has been published, it was to be put to the houses of parliament to have a meaningful vote and final say. And that is still due to go ahead, whatever May brings back. She can't delay the inevitable.
You have no right to be complacent. The people wanted a direct say, and our representatives were generous enough to grant the people their wish with a referendum, and with the caution that whatever the people chose, both major parties would commit to honouring the result. The people voted to leave.
Now, just because it hasn't gone your way, you want to do the dishonourable thing and reverse all of that, despite the repercussions. And you're scraping the bottom of the barrel for excuses, just like the SNP who were agitating for a second referendum on independence so soon after losing it. Well, no, sorry, but that's not how it works, or how it ought to work. Don't be a sore loser. You lost fair and square. If you want someone to blame, then blame David Cameron. He bears responsibility for much of this mess.
Yes, it did in a sense, but that's on Theresa May for going back on her word and calling a snap general election. From a nonpartisan perspective, I don't generally condone politicians strongly and publicly committing to a course of action, only to u-turn on it later, except in exceptional circumstances. That's why politicians have such a bad reputation, and that's not a good thing.
Yes it would. But that’s a price worth paying to avoid the much worse alternative, especially if May’s deal is voted down and we leave without a deal which will break the Good Friday Agreement. The reality is that the practicalities often require going back on promises, which is why manifesto pledges are rarely, if ever, all fulfilled.
I don't think that we'll leave without a deal, as that's widely considered on all sides to be a worst case scenario. As things stand, May's deal would have almost inevitably been voted down. That's why she had to delay the vote. And that's why she now has to renegotiate a better deal. That's the best option available without betraying the vote to leave. And betraying the vote to leave would do serious damage to the health of our political system and to society. It's not a price worth paying, unless perhaps it triggers a revolution and we end up with a much better system. After a soft Brexit, we won't have it as good as we have it now, but neither will it be the end of the world. We'll set up new trade arrangements and still be a prosperous nation in relatively good health. We will recover.
I don’t. I think Article 50 should just be revoked and Brexit cancelled.
That seems like a very remote possibility at this stage. But maybe if there's a major fuck up, it could happen. May has acknowledged the possibility of there being no Brexit, but seemingly more as a warning and as a tactic. And Corbyn has made mention of all options being on the table, but more as a last resort, and, of course, he is in opposition, not government.
Reply to S Maybe referenda are not such a good idea? Sometimes referenda begin as a way for the "popular will" to be expressed, but most often referenda are started and fueled by some particular interest. California is a good example: A now decades-past referendum on lowering property taxes has degraded California's once excellent public services which depends on property tax revenue. Real estate interests were the instigators and beneficiaries.
Who started Brexit? What was their expected benefit?
This isn’t a game. It’s not about winning and losing. There are very real and very serious consequences to leaving that weren’t apparent during the referendum and that certainly couldn’t have been known before the terms of leaving were actually negotiated.
For some people this really is a life or death issue. There’s talk of staff shortages for the NHS and a negative effect on the medical supply chain, at least in the case of a no deal exit.
This isn’t a game. It’s not about winning and losing. There are very real and very serious consequences to leaving that weren’t apparent during the referendum and that certainly couldn’t have been known before the terms of leaving were actually negotiated.
Sure, and if the choice were made to stay, there'd be people arguing that they didn't realize what staying really meant. That's the thing about decisions. You are stuck with the information you have when you decide.Quoting Michael
For some people this really is a life or death issue. There’s talk of staff shortages for the NHS and a negative effect on the medical supply chain, at least in the case of a no deal exit.
Nobody's going to die. In the US, we don't even have an NHS and everyone, regardless of income, figures out how to get care. You really need to get off the idea that the government is as necessary as it is. That's a very European viewpoint of yours.
My assessment from thousands of miles of way is that the decision to leave was ideological and wasn't based upon a review of the pros and cons of leaving versus staying. It's for that reason that I really don't think any of your data points would be very persuasive to someone in favor of leaving. It's about autonomy, self-governance, self-reliance, and a general view that Brits believe they know what's best for Brits better than anyone else. The opposition will interpret all that as racism and xenophobia I'm sure though.
This isn’t a game. It’s not about winning and losing.
Don't you think I know that? That wasn't my meaning. But the metaphor is apt when you think about this in terms of virtue ethics. Virtue ethics has an important place in politics. If you can't be trusted to play with honour, then that will have detrimental consequences for the game, for players, for supporters, for society. And, when you think about the fact that this has widely been considered to be the biggest political event since the second world war, and when you think about the fact that the referendum brought about the largest turnout for a long time, I can tell you, society would be deeply divided, far more than it is now and than it has been in a long time, and the backlash would be fierce.
There are very real and very serious consequences to leaving that weren’t apparent during the referendum and that certainly couldn’t have been known before the terms of leaving were actually negotiated.
For some people this really is a life or death issue. There’s talk of staff shortages for the NHS and a negative affect on the medical supply chain, at least in the case of a no deal exit.
In the case of a no deal exit...
And what if your favoured course of action caused serious riots? We've had them here before not all that long ago, and they've been going on in France the last several weeks. People lose their lives, people get injured, cars get set on fire, windows get smashed, projectiles get thrown, tear gas, rubber bullets, violence and mayhem.
Remember, 17.4 million people voted to leave. That'd be a huge number of angry citizens feeling betrayed by their government.
There could be an optional preferential referendum, where people list their choices in order.
There could be, but if so, it should only contain options about what kind of Brexit you want, because Remain lost, and that ought to actually mean something.
"We'll honour this referendum, we promise". [I]Loses referendum[/I]. "Scratch that, we're having another referendum, but this time, we'll honour it, promise ". And what if this second referendum were lost? "Come on, guys, let's give it another shot, eh? Third time's a charm!".
And what if this second referendum [i]wasn't[/I] lost? "Oh, never mind that first referendum that we lost, that didn't really count, but this second referendum that we've won, [i]that's[/I] the one that counts".
I would lose trust in the government. I would actually consider voting to leave in protest.
Nobody's going to die. In the US, we don't even have an NHS and everyone, regardless of income, figures out how to get care. You really need to get off the idea that the government is as necessary as it is. That's a very European viewpoint of yours
It isn’t about private or public healthcare. It’s about the UK’s supply chain being tied to us being a member of the single market, given that we don’t manufacture all the drugs. It takes significant time to establish new trade agreements and work out the new logistics of getting stuff into the country.
I'm not trying to persuade them. I'm saying that there is justification for holding a second referendum.
Like I'm saying though, if the justification of those who wanted to leave is that they simply believe in the concept of home rule and autonomy, then your justification holds no weight for them. People who believe in self-rule are not going to be convinced that there will be major failures when they begin to self rule.Quoting Michael
And also that Brexit should just be cancelled without bothering with a second referendum.
I agree with S on this one. You can't defy the democracy, as if you know better for them. The loss of public support for the legitimacy of the system is a bigger loss than simply pulling the plug on the latest economic idea.
Like I'm saying though, if the justification of those who wanted to leave is that they simply believe in the concept of home rule and autonomy, then your justification holds no weight for them. People who believe in self-rule are not going to be convinced that there will be major failures when they begin to self rule.
It’s justified even if they aren’t convinced that it is.
I agree with S on this one. You can't defy the democracy, as if you know better for them. The loss of public support for the legitimacy of the system is a bigger loss than simply pulling the plug on the latest economic idea.
I’d wager that the consequences of a no deal Brexit are worse than the consequences of cancelling Brexit.
It isn’t about private or public healthcare. It’s about the UK’s supply chain being tied to us being a member of the single market, given that we don’t manufacture all the drugs. It takes significant time to establish new trade agreements and work out the new logistics.
I expect diligence on the part of your leaders as well as allowances on the part of other European nations in making sure people don't die of curable diseases. I'm not saying Brexit doesn't matter as I'm sure it will have economic consequences, but I truly think that your concerns that there will a real lack of basic goods and services is alarmist.
What a funny name for it. We just call it preferential voting, and it seems as natural as breathing. I can't think of a single reason why anybody that understands how it works would not want it.
Preferential voting is like having a two-round election like they have in many countries, such as the French Presidential election. Except by marking the preferences on a single ballot, you avoid all the cost and wasted time of having to conduct a second ballot, without losing any of its nuance and functionality. The elimination of less supported candidates and narrowing down to a final two happens automatically.
There must have been a lot of misinformation about for it to have been rejected in 2011. I suppose the Tories prefer first past the post because Labour and Lib Dem would direct preferences to one another, and thereby be elected much more often than at present.
It's largely tactical, I suspect. I think alternative voting systems threaten the pattern of governments alternating between Labour and Conservative, or threaten to decrease the Labour-Conservative share of seats, and most people, being either Labour or Conservative, therefore have an incentive to preserve the status quo. It comes as no surprise that most of the smaller parties, like the Lib Dems, Greens, and UKIP have supported alternative voting systems, whereas the two major parties seem content enough with the current system. First past the post, over the last decade, has helped prevent UKIP candidates from gaining seats, which I consider a positive.
No it wouldn't. It would be a third people's vote. The first vote was in 1973, and the result was to remain.
Yes, I was aware of that. Although the result was to join, not to remain. Back then "remain" would've had a different meaning. But the reason I didn't include [i]that[/I] people's vote is because it was forty-five years ago, as opposed to just two years ago. I'd be much more sympathetic to a people's vote if it was to occur in forty-five years time since the last one.
I don't live in the UK, but I'm in favor of there eventually being world unification/a one-world government...
Dream on. That'll never work. The world is too big a place, with multiple conflicting interests. There will always be a great number of those who would oppose unification and prevent it from happening. And if it became corrupt, it would be harder to topple. That actually makes me think of The Empire in Star Wars.
Terrapin StationDecember 11, 2018 at 20:45#2360340 likes
The world is too big a place, with multiple conflicting interests.
The main thing we'd need to get over is people wanting to control others. We'd need people to be comfortable with letter others do their own (consensual) things
The main thing we'd need to get over is people wanting to control others. We'd need people to be comfortable with letter others do their own (consensual) things.
So, we'd need people to stop acting like people? You're wading into sci-fi territory here. What do you propose? Forcibly inserting a chip into people's brains? The Clockwork Orange method? Eugenics, as per a Brave New World?
Plebiscites aren't won or lost. They choose between options. Since all three options in my proposal above are clear, concrete and possible without agreement from outside parties, it would be political suicide for a government to not implement the result, whatever it was.
This contrasts strictly with the 2016 plebiscite, which was purely aspirational, with no concrete options on the table, and no knowledge of what the consequences of the 'leave' option would be, since they would require agreement from the EU. It's like having a plebiscite question 'would you like to have lower tax', when there's no specification of what services would be cut, and which ones, or whether the fiscal deficit would be allowed to increase instead.
For a plebiscite to be credible it needs to have concrete options that can be implemented without requiring consent from extra-territorial parties.
Look at how bills are turned into acts in parliament. They are not voted or even formally debated until a bill is presented that spells out ALL the details.
BTW I use the term plebiscite here because referendums actually change the law directly, whereas plebiscites are an indication of preference, on which the government is expected to act. In Australia we have both referenda (on things like conscription and banning the communist party - both lost) and plebiscites (recently on marriage equality). My understanding is that the UK has no provision for referenda in its constitution, so only plebiscites are possible.
Plebiscites aren't won or lost. They choose between options.
No, they are either won are lost in the right context. Are you just going to ignore the context, or background, here? We've already had a referendum, and there were two sides: Leave and Remain. Leave won, Remain lost. It's either disingenuous or some sort of pedantry to deny that there are winners and losers here, as in any referendum or election.
Now, the hypothetical scenario of which I spoke was spoken of in terms indicating that it was addressing the Remain side, i.e. the losers, and it raised the valid concern about what the implications would be if the Remain side won a second time around; meaning, going by your options, the third option to cancel Brexit and remain a member of the EU.
Since all three options in my proposal above are clear, concrete and possible without agreement from outside parties, it would be political suicide for a government to not implement the result, whatever it was.
It was political suicide for the Lib Dems under Nick Clegg to go back on their word to scrap university tuition fees. The pledge to scrap university tuition fees didn't have the support of anything close to 17.4 million people. So don't be so hasty in supposing that doing anything other than honouring the result of the referendum - by which I mean the one that we actually had back in June of 2016, in which the clear result was to leave the EU, not the as yet purely hypothetical second referendum - would be damaging, if not political suicide. And advocating a second referendum hasn't exactly revived the fortunes of the Lib Dems.
This contrasts strictly with the 2016 plebiscite, which was purely aspirational, with no concrete options on the table, and no knowledge of what the consequences of the 'leave' option would be, since they would require agreement from the EU. It's like having a plebiscite question 'would you like to have lower tax', when there's no specification of what services would be cut, and which ones, or whether the fiscal deficit would be allowed to increase instead.
Yes, the option to leave does indeed umbrella into a variety of other options, but one thing's for sure, remaining in the EU isn't one of them. Since the UK voted to leave, and therefore not remain in the EU, then the option to remain in the EU has no rightful place being on that ballot, as it completely goes against the will of the people, as expressed by the majority who voted to leave in the referendum. It would be utterly wrong of you or anyone else to risk undoing or invalidating that result. What do you think gives you that right? The people have spoken, and it's the duty of the government, as representatives of the people, to honour the result, as they have committed to doing. And if those in charge have a backbone, then they'll do just that, or risk being punished by the electorate.
For a plebiscite to be credible it needs to have concrete options that can be implemented without requiring consent from extra-territorial parties.
Look at how bills are turned into acts in parliament. They are not voted or even formally debated until a bill is presented that spells out ALL the details.
BTW I use the term plebiscite here because referendums actually change the law directly, whereas plebiscites are an indication of preference, on which the government is expected to act. In Australia we have both referenda (on things like conscription and banning the communist party - both lost) and plebiscites (recently on marriage equality). My understanding is that the UK has no provision for referenda in its constitution, so only plebiscites are possible.
I've got nothing against that. By all means, let's have more details, let's have a vote on the various options, the various ways of leaving, but let's not risk undoing and rendering meaningless the 2016 referendum, of which a great number of people turned out to vote, and in which a great number of people are invested, by including the option to remain in the EU, the option that lost out two years ago. We ought to move forward, and move forward without taking two steps back with each step forward.
Sorry but that is wrong, we were taken into the EEC in 1973 by the then Conservative govt under the leadership of PM Edward Heath, (without a referendum)
In 1975 the first referendum was whether to remain in the EEC.
Sorry but that is wrong, we were taken into the EEC in 1973 by the then Conservative govt under the leadership of PM Edward Heath, (without a referendum)
In 1975 the first referendum was whether to remain in the EEC.
Okay, I stand corrected. (I probably should have checked before commenting).
Since the UK voted to leave, and therefore not remain in the EU, then the option to remain in the EU has no rightful place being on that ballot, as it completely goes against the will of the people, as expressed by the majority who voted to leave in the referendum. It would be utterly wrong of you or anyone else to risk undoing or invalidating that result. What do you think gives you that right?
I understand that you think it would be utterly wrong. I am not convinced of your arguments for that.
My position is that the question asked in the plebiscite was inappropriate for a binding vote. The solution is to have a vote with options that are appropriate for a binding vote. That means options that clearly outline what would happen in each case, not just some airy-fairy magic word like 'leave'.
Australia had a plebiscite about becoming a republic in 1999. In opinion polls a large majority of respondents responded 'Yes' to the question 'Do you want Australia to become a republic'. But that question is inappropriate for a binding vote, because there are many different types of republic one could become. Quite rightly, the PM at the time insisted on the vote being on a specific concrete option. Quite wrongly - IMHO - he chose an option that he knew would be unpalatable to most republicans - essentially 'republic lite', like 'Brexit lite'. Quite rightly (IMHO again) the voters rejected that, even though most would say they wanted a republic.
A truly fair process would have been to have an optional preferential vote ('AV' for Poms) that listed the various models:
1. No change
2. Directly elected President
3. President elected by majority of both houses of parliament
4. President appointed by a committee that is appointed by parliament [the option that was put forward in the actual plebiscite]
But the PM was a devout monarchist so he didn't want to do that, as a republican option (either 2 or 3) would almost certainly have won.
But I still do agree with him that it would have been inappropriate to put the question 'Do you want a republic' to a referendum. And that's despite me being a staunch republican who still occasionally mourns that lost opportunity 19 years ago.
Number2018December 11, 2018 at 23:39#2361170 likes
There are numerous attempts to represent the majority of those who voted in favor of Brexit as mislead by irresponsible politicians, ignorant, not sufficiently informed, not responsible, etc. Therefore, now they are given a precious and rare opportunity to fix the mistake, to conduct another referendum or just to cancel the previous one. Nevertheless, if one considers that Brexit has been an outstanding example of the contemporary direct democracy when people directly and openly expressed their will, its failure will demonstrate the supremacy of elite over defenseless people.
My assessment from thousands of miles of way is that the decision to leave was ideological and wasn't based upon a review of the pros and cons of leaving versus staying. It's for that reason that I really don't think any of your data points would be very persuasive to someone in favor of leaving. It's about autonomy, self-governance, self-reliance, and a general view that Brits believe they know what's best for Brits better than anyone else. The opposition will interpret all that as racism and xenophobia I'm sure though.
Pretty spot on, I'd say. The phrase often bandied around is "taking back control". Of our borders, our laws, our agriculture, our fisheries, our ability to strike trade deals with nations outside of the European Union. Even though the evidence suggests that we'll be economically worse off, which is a biggie for me.
But then, there very likely is a saturation of herpa derps who voted leave because dey derrrk our jerrbs!! Especially the ukippers.
My position is that the question asked in the plebiscite was inappropriate for a binding vote. The solution is to have a vote with options that are appropriate for a binding vote.
That wouldn't have been such an issue, in my opinion, if the government and the official leave campaign, had (1) been better prepared, and (2) been more transparent. Although, admittedly, I do think that they were quite clear on [i]some[/I] of the key points about what a leave vote would entail - and no, I don't mean the idiotic sound bites, such as "leave means means" and "a red, white, and blue Brexit" - such as leaving the customs union and the single market, as well as regaining control of our borders.
Anyway, I'm glad that you didn't become a republic. I'm quite fond of the monarchy and commonwealth.
It's pretty clear that the complexities and complications of Brexit were not foregrounded enough by the overly complacent and disparate Remain campaign. That's their fault, but added to that, the Leave campaign has been shown to have lied and cheated, and in the end only won by a slim margin. So, there's a possibility that some who voted did so on the basis of incomplete or false information, and there might be enough who realize that now and have changed their minds to call the result into question. If that is the case, a second referendum will overturn the first and reverse the decision fairly and squarely. If it's not, it won't. And far from being betrayed, those of the 17.4 million who voted to leave and now realize they made a mistake will have a chance to rectify it. Just as if you buy a product and realize it doesn't function as advertised, you generally have a right to change your mind, if you vote for a change of policy in a referendum and there's a reasonable case to be made that you voted on the basis of false or incomplete information, you should also be given a chance to change your mind. And in a free and fair referendum, which involves a chance to not change your mind too, I don't see what's unethical. So, turning the tables, what's your justification for denying those who think they have made a terrible mistake in voting for Brexit a chance to rectify it (given that those who don't think they did have every opportunity to repeat their vote)?
Is it not ultimately the responsibility of voters to do their own research before such an important vote, and to make up their own mind? Is it not the responsibility of voters to have heeded the warning that the referendum will be treated as binding, and that there'll be no going back? It was said by David Cameron often enough. That's the equivalent of it being made clear to you that there are no refunds for this particular product that you've purchased, but then you go back and demand a refund anyway. Yes, at the campaign stage, both campaigns could have - and ideally should have - been clearer, more honest, more balanced, and so on... but honestly, what did we expect? We know that politicians lie and twist the truth, we know that they have an agenda to push. Are we really so naive as to believe anything different? We've made our bed, now we have to lie in it.
The charge that the referendum is being re-run until the result required is achieved is weak on two counts. One, if a majority continue to oppose remaining, it doesn't matter how many times the referendum is re-run, it will always fail.
That's problematic because (1) on principle, why should it be rerun in the first place? And (2) it's still a risk.
Two, in practice, it would be almost impossible for any government to propose a quick third referendum given both that the justifications for the second won't apply with the same force and there is no time for it. You fall (or glide if you're lucky) off the cliff at the end of next March and there can be no simple glide back on. A second referendum is justified by the stark, imminent and in many ways unexpected threat of a no-deal scenario in a way further referendums can't be. Peak information and opportunity is now.
I don't actually believe that there [i]would[/I] be a second, third, fourth, fifth, and so on, until the desired outcome is achieved. That's not really the point. It's a hypothetical designed to get the point across about a loss of trust. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
I expect so, yes. More so under the Tories. Theresa May has said that the focus will be on high-skilled workers.
That's kind of saddening: that we respond to the burden of taking care of our neighbors by turning into rightwing populists. Or maybe it's just that rightwing populist movement is a sign that the stress of immigration is becoming too high?
That's kind of saddening: that we respond to the burden of taking care of our neighbors by turning into rightwing populists. Or maybe it's just that the rightwing populist movement is a sign that the stress of immigration is becoming too high?
I find it more worrying than saddening. And I really don't see much of a problem with immigration, to be honest. Why would I? It's a net benefit, economically. Who cares about "integration"? Okay, so your neighbour speaks a foreign language, dresses differently, and so on: how is that a problem for you? Mind your own damn business. If you struggle to get work or find a school placement, then try looking inwards, or at what the goverment is doing, instead of scapegoating immigrants. If the alleged stress of immigration you speak of is the "stress on the system" that people talk about, then just take look at who keeps our beloved NHS running, or again, at what our government is doing, or not doing. Or, if the alleged stress of immigration you speak of is psychological in nature, then perhaps check yourself into our beloved NHS and get your head checked.
Reply to S You're getting moralistic about it. I was trying to understand it mechanically. Clinton's point was that the pattern is repeating in multiple places.
You're getting moralistic about it. I was trying to understand it mechanically. Clinton's point was that the pattern is repeating in multiple places.
My take on it is that it probably has something to do with an anti-establishment sentiment, a feeling of not being listened to, with charismatic, outspoken mavericks striking a chord, and with the exploitation of fears and prejudices.
I'm assuming Brexit is pretty big news globally now, so what are people's thoughts on it? I think there should be a people's vote.
I think it's a total cock-up. Cameron miscalculated disastrously calling it, but now the genie is out of the bottle. I'm really hoping the net result of the current schemozzle is that there is a second vote and Remain wins by a decent margin. The worst case is a no-deal exit which many say will cause a deep recession.
As for Theresa May - I think she has done the only thing she was able to do, which is, negotiate a deal. The Brexiteers never would have even deigned to negotiate. Personally I think she should have held the vote, resigned, and said, 'Here, Boris, you look after it'. Talk about a poisoned chalice.
Anyway, my wishes for 2019 are that Brexit is abandoned (and that Trump is impeached). The results of both those votes have been and will continue to be unmitigated disaster for the world.
I'm interested in hearing jamalrob's opinion on proceedings.
Hi Evil. I don't think I have the heart for this debate any more. Who knows, maybe I'll muster the energy to gather up my tatty old opinions for another try, but maybe not.
Is it not ultimately the responsibility of voters to do their own research before such an important vote, and to make up their own mind?
There's a dual responsibility on voters and on the campaigns providing voters with information. That is, respectively, to do a reasonably thorough job of searching for information and to do a reasonably honest job of providing information. Even if the voters carry out their responsibility fully, if the campaign is found not to have (as the Leave campaign has) and particularly if the vote was won narrowly (as it was) then the result is called into question. And if the result is called into question, the most straightforward and fair way to resolve the question is to repeat the referendum.
That's the equivalent of it being made clear to you that there are no refunds for this particular product that you've purchased, but then you go back and demand a refund anyway. Yes, at the campaign stage, both campaigns could have - and ideally should have - been clearer, more honest, more balanced, and so on... but honestly, what did we expect? We know that politicians lie and twist the truth, we know that they have an agenda to push. Are we really so naive as to believe anything different? Are we really so naive as to believe anything different? We've made our bed, now we have to lie in it.
Saying "Tough luck" isn't a moral argument. The public may not be entitled to expect full honesty from politicians, but they are at least entitled to expect that neither campaign break the law, which the Leave campaign did.
Analogously, if someone advertising a product as non-refundable breaks the law in terms of the information it provides concerning the product, that condition becomes moot and they may be forced to give a refund regardless. Similar rules apply to contract law. That a company writes in a service contract that the second you sign it there's no going back doesn't matter if there is a legally binding cooling-off period written into law. And I expect if you were duped through illegal methods into buying something that turned out to have been falsely advertised and you were no longer satisfied with it, you'd feel you had the high moral ground in demanding a refund regardless of the conditions under which you bought it. And the law would rightly back you up.
All this is to say that considering the conditions under which this particular referendum took place and the close result thereafter, there is no ethical justification for denying those who voted to leave on the basis of false information and an illegally conducted campaign the opportunity to rectify their mistake.
Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
Yes, millions of voters were fooled once by the Leave campaign into voting for something they didn't really want, and they shouldn't now be fooled into thinking there's anything wrong with being allowed to have another say. Thankfully, polls show they're not being so fooled with a plurality now supporting a people's vote. And no-one with a democratic bone in their body should deny them one.
Maybe referenda are not such a good idea? Sometimes referenda begin as a way for the "popular will" to be expressed, but most often referenda are started and fueled by some particular interest. California is a good example: A now decades-past referendum on lowering property taxes has degraded California's once excellent public services which depends on property tax revenue. Real estate interests were the instigators and beneficiaries.
I don't know. There are pros and cons. I like the idea of self-determination in the form of a referendum put to the electorate of a nation on certain important issues, like the Scottish independence referendum and the Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, so long as a sufficient length of time has passed since the last one on the same issue. But on the other hand, I wish that we had never had the EU referendum. Although, if enough people would've demanded it, then I think that the government would've been duty bound to offer one.
Who started Brexit? What was their expected benefit?
I think that David Cameron was the main culprit, despite the part that others had to play in it, like Nigel Farage. He was the Prime Minister, after all. Before the referendum took place, he expected to negotiate worthwhile reforms from the EU and quell the rabble rousers within his own party, but that failed, and it left many people with feelings of disappointment and frustration that the reforms didn't go far enough. He then tried in vein to spin his agreed reforms as a great success, but very few were buying it. Then he expected to win the campaign he lead to remain, secure our membership to the EU for the foreseeable future, put the matter to rest for some time, and go some way to healing the divisions in his party. That backfired quite spectacularly, and he resigned shortly afterwards, leaving others to pick up the pieces. Thanks Dave!
Pattern-chaserDecember 12, 2018 at 14:17#2363180 likes
I'm just happy the Brits, every now and then, are taking the pressure off us Americans for being the biggest shitshow country
Yes, every time I'm tempted to show my contempt for the US, and the President it chose, I remember we chose to teach the world a lesson :worry: by walking away from the most favourable membership-position in the biggest economic power block on the planet. :fear:
Terrapin StationDecember 12, 2018 at 14:34#2363220 likes
es, every time I'm tempted to show my contempt for the US, and the President it chose,
If we're not to choose him again in 2020 the Democrats had better start getting their act together pretty soon and come up with some viable candidates, people who don't already have a mound of controversy in their past, people who aren't 80 years old or whatever already, and people who have some charisma, with an ability to appeal to some of the people who would otherwise vote for Trump.
I’d wager that the consequences of a no deal Brexit are worse than the consequences of cancelling Brexit.
But that's comparing an unpopular worst case scenario of Brexit to cancelling Brexit. I'd wager that the consequences of a soft Brexit which meets most people's expectations [i]wouldn't[/I] be worse than the consequences of cancelling that kind of Brexit.
I am hopeful that those doing the negotiating will be sensible enough to do their best to avoid that worst case scenario. But if that risk reaches a point where it seriously looks like it's going to become a reality, then yes, I think that cancelling Brexit should be an option on the table, as I doubt that there's a majority, whether of the people or in parliament, for a no deal Brexit.
If we're not to choose him again in 2020 the Democrats had better start getting their act together pretty soon and come up with some viable candidates, people who don't already have a mound of controversy in their past, people who aren't 80 years old or whatever already, and people who have some charisma, with an ability to appeal to some of the people who would otherwise vote for Trump.
So Beto.
Terrapin StationDecember 12, 2018 at 14:49#2363250 likes
Well, if he can't beat Trump in any of the traditionally conservative states, doesn't that make him score low in the "ability to appeal to some of the people who would otherwise vote for Trump" metric?
There hasn't been a Democrat Senator in Texas since 1993. Cruz won it in 2012 by 16pp, but only beat Beto by 2.6pp. That's a big swing. I don't know how much of that is down to Beto being Beto, but he probably appealed to a lot of people who usually vote Republican.
If he can pull that off in the swing states that Trump won then he can beat Trump.
Terrapin StationDecember 12, 2018 at 15:00#2363300 likes
There hasn't been a Democrat Senator in Texas since 1993. Cruz won it in 2012 by 16pp, but only beat Beto by 2.6pp. That's a big swing. I don't know how much of that is down to Beto being Beto, but he probably appealed to a lot of people who usually vote Republican.
If he can pull that off in the swing states that Trump won then he can beat Trump.
Well, if he can't beat Trump in any of the traditionally conservative states, doesn't that make him score low in the "ability to appeal to some of the people who would otherwise vote for Trump" metric?
But think about the metrics that Trump scored low in. Women and minorities constitute a very significant portion of the electorate. And he had little hope of winning them over in big numbers. Yet he still won. I think the Democrats need someone who can stand out and match or supersede the momentum behind Trump, even if it might cost them swing votes.
Pattern-chaserDecember 12, 2018 at 15:05#2363330 likes
Putting all the wrangling to one side we are left with the fact that the majority of voters in the referendum indicated a wish to leave the EU.
Yes, but equally straightforward is the observation that the majority you refer to is quite a small one, so the people who voted against are not many fewer than those who voted for. That is the problem: the split is more or less even, in the country and across the government. The original referendum should have had a 66% or 75% threshold for change, given the seriousness of the decision being made. That was Cameron's crime against the British people: not putting that threshold in place. But now, given the mess he's left us all in, there's no fixing it, that I can see.
If it was possible, I would re-run the original referendum, with a 66% threshold, allowing 15+ year-olds to vote, and disallowing anyone over 70, who will not be around to suffer the consequences (or reap the benefits). But that can't happen, if only because of Cameron's failure to ensure a threshold in the first vote.
Can anyone see a way out of this catastrophic mess?
Pattern-chaserDecember 12, 2018 at 15:11#2363350 likes
I'd wager that the consequences of a soft Brexit which meets most people's expectations...
Do you honestly think there's any sort of Brexit that would command a majority of the British people? I don't, and I think that's why we're in such a serious mess. There is IMO no solution that "meets most people's expectations". [ Unless "most" is meant to mean just-barely-over 50%.] :fear:
Yes, but equally straightforward is the observation that the majority you refer to is quite a small one, so the people who voted against are not many fewer than those who voted for. That is the problem: the split is more or less even, in the country and across the government. The original referendum should have had a 66% or 75% threshold for change, given the seriousness of the decision being made. That was Cameron's crime against the British people: not putting that threshold in place. But now, given the mess he's left us all in, there's no fixing it, that I can see.
It seems slight in percentage, but in actual numbers, over 1.2 million (source) more people voted to leave. And that seems more significant to me.
If it was possible, I would re-run the original referendum, with a 66% threshold, allowing 15+ year-olds to vote, and disallowing anyone over 70, who will not be around to suffer the consequences (or reap the benefits). But that can't happen, if only because of Cameron's failure to ensure a threshold in the first vote.
I wouldn't rerun the referendum, but I wouldn't have minded if the referendum that we had, had've been run under similar conditions to what you propose. A 66% - 75% threshold seems too high to be fair, though. If the results were 60-40, for example, then that would look like a fair win to me. But it's too late for that now.
YouGov did an interesting poll where considering Remain, Leave (no deal) and Leave (May's deal) as options, Remain wins on any head to head, but May's deal wins on a three-way alternative vote. I suppose because most Remainers and most Leave no-dealers would favour just about anything over each other's respective positions. Something like a soft Brexit is probably the fairest option then as it allows Leavers to give their coveted up-yours to Johnny Foreigner while only shooting themselves (and everyone else) in the foot rather than in the head.
ChangelingDecember 12, 2018 at 15:27#2363410 likes
Theresa May may be a goner by the end of today... https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-46535739
Pattern-chaserDecember 12, 2018 at 15:31#2363420 likes
There's a dual responsibility on voters and on the campaigns providing voters with information. That is, respectively, to do a reasonably thorough job of searching for information and to do a reasonably honest job of providing information. Even if the voters carry out their responsibility fully, if the campaign is found not to have (as the Leave campaign has) and particularly if the vote was won narrowly (as it was) then the result is called into question. And if the result is called into question, the most straightforward and fair way to resolve the question is to repeat the referendum.
But that seems like an inconsistent and opportunistic position, as you aren't piping up about other elections or referenda which succumbed to similar faults being rendered invalid and needing to be rerun or compensated in some kind of way, are you? How are you not guilty of a double standard? To be consistent, this would mean that we've had quite a few invalid general elections. What are we to do about that, then?
It is, actually. It's just phrased in a straight talking manner. For example, if you're found guilty of murder, then you're going to prison. If you don't like that, tough luck! You should've thought about that before committing a serious crime. Agree or disagree?
The public may not be entitled to expect full honesty from politicians, but they are at least entitled to expect that neither campaign break the law, which the Leave campaign did.
Yes, I know, I haven't ever disputed that. But that has been dealt with, or is being dealt with, appropriately in the usual manner in which these things are dealt. Your proposed way of dealing with it stands out as unusual, and opportunistic. It lacks precedent. We have authorities and a legal system to deal with matters such as this. People like you, on the other hand, are exploiting this for a political agenda.
Analogously, if someone advertising a product as non-refundable breaks the law in terms of the information it provides concerning the product, that condition becomes moot and they may be forced to give a refund regardless. Similar rules apply to contract law. That a company writes in a service contract that the second you sign it there's no going back doesn't matter if there is a legally binding cooling-off period written into law. And I expect if you were duped through illegal methods into buying something that turned out to have been falsely advertised and you were no longer satisfied with it, you'd feel you had the high moral ground in demanding a refund regardless of the conditions under which you bought it. And the law would rightly back you up.
Yes, it should be dealt with by the relevant authorities in accordance with the law. And it has, or is. But no judge has ruled that the referendum be declared invalid and be rerun. And they probably aren't going to. It's the politicians, journalists, TV personalities, activists, and people like you who are calling out for another referendum.
All this is to say that considering the conditions under which this particular referendum took place and the close result thereafter, there is no ethical justification for denying those who voted to leave on the basis of false information and an illegally conducted campaign the opportunity to rectify their mistake.
There is, and I've made the case for rejecting calls for a second referendum here in this discussion.
Yes, millions of voters were fooled once by the Leave campaign into voting for something they didn't really want, and they shouldn't now be fooled into thinking there's anything wrong with being allowed to have another say. Thankfully, polls show they're not being so fooled with a plurality now supporting a people's vote. And no-one with a democratic bone in their body should deny them one.
Tell that to most of the 17.4 million people who voted to leave, and would do so again, as numerous polls indicate, yet who are strongly against a second referendum being held because it risks undoing the results of a referendum which we were promised over and again would be upheld. You suggest rectifying lies by creating more lies? I don't think so. It has been accepted that we're leaving for two years now. The goverment has been working towards making that happen all of this time. You Remoaners really ought to stop making excuses to change the past and accept the situation for what it is. The situation isn't great, but we're locked into it, lest we face the double whammy of betraying the people and damaging the credibility of our political system. Something extraordinary needs to take place to warrant undoing that, and that [i]could[/I] take the form of an impending and unwanted no deal scenario, which would be quite disastrous.
But that seems like an inconsistent and opportunistic position, as you aren't piping up about other elections or referenda which succumbed to similar faults being rendered invalid and needing to be rerun or compensated in some kind of way, are you?
That's an odd charge. The topic of this conversation is Brexit, which is why that's the focus of my posts. I'm not under any obligation in order to maintain consistency to research and comment on other referenda that were closely fought and narrowly won through illegal means (and I don't know of any off-hand). Which were you referring to? Name one.
It is, actually. It's just phrased in a straight talking manner. For example, if you're found guilty of murder, then you're going to prison, but you don't want to go to prison, then tough luck! You should've thought about that before committing a serious crime. Agree or disagree?
It isn't a moral argument in the context in which you applied it, which didn't involve any crime or immoral act on the part of those who you aimed the comment at.
Yes, I know, I haven't ever disputed that. But that has been dealt with, or is being dealt with, appropriately in the usual manner in which these things are dealt. Your proposed way of dealing with it stands out as unusual, and opportunistic. It lacks precedent. With have authorities and legal system to deal with matters such as this. You're using this for a political agenda.
The issue is what an ethical response would be and that's what I was explicating. So again, you're filling your posts with irrelevancies. It doesn't matter what political viewpoint I take or whether it appears opportunistic to you. The argument that a referendum that may have been won by cheating should be repeated so as not to deny those cheated a chance to change their minds stands on its own merits.
Yes, it should be dealt with by the relevant authorities in accordance with the law. And it has, or is. But no judge has ruled that the referendum be declared invalid and be rerun.
Nor have they ruled that it can't be. Which is why we're having this discussion.
There is, and I've made the case for rejecting calls for a second referendum here in this discussion.
An extremely weak case from which when you extract all the irrelevancies and accusations concerning the motives of your opposition still boils down to nothing more than "tough luck".
Tell that to the vast majority* of the 17.4 million people who voted to leave, and would do so again, yet are strongly against a second referendum because it risks undoing the results of a referendum which we were told would be upheld.
Those who are strongly against a new referendum are strongly against it because they might lose one that's run fairly and without illegality or cheating. Again, a very weak position morally.
*Numerous polls show that most people on either side would vote the same way.
"Most" does not equal "The vast majority" btw. And if a significant number wouldn't vote the same way, which polls do show (see my last post), why should they be denied that opportunity? Oh I know, "tough luck" because murderers have to go to prison. You're going to have to do better than that.
You suggest rectifying lies by creating more lies?
No (and I have no idea where you got that from. Where did I suggest we "create" more lies?). I suggest an unfair referendum where one side conducted their campaign dishonestly and illegally (in part) be rectified with a fair referendum where both sides conduct their campaigns honestly and legally.
And she will be replaced by [ insert the name of a suitable candidate here]? :chin:
Pattern-chaser & Evil:And she will be replaced by [ Pattern-chaser ]
Reply to Evil Oh no, I don't think so. I'm not much of a diplomat. If I was in charge, anyone who owned more than £5m would have the balance removed; income tax would be abolished and moved onto resource-consumption, business and commerce (from where it would return to the common people via retail pricing); Brexit would be cancelled; the national anthem will be replaced by "21st century schizoid man", and so on. I suspect the British people wouldn't like/want me, despite the good I would do....
Pattern-chaserDecember 12, 2018 at 16:53#2363640 likes
The situation isn't great, but we're locked into it, lest we face the double whammy of betraying the people and damaging the credibility of our political system.
I rather think we here in the United Kingdom have a long-established tradition of our governments betraying us, whereby our political system long ago lost its integrity and credibility.
Do you honestly think there's any sort of Brexit that would command a majority of the British people?
But, irrespective of my answer to that question, the fact of the matter is that Leave won the referendum. So we're not starting from scratch here. [U]As things stand[/u], Remain is no longer a viable option. So it wouldn't be the various kinds of Brexit vs. Remain - which would split the Leave vote whilst keeping intact the Remain vote, meaning that Remain would probably win. It would be the various kinds of Brexit vs. each other, and for that, I can confidently predict that a no deal Brexit would lose. There would be a majority in favour of some sort of deal being struck.
Something extraordinary needs to take place to warrant undoing that, and that could take the form of an impending and unwanted no deal scenario, which would be quite disastrous.
That's what I'm arguing on the basis of, the possibility of a no-deal scenario. May's deal does not have parliament's support and there is no deal B both according to her and to Europe. If May's deal had been passed, we wouldn't be having this conversation as there would be nothing left to talk about. So...
unenlightenedDecember 12, 2018 at 17:25#2363710 likes
Oh no, I don't think so. I'm not much of a diplomat. If I was in charge, anyone who owned more than £5m would have the balance removed; income tax would be abolished and moved onto resource-consumption, business and commerce (from where it would return to the common people via retail pricing); Brexit would be cancelled; the national anthem will be replaced by "21st century schizoid man", and so on. I suspect the British people wouldn't like/want me, despite the good I would do....
I rather think we here in the United Kingdom have a long-established tradition of our governments betraying us, whereby our political system long ago lost its integrity and credibility.
It's not completely lost. The damage can manifest itself in terms of low turnouts, protest votes, protests, and in extreme cases, riots. If the system is already in poor health, let's not make it worse if it can be avoided.
Reply to Baden My general response to your hyper-litigious position, which essentially submits any disagreeable voter outcome to a do over if any irregularity can be found, is worse than the problem it seeks to solve. We must assume, absent some extreme case, that each side of the political battle wages its best fight for its position, and if it doesn't, it pays the price with a loss. To do otherwise attacks the heart of democratic decision making.
In other words, the Brexits won. Game over. Stop bitching at the refs to achieve in the courtroom what you couldn't achieve on the playing field. These efforts of yours at fairness are really just efforts to force through a minority position that you think is obviously right despite it being less popular. Go back to the gym, work harder, and get them next time.
If the UK's exit from the EU turns catastrophic, they'll just reenter later. It's not like the EU nations are unforgiving. The real concern is if the UK thrives, how long will Germany hang in there and carry its poorer neighbors? No one here has actually contemplated the possibility that the good citizens of the UK might have made the right call here.
None of this has to be litigated in a courtroom any more than it has been. Leave has been found guilty of cheating and the government doesn't have to ask a court's permission for a new referendum. What we're arguing over is whether a new referendum would be ethical given the circumstances of the last. (As for the bitching/gym workout/sore loser part, I've had that from Sap already and it still doesn't an argument make. Whether I'm a disgruntled remain voter (which I'm not, I'm not even British) or an objective outside observer or whatever in-between makes no difference here).
If the UK's exit from the EU turns catastrophic, they'll just reenter later. It's not like the EU nations are unforgiving. The real concern is if the UK thrives, how long will Germany hang in there and carry its poorer neighbors? No one here has actually contemplated the possibility that the good citizens of the UK might have made the right call here.
Economically, they haven't. According to every study done. For very obvious reasons. The only practical gain here is for those who want less immigration. And the implication that Germany is carrying its poorer neighbours (in the sense of losing money due to being in a club with them) and looking to the UK's example as a possibility to follow is just ridiculous. Germany as the world's third biggest exporter needs easily-accessible markets for its goods. The Euros it pays in to develop and grow these local markets are more than paid back by the increasing purchasing power of the poorer countries it's "carrying". That's why it's been so pro-European all this time. Not because it doesn't know what it's doing, but because, unlike the UK, it does. And exit from the EU would be even more devastating for it than for Britain.
Pattern-chaserDecember 12, 2018 at 20:29#2364550 likes
Do you honestly think there's any sort of Brexit that would command a majority of the British people? — Pattern-chaser
But, irrespective of my answer to that question, the fact of the matter is...
I'd hoped for an answer to the question, not tired propaganda. :confused: The problem now, today, is that there is no solution that will satisfy enough of us for it to be considered acceptable. Do you dispute this?
What we're arguing over is whether a new referendum would be ethical given the circumstances of the last. (As for the bitching/gym workout/sore loser part, I've had that from Sap already and it still doesn't an argument make
And I say it's unethical to demand a new vote because you lost pretty much fair and square. Nothing's perfect of course. I'm less troubled by misstatements and misrepresentations during the campaign than I am cheating during the process (like stuffing the ballot box or blocking votes). Voting is a free for all, and everyone has to exercise their due diligence in deciding how to vote. That's what democracy is. Quoting Baden
Whether I'm a disgruntled remain voter (which I'm not, I'm not even British) or an objective outside observer or whatever in-between makes no difference here).
Which brings up the point of why the Irish were allowed to Irisexit from the UK when it's fairly obvious that it cost them economically, yet we all know that economics should always be the primary driver in determining whether a nation seeks sovereignty, right? I think Ireland's doing ok now, but I don't know if anyone is left. Quoting Baden
The Euros it pays in to develop and grow these local markets are more than paid back by the increasing purchasing power of the poorer countries it's "carrying".
This is sort of the karmic theory of economics where when you help out your neighbors, fairness rains from the heavens and everyone does well. What actually is happening is that the Euro is undervalued compared to what a single nation deutschmark would be and that has allowed Germany to increase its exports and profit handsomely . https://economicquestions.org/germany-unfair-trade-advantages/ The argument isn't that Germany has propped up its weaker neighbors and thereby permitted them to become worthy customers now enjoying previously unforeseen wealth, but it is that Germany is unfairly benefiting from a relatively weak Euro and making less competitive nations even less competitive.
That's what I have gleaned from my good 20 minute Google investment into European economic theory at least.
That's what I have gleaned from my good 20 minute Google investment into European economic theory at least.
At least you're no longer claiming Germany would benefit from leaving the EU, which is progress I suppose. Maybe next try Googling "Ireland" +"History" + "Colonisation" + "For dummies" or some variation thereof.
(If all this is not sufficiently patronising btw, please let me know. I'm only in first gear here.)
unenlightenedDecember 12, 2018 at 22:29#2365040 likes
If the UK's exit from the EU turns catastrophic, they'll just reenter later. It's not like the EU nations are unforgiving.
I wonder what makes you think that? I am old enough to remember when DeGaulle blocked the UK application to join the EEC as then was for many years, and having lived in France, I think the sentiment there will be fairly unforgiving, as the UK has not been an enthusiastic supporter of the project, but typically the awkward one, demanding special arrangements and exemptions. If I was the EU, it'd be a cold day in hell before I let the UK back in.
Except it wasn't fair and square. Leave criminally cheated. I think I mentioned that several times.
There are allegations that Leave broke rules regarding the spending cap, but it's also clear that Remain spent more than Leave and benefited from a government funded leaflet supporting their cause. https://www.economist.com/britain/2018/03/27/did-vote-leave-cheat-to-win-the-brexit-referendum. As I've said, I'm not terribly worried about such violations because at the end of the day the will of the people was presented. Had votes been thrown away or people voted twice, then I'd care. I also have a general problem with funding caps because it violates my First Amendment sensibilities. Democracy, voting, free speech, and free press, in their purest and finest forms, are shouting matches. Quoting Baden
At least you're no longer claiming Germany would benefit from leaving the EU, which is progress I suppose. Maybe next try Googling "Ireland" +"History" + "Colonisation" + "For dummies" or some variation thereof.
My references to Ireland's exit was only to make the point that the value of autonomy goes far beyond economic gain. That is, even if it could be shown unequivocally that the UK will suffer economically from leaving, that's likely not going to matter to the Leave movement because their decision was not driven by economic pragmatics. If the US could form a special economic alliance with Germany, for example, that would most likely lead to greater economic prosperity, but it would also grant greater power to Berlin in deciding American economic policy, there'd be a 0% chance it'd be accepted by America. It feels very much like that is what is going on in the UK right now, and for that reason I think all these economic doom arguments miss the point. Leave isn't basing their decision on the economy alone, which shouldn't be surprising. Most nations are motivated by a sense of kinship, mutual values, history, and all sorts of other things that demand self-governance. I also think that those who wish to stay will portray Leave's desire to protect the special substance that is Britain as being xenophobic and racist, and that will only strengthen Leave's resolve. I know how this ends. Trump gets elected.
I wonder what makes you think that? I am old enough to remember when DeGaulle blocked the UK application to join the EEC as then was for many years, and having lived in France, I think the sentiment there will be fairly unforgiving, as the UK has not been an enthusiastic supporter of the project, but typically the awkward one, demanding special arrangements and exemptions. If I was the EU, it'd be a cold day in hell before I let the UK back in.
I'd like to think we still have an ideologically principled and spiteful Europe that hands out vindictive punishments that damages its own self interests. It sounds very old school American, and I would gain much respect for France if it told the UK to fuck off for having left the party in the first place and they can't just come back now because they've gotten all lonely. My thinking is that newfangled Europe has lost its fangs, but maybe I'm wrong.
At least you're no longer claiming Germany would benefit from leaving the EU, which is progress I suppose.
Sure, but it's not as you said, which was that Germany had economically propped up poorer European nations and that created an overall more prosperous Europe. What appears to be happening is that the single currency is allowing Germany to dominate the poorer nations and greatly increase its exports. You were arguing that the EU helped Germany because kumbaya principles were at play. It seems like something more sophisticated and manipulative is at play.
What's clear from the above (again) is that referenda are terrible to gauge voter preferences. Some issues with it:
1. complex problems are reduced to yes/no options (and if you don't know, vote no)
2. it is not realistic to expect regular people to make informed decisions, or as informed as representatives in parliament
3. you can't suggest amendments or improvements to either option
4. considering the complexity behind the actual question, how is "the will of the people" to be interpreted?
Especially on no. 4 there's an extensive discussion. Some say the will of the people needs to be respected. But was a leave vote one against immigration? For sovereignty? Against the EU? Fishing rights? Against the then current UK government? For UKIP? etc. etc.
In my view the outcome AND the fact there were lies and people were badly informed are immaterial as the referendum should be totally ignored in light of the fact nobody knows what the fuck the question meant when they voted and nobody knows what it was that the voters voted for or against.
If you really want to have a referendum that means something, you ask the following question: "What's your biggest worry that you think the government should solve?"
I'd hoped for an answer to the question, not tired propaganda. :confused: The problem now, today, is that there is no solution that will satisfy enough of us for it to be considered acceptable. Do you dispute this?
Tired propaganda?! What are you on about? I answered your question, it just obviously went over your head. The answer to your last question was yes, I do honestly think that there is a sort of Brexit that would command a majority of the British people, and that would be a Brexit whereby we strike a deal with the EU instead of leaving without one. But beyond that, what your question is getting at would be trickier to answer, as it will depend on [i]what kind of deal[/I] the majority would accept and whether it can be successfully negotiated.
And to answer your new question - and I do hope that you pay closer attention this time - yes, I do dispute your claim that there is no solution that will satisfy enough of us for it to be considered acceptable, and I dispute it on the basis that neither you nor anyone else can know that, we can only make predictions.
Pattern-chaserDecember 13, 2018 at 15:10#2366950 likes
Reply to S Of course none of us can predict: we can't and don't know the future. But it doesn't take much consideration to realise that the country, and all of its political parties remain split (roughly) evenly. The majorities that exist are small enough to (more or less) ignore.
A solution that would be acceptable to 75% of us would be a good start, 90% would be better. With a sizeable majority, the minority who lost can see that their beliefs are not shared by everyone, and are willing to accept our society's overall course. But 52-48, if it is still that? It isn't enough to support a solution that is generally accepted by us all. And this is my point.
This argument still rages because we cannot seem to reach any kind of consensus. As long as that continues, we are stuffed. And I can't see a solution with any promise of acceptance by more than the tiniest of majorities (e.g. 52-48 = 4%). Can you? :chin:
Please bear in mind that, in the fateful referendum, 17.4m voted Leave, 16.1m voted Remain and 12.9m chose not to exercise their vote. This is a very balanced thing, not a decisive victory. If it was (decisive), we wouldn't have a problem.
That is, even if it could be shown unequivocally that the UK will suffer economically from leaving, that's likely not going to matter to the Leave movement because their decision was not driven by economic pragmatics.
Odd then that the Leave campaign focused so much—in what turned out to be a very effective lie—on the money that was spent on the EU and how that could be saved and given to the health service.
Leave isn't basing their decision on the economy alone, which shouldn't be surprising.
No-one said they were. My point on the economy would be that Leave seriously misled people about the negative ramifications of leaving. And this does matter to a significant number of Leave voters, which is illustrated by the poll numbers (see my post above) which show millions of them now changing their minds (potentially enough to reverse the referendum result if it's rerun) and utter panic among politicians as Britain faces economic chaos in a no-deal scenario (which is now the most likely Brexit outcome with May's deal having been rejected and the EU refusing further negotiations).
So obviously, some Leave voters based their decision more on economic issues and others more on issues of immigration and others on some fuzzy notion of not wanting to be run by EU bureaucrats. I'm not disputing there's a mix.
I also think that those who wish to stay will portray Leave's desire to protect the special substance that is Britain...
Britain has been in the European club since the 1970s; it didn't suddenly become less special on joining and it won't suddenly become more special on leaving. What it will become, according to every analysis, is weaker politically and economically. But then I suppose it depends what you mean by "special". If "special" means less engaged with its neighbours, more insular, and less diverse then yes, it will be that, and to some people that will be a positive that outweighs other considerations. And if enough of them take that view then a re-run of the referendum will deliver the same result. But I suspect they won't and that's where the objections to re-running the referendum lie, not in any ethical or democratic basis, but in the hope that the British have been irreversibly duped into a self-destructive decision.
Odd then that the Leave campaign focused so much—in what turned out to be a very effective lie—on the money that was spent on the EU and how that could be saved and given to the health service.
A lie, assuming it was one, isn't a campaign violation. It's just what happens in political events. If you overturned every election every time a lie were found, we'd never have had a single leader.Quoting Baden
But I suspect they won't and that's where the objections to re-running the referendum lie, not in any ethical or democratic basis, but in the hope that the British have been irreversibly duped into a self-destructive decision.
If the liars won, blame the truth tellers for having not gotten their message out. That's what these contests are. You don't get a do-over because one side lied.
All it said on the bus was "... let's fund our NHS instead" it didn't say "we will". In any case when, or if, we leave the EU that money may well fund the NHS. So far it's not a lie.
That's an odd charge. The topic of this conversation is Brexit, which is why that's the focus of my posts. I'm not under any obligation in order to maintain consistency to research and comment on other referenda that were closely fought and narrowly won through illegal means (and I don't know of any off-hand). Which were you referring to? Name one.
No, I don't think that it's in the least bit odd to be subjected to a charge of inconsistency in any debate on this forum. And the relevance is that if you're found to be guilty of inconsistency, then that calls into question why anyone should accept your argument here when you yourself don't even accept it when it's reasonably applied in other contexts.
First of all, I said elections or referenda, not just referenda. And a brief google search will bring up elections or referenda where there has been evidence of lies or of twisting the truth or of not being very transparent - which, let's be honest, is going to be every single election or referendum that we've ever had - and it will also bring up elections or referenda where the results have been narrow, and likewise with overspending. Now, given the aforementioned, I don't think that it's too much of a stretch to suppose that, throughout our entire political history to date, there has never been an election or a referendum whereby the results were narrow and there were lies or twisted truths or a lack of transparency involved, or that there has never been a sufficiently similar situation to that of the 2016 EU referendum. But, to give you some idea, here's an example of a lie in another referendum, here's a list of close election results, and here's an example of overspending in an election. These things do happen, and they're dealt with in the usual manner.
It isn't a moral argument in the context in which you applied it, which didn't involve any crime or immoral act on the part of those who you aimed the comment at.
Yes it is, changing the context doesn't change the fact that it's a moral argument, regardless of whether or not you agree or disagree with that argument. I don't get why you're dismissing it as a moral argument. It's clearly an argument about personal responsibility, a bad attitude, apportioning blame, judgement, and consequences. How is that [i]not[/I] a moral argument? I just think that you disagree with it and the language I used to express it, which you're free to do, but dismissing it as a moral argument is simply a mistake.
The issue is what an ethical response would be and that's what I was explicating.
No, it's not as matter of fact as you make it seem. That's merely [i]your opinion[/I] of what an ethical response would be, and it's an opinion I happen to disagree with.
It doesn't matter what political viewpoint I take or whether it appears opportunistic to you. The argument that a referendum that may have been won by cheating should be repeated so as not to deny those cheated a chance to change their minds stands on its own merits.
Or falls on its own demerits. But consistency is also relevant, as I've explained. You can't duck that charge so easily.
An extremely weak case from which when you extract all the irrelevancies and accusations concerning the motives of your opposition still boils down to nothing more than "tough luck".
No, you're not being at all charitable in your assessment, and I put that down to bias.
Those who are strongly against a new referendum are strongly against it because they might lose one that's run fairly and without illegality or cheating. Again, a very weak position morally.
It was run about as fairly as some past elections and referenda, so again, consistency! If I were to accept your argument here, then again, I ask you what is to be done to right similar wrongs in the past? It's not a weak position morally at all. I'm not saying do nothing, I'm saying that we already have a system in place which deals with these things, and that gets my approval. If you overspend, for example, then I think that you should be punished, usually with a fine. On the contrary, you're coming from the weaker position, as your proposal is unorthodox and carries with it a backlog of past cases which would demand compensation. It's impractical and unworkable, even if you do think that you've got the moral high ground.
And if a significant number wouldn't vote the same way, which polls do show (see my last post), why should they be denied that opportunity? Oh I know, "tough luck" because murderers have to go to prison. You're going to have to do better than that.
No, not quite. Tough luck, because we already had a referendum, and undoing that is the greater wrong.
No (and I have no idea where you got that from. Where did I suggest we "create" more lies?).
Yes, I'm afraid that is what you're suggesting, in effect. What you suggest - having a second referendum - would turn the guarantees that there would only be one referendum with the results treated as binding into lies. That doesn't rectify the situation, it makes a bad situation worse. You can't fix lies by bringing about bigger lies, just as you can't put out a fire by pouring fuel onto it. Your ethics are whack and you need to go back to the drawing board.
I suggest an unfair referendum where one side conducted their campaign dishonestly and illegally (in part) be rectified with a fair referendum where both sides conduct their campaigns honestly and legally.
I'm still waiting to hear how you'd deal with the backlog of cases. You can't overturn a system without consequences.
I explained several times already they were officially found in violation of campaign rules.
Sure, but what was written on the bus wasn't one of them. I pointed out the violation of the rules seemed to deal with spending more than the cap permitted based upon what might be a mischaracterization by Leave regarding how money was spent. Quoting Baden
Fascinating.
You're being dismissive of my pointing out that your characterization of German intent was incorrect. You were suggesting that Germany's remaining in the EU was mutually beneficial and for that reason it wouldn't leave. It looks like really it's unilaterally beneficial and others might be benefited from leaving, especially those poorer nations that would benefit from having their old weaker and more easily controlled currencies still in place.
No, I don't think that it's in the least bit odd to be charged of inconsistency in any debate on this forum. And the relevance is that if you're found to be guilty of inconsistency, then that calls into question why anyone should accept your argument here when you yourself don't even accept it when it's reasonably applied in other contexts.
This is silly. Quote me where I was inconsistent or stop wasting my time.
. It looks like really it's unilaterally beneficial and others might be benefited from leaving, especially those poorer nations that would benefit from having their old weaker and more easily controlled currencies still in place.
So now you've gone from saying Germany would benefit from leaving because poorer countries were taking advantage of it to Germany is taking advantage of poorer countries and they should leave. When you've finished debating yourself, let me know, and also please tell me why it's relevant to the UK as it's not one of these poorer countries.
But if they had a redo, would that undermine confidence in voting?
That is a fair point. It might to an extent. It then depends on much weight to give to that. In any case, it's the only sensible objection I've seen here so far.
Sure, but what was written on the bus wasn't one of them. I pointed out the violation of the rules seemed to deal with spending more than the cap permitted based upon what might be a mischaracterization by Leave regarding how money was spent.
Ok, but in terms of the overall question of whether a rerun of the referendum is justified, it doesn't matter where the violation was. They cheated and that undermines the legitimacy of the result.
That's what I'm arguing on the basis of, the possibility of a no-deal scenario. May's deal does not have parliament's support and there is no deal B both according to her and to Europe. If May's deal had been passed, we wouldn't be having this conversation as there would be nothing left to talk about. So...
When it's confirmed that there's no plan B - which is something for which we'll have to wait and see, since what is said whilst talks are still ongoing can't be taken as sacrosanct, and the meaningful vote has not yet taken place - then there will be more of a place for arguments for and against that scenario, but as things stand, it's still hypothetical.
You can't fix lies by bringing about bigger lies, just as you can't put out a fire by pouring fuel onto it. You're ethics are whack and you need to go back to the drawing board.
You can fix a result possibly brought about by cheating by rerunning the process in a fair way. The fact that this means that Cameron would have turned out retroactively to have told a falsehood is a less important consideration than having a fair referendum. And presumably when he made his promise, he didn't expect cheating to occur, so the idea that that was a bigger lie than the deceptions of the Leave campaign doesn't hold up.
Ok, but in terms of the overall question of whether a rerun of the referendum is justified, it doesn't matter where the violation was. They cheated and that undermines the legitimacy of the result.
Ok, and a rerun undermines the legitimacy of the result as well. The question is what to do about violations. Lock the cheaters up, fine them, throw tomatoes at them, whatever. I'm just saying a re-do isn't the answer. I
In my view the outcome AND the fact there were lies and people were badly informed are immaterial as the referendum should be totally ignored in light of the fact nobody knows what the fuck the question meant when they voted and nobody knows what it was that the voters voted for or against.
Although I recognise the problems you raise, you can know what something means without knowing the finer details or the consequences. The electorate understood the option to leave or remain, even if they weren't clear on the finer details or consequences, so I think that these kind of arguments are overstated. I mean, I didn't exactly look at the question and think that it was written in Japanese or that it was asking me whether I prefer jam sandwiches to apple pie.
I'm not saying it's black and white either, there are negatives to re-running it, but I'm arguing that it's the less unfair of the two options. Again, if there were no cheating and/or if the referendum result wasn't so close and/or the looming consequences of a no-deal weren't so serious, it would be harder to make this argument. But with those qualifications in place, it seems reasonably clear to me what the fairer option is, and not only that but that the British population as a whole would feel more upset by being pushed into an unexpected and damaging no-deal than being offered the chance of a final say to avert it.
Reply to Pattern-chaser We know that leave won, which should limit our options. So it's deal or no deal, and the majority want a deal. The problem is that the negotiations seem to be failing, which is down to those doing the negotiating. So, what now? If this government can't do it, then they should step aside and let someone else give it a try. And if it reaches a stage where impending catastrophe is on the horizon, then, and only then, as a last resort, should it be delayed if possible or cancelled. But there's still time and there's still hope.
In any case when, or if, we leave the EU that money may well fund the NHS. So far it's not a lie.
What money? Every economic forecast says the exchequer will have less money to spend after leaving the EU, potentially a lot less, and there's a 39 billion pound divorce bill to pay even before exiting. There is no "extra" money for the NHS. There's less money overall, which actually puts pressure on the government to cut the NHS.
he problem is that the negotiations seem to be failing, which is down to those doing the negotiating.
No. The negotiations finished and a deal was signed. There are no negotiations now. There's a deal that May is afraid to put to Parliament and nothing else.
Well that's one way of looking at it, on the other hand it could be wrong.
You mean all the expert's forecasts could be wrong and Britain could make money on leaving? That's a hypothetical possibility I suppose, but rather far-fetched.
A lie, assuming it was one, isn't a campaign violation. It's just what happens in political events.
Yes, that's true. People ought to stop making it out to be more than it is, bringing it up alongside actual campaign violations, as though they're even remotely on par. Overspending, on the other hand, [i]is[/I] an actual campaign violation, but that's not something unique to the referendum, and we already have procedures in place for dealing with that. There's no justification for suddenly overhauling these procedures on the basis of a single case, and it smacks of opportunism.
If you overturned every election every time a lie were found, we'd never have had a single leader.
Yes, but Baden doesn't seem keen on talking about that logical consequence. Perhaps because it either exposes his double standard or renders his position absurd.
Yes, but Baden doesn't seem keen on talking about that logical consequence. Perhaps because it either exposes his double standard or renders his position absurd.
There's a strawman to add to the red herrings. The logical consequence of arguing this particular referendum be rerun based on the particular circumstances I've outlined are not that every election should be overturned every time any lie is found. Hard to believe I have to explain that to you.
All it said on the bus was "... let's fund our NHS instead" it didn't say "we will". In any case when, or if, we leave the EU that money may well fund the NHS. So far it's not a lie.
At best, it was very misleading, which isn't much better. Permissible in terms of the law, but nevertheless condemnable.
Before I get strawmanned again, here's the combination of circumstances under which I think this referendum (or any other) may justifiably be rerun.
1) One side breaks election law i.e. cheats (not merely lies).
2) The result is close enough so that the cheating may have decisively swayed the result.
3) The unforseen negative implications of the result are very serious.
4) Polls show a significant number of voters feel misled and / or have changed their mind on the basis of new information.
All these are in place in this particular referendum, but most likely apply to very few referenda.
I'm not under any obligation to research other cases to try to help you out. If you want to raise a particular case, I'll test it against the criteria I've outlined above and respond.
That is a fair point. It might to an extent. It then depends on much weight to give to that. In any case, it's the only sensible objection I've seen here so far.
Funny. I don't recall you saying anything like that when I've raised that objection, yet you give him credit. I'll take that as indirect praise. Thanks. :grin:
Ok, but in terms of the overall question of whether a rerun of the referendum is justified, it doesn't matter where the violation was. They cheated and that undermines the legitimacy of the result.
And other results. Hmm... what to do about that, eh? Still no answers forthcoming from you, I see. And I already linked to one other case of overspending, so don't act like I haven't thrown you a bone.
And I already linked to one other case of overspending, so don't act like I haven't thrown you a bone.
It's not even a referendum. And it should be obvious from the reporting that my criteria don't match up (there's no information on how close the result was and whether the spending could have affected it, for example). I could go on and detail the circumstances under which I think a byelection etc. should be rerun, which would be similar, but it's fairly irrelevant.
You can fix a result possibly brought about by cheating by rerunning the process in a fair way.
Rerunning the process wouldn't be fair to begin with! So your talk about [i]how[/I] that could be done is for the birds. The real cheating would be against all of those who voted to leave and won, and all of those who innocently believed that the result would be binding, as we were told in no uncertain terms, and multiple times. The cheating of overspending has already been punished, and it's not up to you to come up with your own custom-made punishment like some sort of vigilante. You don't have that authority. If you don't like how it has been dealt with, then take it to court and see how far you get.
The fact that this means that Cameron would have turned out retroactively to have told a falsehood is a less important consideration than having a fair referendum.
No it isn't. It's already too late to act at a stage when actions taken would have retroactive consequences. The time to act would've been before the vote. That's why a fine is a better way of dealing with a campaign violation than rerunning the vote.
And presumably when he made his promise, he didn't expect cheating to occur, so the idea that that was a bigger lie than the deceptions of the Leave campaign doesn't hold up.
His expectations in that regard are completely irrelevant. He wouldn't be at fault, whoever undermined it would be at fault. With a turnout of around 30 million, that's too big of promise to break, and would be by far the greater wrong.
The cheating of overspending has been already been punished, and it's not up to you to come up with your own custom made punishment. You don't have that authority. If you don't how it has been dealt with, then take it to court and see how far you get.
We're arguing here over whether a new referendum, which is a possibility, is justified. It's obviously relevant to take the cheating in the last one into account in determining that. I'm aware I don't personally have the authority to determine British law.
But with those qualifications in place, it seems reasonably clear to me what the fairer option is, and not only that but that the British population as a whole would feel more upset by being pushed into an unexpected and damaging no-deal than being offered the chance of a final say to avert it.
A cancellation should be a last minute option if all else fails. We're not there yet.
No. The negotiations finished and a deal was signed. There are no negotiations now. There's a deal that May is afraid to put to Parliament and nothing else.
Oh, come on. You shouldn't believe everything you read or see on TV. Firstly, it's not a deal, it's a draft withdrawal agreement. And secondly, it suits both parties in the negotiations to spin it as the only offer available: the EU because they don't want to make any further concessions, and May because she wants to pressure the house to vote it through rather than be forced to do an about-face and scurry back to the negotiating table with her tail between her legs, begging for more. (Obviously, the latter has already happened now, to May's great embarrassment).
Also, it's in the interests of both parties in the negotiations to avoid a no deal scenario, so, with the knowledge that, at present, it's at serious risk of being voted down in parliament, why wouldn't they renegotiate?
The electorate understood the option to leave or remain, even if they weren't clear on the finer details or consequences, so I think that these kind of arguments are overstated.
Then you should look into the research more. These arguments cannot be repeated and underlined enough because otherwise we're doomed to repeat the same mistakes. Look into the Dutch referendum on the association treaty with the Ukraine for another clear cut example. Suppose people voted leave because of immigration then it doesn't follow leave was what they wanted. It only tells you that of the available options presented one provided them a vote to stop immigration. But since the reason for their voting isn't known even that information hasn't been provided as a consequence of the referendum. So the referendum tells us nothing. It's just all a big waste of time.
There's a strawman to add to the red herrings. The logical consequence of arguing this particular referendum be rerun based on the particular circumstances I've outlined are not that every election should be overturned every time any lie is found. Hard to believe I have to explain that to you.
If there are past cases with sufficiently similar circumstances, and if your argument here implies that this particular case should be treated differently to all of those other cases, then, absent justification, that's special pleading.
You shouldn't believe everything you read or see on TV.
You mean they didn't sign a deal, that there are negotiations now, or that May is not afraid to put it into Parliament? Those are the negations of the three facts I mentioned, and they are facts.
Also, it's in the interests of both parties in the negotiations to avoid a no deal scenario, so, with the knowledge that, at present, it's at serious risk of being voted down in parliament, why wouldn't they renegotiate?
You don't get it. The EU has far less to lose than the UK by the UK crashing out. It's 28 versus one, a huge crash for the UK and an inconvenient blip for the EU mollified by the severe disincentive the example would send to other potential leaving nations. So, the UK, despite the empty bravado of the Brexiteers, never had any cards to play and never had a hope of anything but managed capitulation, which is what happened. There is no better deal to be had. It's a Brexiteer fantasy. It's this or something even more objectionable to Tory hardliners, which won't fly unless there's a general election.
Given the existence of past cases with sufficiently similar circumstances, if your argument here implies that this particular case should be treated differently to all of those other cases, then, absent justification, that's special pleading.
My argument doesn't imply that, so again you're wasting my time with nonsense. Every case should be treated according to similar considerations. If you can find another case where all my four criteria apply then obviously I'd argue for the same thing.
Before I get strawmanned again, here's the combination of circumstances under which I think this referendum (or any other) may justifiably be rerun.
1) One side breaks election law i.e. cheats (not merely lies).
2) The result is close enough so that the cheating may have decisively swayed the result.
3) The unforseen negative implications of the result are very serious.
4) Polls show a significant number of voters feel misled and / or have changed their mind on the basis of new information.
All these are in place in this particular referendum, but most likely apply to very few referenda.
So, let me get this straight. You're inventing a new policy for righting the wrongs committed in situations when an important vote is put to the electorate, but you're trying to tie it down to the circumstances of the 2016 referendum? That way, you won't have to worry about all of those past cases which don't quite meet your criteria, yet you get your desired second referendum. How convenient. You seem to care more about that than real justice.
Obviously, if whatever result you're talking about meets the same four criteria I've just outlined, you can take it I'd support a rerun.
So, go ahead and cheat, so long you're careful enough not to violate all four of Baden's criteria. Got it.
The results are only illegitimate if they match the circumstances of the referendum that Baden wants to see rerun so that we can have another chance to remain a member of the European Union.
The topic of this discussion is Brexit. I'm giving you the reasons I think a new referendum is justified. Which unsurprisingly relate to Brexit. You first accused me of not wanting to apply these reasons to other referenda and said that made me inconsistent. But I said I would apply them to any referenda you wish to raise. Now you're saying doing that means I don't care about real justice or some other such blather. Sorry Sap but that's not worthy of further response.
So the referendum tells us nothing. It's just all a big waste of time.
What the referendum tells us is that a majority of the people voting voted to trigger leaving and all who voted knew that was the consequence of the vote. To the extent the referendum doesn't provide us the basis for those voting, that's the fault/decision of the democratic process that created the referendum. Had the democracy wanted to know why the democracy was voting, or had it wanted the vote to provide other options, it could have asked that of the democracy, and it could have even written in that if the basis of the vote was to end immigration, then they wouldn't leave (if that's how the democracy wanted to do it). All of this is to say that the king can do whatever he wants for whatever reason he wants (within certain discriminatory limits). The king needn't be logical, honest, or virtuous. It's his kingdom and he can run it like an idiot if he wants. In this instance, the king is the people because it's a democracy, and the people can create whatever they want.
Suppose people voted leave because of immigration then it doesn't follow leave was what they wanted.
But that'd be on them for being too stupid to realise that the only guarantee under a leave vote is that we leave. The option on the ballot was to leave or to remain, not to leave with a guarantee on immigration. That's on them if they voted based on an imaginary ballot, or a hope, rather than the actual options presented to them, with all of the risks involved. We all knew, or at least should have known, that a deal would actually need to be negotiated and compromises would need to be made on either side. You can't rightly blame that on the government or on either of the campaigns. That's basic level stuff.
But since the reason for their voting isn't known even that information hasn't been provided as a consequence of the referendum. So the referendum tells us nothing. It's just all a big waste of time.
No, not at all. It was leave or remain, and that much was understood. If they voted leave, then they should have been prepared to leave, even in the event that they didn't get everything they'd hoped for or expected.
But if people really are that stupid, or have such terrible judgement, then yes, referendums probably aren't such a great idea. I mean, I've already said that I would've rather we never had that referendum.
We're arguing here over whether a new referendum, which is a possibility, is justified. It's obviously relevant to take the cheating in the last one into account in determining that. I'm aware I don't personally have the authority to determine British law.
Right, and I'm saying that it can only be justified by going through the proper channels, not on a philosophy forum.
You mean they didn't sign a deal, that there are negotiations now, or that May is not afraid to put it into Parliament. Those are the three facts I mentioned, and they are facts.
I mean your mention of a deal, when in fact there's only a draft withdrawal agreement. I mean your assumption that the negotiations are finished, just because that's what has been said, when in fact they've effectively resumed. And I mean your assumption that there's no other deal possible, again, just because that's what has been said - even though you should be astute enough to discern that there are political reasons for saying such things in public, when that might not in fact be an accurate reflection of what's happening behind closed doors.
You don't get it. The EU has far less to lose than the UK by the UK crashing out. It's 28 versus one, a huge crash for the UK and an inconvenient blip for the EU mollified by the severe disincentive the example would send to other potential leaving nations. So, the UK, despite the empty bravado of the Brexiteers, never had any cards to play and never had a hope of anything but managed capitulation, which is what happened.
No, you don't get it. That both sides would[/I] end up [i]worse off[/I] than they would otherwise be with an acceptable deal undermines your point about which of the two would be [i]more worse off. The key point here is that it's in the mutual interest of both parties to avoid that no deal scenario, hence the effective resumption of negotiations until May returns once again to put a final deal to a parliamentary vote.
That's exactly what they want people to think! I can't believe you're lapping that one up. You sound like a member of the cabinet towing the party line! :lol:
It's a Brexiteer fantasy. It's this or something even more objectionable to Tory hardliners, which won't fly unless there's a general election.
Hold on, you said that there's the deal that May's afraid to put to parliament and nothing else. That looks like backtracking now, unless you actually meant that there's nothing else so far. Which is precisely why we need to wait it out a little longer. You never know...
What the referendum tells us is that a majority of the people voting voted to trigger leaving and all who voted knew that was the consequence of the vote.
Right. There we were wasting time arguing ethics on the philosophy forum when we should have been speaking directly to Theresa May about all this.
Not we, just you. I don't need to speak to anyone in a position of authority, or take any actions, in order to trigger a process whereby your ideas on why a second referendum should be held can stand a chance of attaining the required justification of which you speak, meaning the approval of an authoritative body, like if it were taken to court and a judge ruled in your favour. I'm okay with the situation as it stands, whereby your ideas are just that and nothing more, and will remain unjustified, except in your own mind.
(Besides I said "if" not "if and only if", but I think you know that and aren't arguing seriously).
You mean, if they meet your four criteria vs. if and only if they meet your four criteria? What's the relevant difference? Either way, each case would be required to meet your four criteria to qualify, and all other cases could be dismissed, correct? Which was my criticism.
Basically, although you've suggested in other comments that I'm moving the goalposts, I actually just think that you're cornered into a lose-lose scenario. On the one hand, without applying your criteria consistently, that's a double standard which leaves out other cases, but on the other hand, it looks like you've set up your criteria in such a way so as to exclude most other cases anyway, because otherwise you'd have to come up with a way of dealing with all of those cases in a satisfactory way, which would be challenging to say the least.
I don't think that it's fair to let the Tories off the hook with a fine for their overspending in relation to the 2015 general election, yet make it so that the overspending by the Vote Leave campaign, in combination with other criteria which I consider to be less relevant, qualifies for a rerun. I think that it's fair the way that it is: to just fine for overspending instead of messing with the results after the fact. Either that, or perhaps a zero tolerance all-or-nothing rule taking effect from now onwards, not retroactively, and which would apply across the board, instead of your 'pick-and-choose' method.
Reply to SReply to Hanover I'm not going to argue about established facts. Referenda don't work meaningdully the way the leave vote was put. I explained the mechanism why, in practice, it doesn't work and I get "but...". Your buts are uninteresting because theoretical points when reality has shown time and again it works as I described. Do some investigating yourselves.
Reply to Benkei What a pointless reply. Surely you can do better than that. What you've said doesn't engage anything I said. It doesn't even try. It just regurgitates your disputed claims, makes a vague reference to supposedly established facts, and has the gall to admit that you're not even interested in our criticism or counterpoints, although I suspect that it's more a case of you just not being bothered to give it a proper go. If you're going to bow out, there are better ways to go. That reply was weak and disappointing.
. I mean your assumption that the negotiations are finished, just because that's what has been said, when in fact they've effectively resumed
No they haven't. It takes two sides to negotiate and the EU have flat out refused to renegotiate the agreed text. There may be renogotiations if there's an election as I said earlier, but this deal will not be renogotiated with May.
The rest of your responses are repetitive and pointless. I've already explained to you my reasons for thinking a new referendum justified in this case, and that I have no reason not to apply the same type of thinking to other referenda though obviously each case is different and would have to be judged in its particular context.
You mean, if they meet your four criteria vs. if and only if they meet your four criteria? What's the relevant difference?
Yes, that's what I mean. And seeing as you're not willing to put in the mental effort to try to understand that basic distinction, and continue to harp on the red herring of an imagined inconsistency, we're done.
That both sides would end up worse off than they would otherwise be with an acceptable deal undermines your point about which of the two would be more worse off.
One can only reach that conclusion if one limits consideration to immediate consequences, and ignores longer term consequences.
The reason the EU would rather suffer a worse impact itself than make the deal better for the UK is that, the less penal the deal is for the UK, the greater the risk that other valued members may at some stage vote to leave. So it's in the interest of the EU to make the deal as bad as possible, even if it causes short term pain for the EU.
I expect the USA would take the same approach if California voted to leave the union - cause great pain on both California and, where unavoidable, itself as well, so as to discourage other states from following suit. [Disclaimer - I know nothing of the US constitution and whether it is possible for a state to leave]
Reply to andrewk It is emphatically not possible for a state to withdraw from the Union of states. That was settled during the Civil War - 1860-1865.
There are some who would like to split California into two or three states because some believe that northern California and southern California have quite separate interests. They may have quite different interests, but those differences are probably to California's advantage, in the same way that rural agricultural counties in a given state have little in common with large industrial cities. But states with combination rural agriculture/urban industrial economies tend to be financially more stable than all agricultural states, or all industrial states. The two different kinds of economy compliment each other.
There is no obvious road to splitting states either. A territory could be broken into several states, but there is no provision for states to divide or merge. If California really wanted to split, it would probably require a constitutional amendment which would need to be passed by congress and 3/4 of the states.
Were California to secede, everything else being the same, it would be the 6th largest economy. I think Hell would freeze over before California was allowed to leave. Not going to happen.
Surely if the aim is to carry out the will of the people, then any number of referenda at any time should be acceptable because on each occasion we will thereby discover the will of the people.
If, on the other hand, the aim is to follow proper procedures, then we are free to remain in the EU as any referendum is only advisory and we live in a representative democracy.
If the aim is to abide by promises made as an ethical stance, then the nature of those promises surely bears significantly on the duty of others to abide by them and clearly the greater good of the people on whose behalf you made the promise must come above that duty otherwise what was the point of it in the first place?
I'm not seeing the line of argument which requires the government to actually leave the EU, nor one which prevents them from holding another referendum if they so wish. Legally, the government can do whatever parliaments allows, ethically a government should work for the best interests of its population at the present time. Making an argument that the government is under either a legal or ethical obligation to carry out the stated preference of a snapshot of the population at some fixed time in the past seems tenuous.
unenlightenedDecember 14, 2018 at 12:08#2369250 likes
Reply to Michael Those stats illustrate nicely the nature of the problem. Which is that 'a compromise is the worst of all possible worlds' is about the only thing both sides agree on.
Perhaps someone can explain what will happen to the Irish border in the event of no deal? Because my own primary concern is not the economy but peace. The civil war in Ireland spilling over to the mainland as I remember was 'rather unpleasant', and I would guess, worse than the possible unrest that would result from another referendum or even the revocation of article 50. The defusing of the issue of the partitioning of Ireland is for me one of the most important benefits of the EU, and yet the issue was hardly mentioned during the campaign, and is still little understood on the mainland, let alone abroad.
Pattern-chaserDecember 14, 2018 at 12:38#2369280 likes
Yes, we do, but this isn't my point. I would be as unhappy - alright, almost as unhappy - if Remain had 'won' with such a small majority. The losing minority is far too big for there to be a solution that is acceptable to all. We are at an impasse. I don't see where we go from here, if we are to achieve some form - any form - of compromise that is acceptable to more than just 52% of us...
No they haven't. It takes two sides to negotiate and the EU have flat out refused to renegotiate the agreed text. There may be renogotiations if there's an election as I said earlier, but this deal will not be renogotiated with May.
Yes, I'm aware of what has been said. It doesn't look like we're going to reach an agreement on this point. It seems that I'm more sceptical than you because I accept that what has been said in politics doesn't always match the reality, and there are countless examples of this, whereas you take a more naive approach.
Yes, that's what I mean. And seeing as you're not willing to put in the mental effort to try to understand that basic distinction, and continue to harp on the red herring of an imagined inconsistency, we're done.
Well, since you've indicated that don't want to help me understand, given that you've ignored my request for an explanation, then I don't believe you're actually interested in pursuing a constructive exchange of views about your own point, so yes, we're done.
One can only reach that conclusion if one limits consideration to immediate consequences, and ignores longer term consequences.
The reason the EU would rather suffer a worse impact itself than make the deal better for the UK is that, the less penal the deal is for the UK, the greater the risk that other valued members may at some stage vote to leave. So it's in the interest of the EU to make the deal as bad as possible, even if it causes short term pain for the EU.
Maybe you're right. I get the incentive for that, but I'm not convinced that it's the overriding incentive. I'd have to think on it, and maybe do some more reading on the subject to see if anyone shares that view.
unenlightenedDecember 14, 2018 at 13:21#2369430 likes
The reason the EU would rather suffer a worse impact itself than make the deal better for the UK is that, the less penal the deal is for the UK, the greater the risk that other valued members may at some stage vote to leave. So it's in the interest of the EU to make the deal as bad as possible, even if it causes short term pain for the EU.
— andrewk
Maybe you're right. I get the incentive for that, but I'm not convinced that it's the overriding incentive. I'd have to think it on it, and maybe do some more reading on the subject to see if anyone shares that view.
It looks to me that the main problem with the deal is the backstop, and the backstop is there to protect the Good Friday Agreement, which is a treaty between The UK and Eire to end the civil war in N. Ireland. That is to say, it's actually nothing to do with the EU but is something the UK needs. (see my previous comment)
Yes, I've heard Brexiteers like Jacob Rice-Mug and others say things like "Well, if May just gets rid of the backstop, I'll vote for her plan" as if there's a remote possibility the EU would agree to that, or as if the EU didn't need every member including the Republic to ratify the agreement, and as if the Republic would agree to anything that threatens the Good Friday agreement. I suspect though they know it's backstop or no deal and are actually willing to take no deal at any cost and want only to give the veneer of reasonableness to their position, being covered enough financially themselves not to care about the economic havoc that position would wreak on the rest of the country.
Pattern-chaserDecember 14, 2018 at 14:09#2369570 likes
Reply to Baden Jacob Rees-Mogg, the latest incarnation of Norman Tebbit, via John Redwood, frightens the hell out of me. I cannot express my concerns more exactly than that. Fright. :scream:
Reply to Pattern-chaser
For me, I guess he walks that line between pathetic and dangerous that men of inflated self-importance and fortunate political status often find themselves on. I expect he'll lose in the end, which will probably be the best thing for him.
Pattern-chaserDecember 14, 2018 at 14:25#2369660 likes
Reply to Baden I expect he'll win, and soon, which will probably be the worst thing for us. Hence my fright.
Perhaps someone can explain what will happen to the Irish border in the event of no deal? Because my own primary concern is not the economy but peace. The civil war in Ireland spilling over to the mainland as I remember was 'rather unpleasant', and I would guess, worse than the possible unrest that would result from another referendum or even the revocation of article 50. The defusing of the issue of the partitioning of Ireland is for me one of the most important benefits of the EU, and yet the issue was hardly mentioned during the campaign, and is still little understood on the mainland, let alone abroad.
That's exactly why I think that No Deal isn't an option. If May's Withdrawal Agreement is rejected by Parliament then Parliament must revoke Article 50. Maintaining the Good Friday Agreement is far more important than respecting the result of the referendum.
karl stoneDecember 14, 2018 at 15:57#2369910 likes
I don't understand how anyone can claim a second referendum would undermine democracy when the first referendum nullified 40 years worth of democratic decisions at a stroke, and was as crooked as a dog's hind leg!
Reply to Pattern-chaser A little off-topic, but who's worse, in your opinion: Jacob Reese-Mogg or Boris Johnson? It's a toughie, but I'm thinking Reese-Mogg.
I don't understand how anyone can claim a second referendum would undermine democracy when the first referendum nullified 40 years worth of democratic decisions at a stroke, and was as crooked as a dog's hind leg!
You do realise that over 30 million people voted, right? And I actually think that it being a relatively close call would, in a sense, make it even worse to rerun it, because that would mean that it was hard to win the first time. And remember, it's not the fault of those who voted to leave, and were declared winners, that the Vote Leave campaign overspent, or that politicians on either side put out false or misleading claims. Sure, punish the cheaters, condemn the liars, but don't penalise all of the innocent people who came out to vote leave and won.
And also, bear in mind that the government was given a mandate by the people to hold a referendum. It was part of the Conservative manifesto. That's representative democracy for you. There's no mandate for a second referendum, the power to hold one rests with the government, and they ruled it out last time I checked.
And another thing, I'd say that fourty years between a referendum and a rerun is a lot more acceptable than two years.
karl stoneDecember 14, 2018 at 19:02#2370300 likes
You do realise that over 30 million people voted, right? And I actually think that it being a relatively close call would, in a sense, make it even worse to rerun it, because that would mean that it was hard to win the first time. And remember, it's not the fault of those who voted to leave, and were declared winners, that the Vote Leave campaign overspent, or that politicians on either side put out false or misleading claims. Sure, punish the cheaters, condemn the liars, but don't penalise all of the innocent people who came out to vote leave and won.
Are those who voted leave to be barred from voting in a second referendum? Surely not! They will be allowed to vote. So you must be saying they would not be offered a Leave option? Again, surely they would! It's the will of the majority that's being established - on something that's now specific, rather than entirely theoretical.
Are those who voted leave to be barred from voting in a second referendum? Surely not! They will be allowed to vote. So you must be saying they would not be offered a Leave option? Again, surely they would! It's the will of the majority that's being established - on something that's now specific, rather than entirely theoretical.
No, that's not what I'm saying. Of course they're not barred, and of course there'd be an option to leave, but they'd be penalised through no fault of their own by having their win rendered invalid and by being exposed to the risk of losing.
Moreover, don't you think that there ought to be suitable restrictions regarding the length of time between a referendum and a rerun? Otherwise there'd be nothing from stopping a government, if they so decided, from having one every couple of years until they got the result that they wanted.
karl stoneDecember 14, 2018 at 19:36#2370410 likes
Are those who voted leave to be barred from voting in a second referendum? Surely not! They will be allowed to vote. So you must be saying they would not be offered a Leave option? Again, surely they would! It's the will of the majority that's being established - on something that's now specific, rather than entirely theoretical.
— karl stone
No, of course they're not barred, but they'd be penalised through no fault of their own by having their win rendered invalid and by being exposed to the risk of losing again. Moreover, don't you think that there ought to be suitable restrictions regarding the length of time between a referendum and a rerun? Otherwise there'd be nothing from stopping a government, if they so decide, from having one every couple of years until they get the result that they want.
So you're telling me that the amorphous sense of 'winning' an individual might have as a result of his or her opinion being confirmed by a slight majority of others who cared to express an opinion two years ago, is more important than the actual consequences of the policy now we know what it is?
Reply to Michael I'd be grateful if you could briefly outline what revoking Article 50 involves, and its likely consequences. As I understand it, that's something that's in the control of the EU, not of the UK, since it's an EU rule. If that's correct, doesn't that disqualify it from being an option in a UK poll?
I'd be grateful if you could briefly outline what revoking Article 50 involves, and its likely consequences. As I understand it, that's something that's in the control of the EU, not of the UK, since it's an EU rule. If that's correct, doesn't that disqualify it from being an option in a UK poll?
The European Court of Justice has ruled the UK can cancel Brexit without the permission of the other 27 EU members.
The ECJ judges ruled this could be done without altering the terms of Britain's membership.
The Government just needs to write to the European Council announcing that it revokes Article 50. So long as the Government has the legal authority to do so under UK law (i.e. approved by Parliament) it's valid.
Here's the press announcement of the ruling with more details.
Wow. Would that be a watershed event if they revoked Article 50?
Well, it would cancel Brexit which would be pretty big. Don't know about the political repercussions. Maybe more votes for UKIP at the next GE? Doubtful enough to win them more than a couple of seats though.
So you're telling me that the amorphous sense of 'winning' an individual might have as a result of his or her opinion being confirmed by a slight majority of others who cared to express an opinion two years ago, is more important than the actual consequences of the policy now we know what it is?
No, I'm talking about the fact that they won, not an "amorphous sense". But with that correction, yes, it's more important to honour the result, with the only possible exception being to prevent a no deal scenario.
Parliament votes to have one. Or it votes to just revoke Article 50 without a referendum.
But is there a majority of MPs for either of those options? I don't reckon so at the moment. The official line of both main parties is against either option. If I'm right, then something would have to change, which it might do.
Reply to S I think a majority oppose the Withdrawal Agreement but also a majority oppose No Deal (although not the same majority, of course).
If the Withdrawal Agreement is voted down then what will the majority who oppose No Deal do? I doubt they will just let it happen. They'll vote for a second referendum as a last ditch attempt to avoid a hard Brexit.
Reply to Benkei Your response is nonsense really, with this global attack against the "science" of referenda, arguing they are meaningless exercises. You ignore the fact that they are given meaning by the decree of law, which means they matter even if you think they shouldn't. If we decide to choose our representatives by the roll of the die, then that's how we do it, despite the science that shows dice aren't smart enough to choose our representatives.
I think a majority oppose the Withdrawal Agreement but also a majority oppose No Deal (although not the same majority, of course).
If the Withdrawal Agreement is voted down then what will the majority who oppose No Deal do? I doubt they will just let it happen. They'll vote for a second referendum as a last ditch attempt to avoid a hard Brexit.
A majority oppose the withdrawal agreement as it was to be presented before the delay. Yet, for example, in today's news, it has been reported that the Foreign Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, has said that it would be possible to get "a version" of the prime minister's Brexit deal approved by MPs.
It will depend on what May brings back. Although I'm hardly optimistic about her chances, it's too soon to write it off.
But yeah, if it gets voted down, I agree that a second referendum or a cancellation would be much more likely.
Yet, for example, in today's news, it has been reported that the Foreign Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, has said that it would be possible to get "a version" of the prime minister's Brexit deal approved by MPs.
It will depend on what May brings back. Although I'm hardly optimistic about her chances, it's too soon to write it off.
The EU have rejected a renegotiation of the current deal.
The EU have rejected a renegotiation of the current deal.
Once again, I'm aware of what they have said. You don't need to point that out to me. We'll just have to wait and see whether that bears true.
Besides, that same article that you linked to says that, on Thursday evening, Mr Juncker urged the UK to set out more clearly what it wants, which seems to suggest that he [I]is[/I] open to considering variations to the draft withdrawal agreement. Mixed messages?
Why couldn't the UK have worked from within the EU to make the changes it wanted?
David Cameron tried and failed to do just that. He negotiated some reforms from the EU, although he didn't get everything that he wanted. And then a majority of those who voted in the referendum indicated that they thought that his reforms didn't go far enough, since they voted to leave.
But the people who voted to remain are ok with that lack of self determination? Or are they unhappy about it, but leaving is just worse?
I think that it's more the latter. I think that many people who voted remain, myself included, were critical of certain aspects of how things were under our membership of the EU, and would've preferred to remain with reforms than to remain in an unreformed EU or to leave. This view was also reflected in the views of a majority of MPs.
But it's complicated regarding self-determination. There are things that I would trust more in the hands of the EU than a Tory government. I trust Labour to protect or improve upon the things I care about more, but they're currently in opposition.
4 options: May's deal, no deal, another referendum, or revoke Article 50.
There's potentially another option. A no-confidence vote in the House of Commons could change things. Then it might not be May's deal, but someone else's.
Reply to S I don't quite understand. Is it that the EU needs a culture change to keep its members? Do the member states not trust one another? Would greater centralization of authority help or hurt?
If the UK had another referendum and voted to stay, is there an underlying problem that will just pop up again down the line?
I don't quite understand. Is it that the EU needs a culture change to keep its members? Do the member states not trust one another? Would greater centralization of authority help or hurt?
I would suggest looking up leftwing arguments against the European Union. There are two camps who agree on many of the points, but differ in their conclusions, with one camp favouring leave and the other favouring attempts to reform from within.
But to give you some idea:
[Quote=Larry Elliott, The Guardian]Some never bought the idea that being a progressive meant being positive about Europe. They saw nothing especially progressive about mass unemployment, the impact of the common agricultural policy on the developing world, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or the bias towards austerity ingrained in the stability and growth pact. Rather, they saw neoliberalism being hardwired into the European project. As indeed it was.[/quote]
If the UK had another referendum and voted to stay, is there an underlying problem that will just pop up again down the line?
The problems wouldn't just disappear. We'd still need to work towards a resolution, towards reform. That way we'd still retain the benefits. But leaving would be like trying to solve a problem by creating an even bigger problem.
Reply to Hanover what's nonsense is starting about legality for the first time while we were debating the ethics of it. The UK doesn't have a law requiring the government to adhere to the outcome so your comment is irrelevant and revealing of your ignorance in this particular case.
It was S that had some inane comments on "the will of the people" which is misplaced considering what we know about how referenda work. And my comments are patronising because I already indicated it is established fact (yes, you can look it up!), provided an alternative recent example and invite you to do some research yourselves. This isn't kindergarten where I have to spell everything out for you.
Reply to Benkei It's not misplaced or inane to bring up the will of the people, it's of great importance, considering we're a democracy. And your comments about how you think the ballot would've been better formulated are too little, too late. The right time for that consideration was [I]before[/I] the referendum.
Reply to Benkei Other than informing me of your hostility, little else is communicated in your post. It's fairly obvious that the purpose of the referendum was to determine whether the UK would stay or leave. To hold the referendum for that express purpose and then to argue that referenda aren't a valid means for the purpose expressed once a result is reached, would result in zero respect for the government, which would be even further eroded if the government assumed your arrogance and references to what science decreed.Quoting Benkei
This isn't kindergarten where I have to spell everything out for you.
Reply to S What was misplaced is thinking a will of the people can be distilled from the leave result, which you used as an argument to respect the vote. It's inane because if you'd actually be interested in the subject you'd know referenda are terrible instruments for it as they are currently used, which is an established fact in political sciences. That was what my comment pertained to. Your latest post misses the mark yet again.
Reply to Benkei So your argument is that they shouldn't have used a referendum to determine whether to stay or leave. That's critically different than the argument that they should ignore the result of the mechanism they chose to arrive at their decision.
Reply to Hanover What I said was that neither the lies (and as a consequence the failure of the opposition to being out the truth) nor "the will of the people", since that cannot be discerned, are grounds to uphold the result.
You've now moved on to the next argument which is trust in the government. Those people that voted remain and those that changed their minds in the meantime will consider it grounds for more trust. There are plenty of Brits who won't feel betrayed which is exactly why it's still being argued about. So that too isn't conclusive.
For me it's quite simple, if doing the right thing for the most people (UK citizens) means ignoring the vote then so be it. All other considerations be dammed.
Reply to Hanover That goes without saying. Mostly it was an argument for anyone thinking the referendum was informative in the first place and use it to "uphold the will of the people" to argue against a 2nd referendum, which hasn't become clearer through the vote. You can be against a 2nd referendum but not on the grounds that you're implementing the will of the people by doing so.
For me it's quite simple, if doing the right thing for the most people (UK citizens) means ignoring the vote then so be it. All other considerations be dammed.
So you favor totalitarianism? (Sorry about the kids. Hope they get well soon.)
What was misplaced is thinking a will of the people can be distilled from the leave result, which you used as an argument to respect the vote.
But it can be, in accordance with my use of the phrase, logic, and established facts. The will of the people is expressed by the majority of voters, and the majority of voters voted to leave, so the will of the people at that time was to leave.
Your reasoning seems to be that just because there were various motives for voting to leave, like wanting to reduce immigration, then that somehow renders the result unreflective of the will of the people at the time. But that reasoning is invalid. As the slogan goes, leave means leave. The motive doesn't change that. You talk of established facts, but it's an established fact that the majority of voters voted to leave, and that's all that's needed.
It's inane because if you'd actually be interested in the subject you'd know referenda are terrible instruments for it as they are currently used, which is an established fact in political sciences. That was what my comment pertained to. Your latest post misses the mark yet again.
I'm not missing anything. I'm not in disagreement with your point about how a simplified ballot won't reflect the will of the people in greater detail. But it doesn't follow from that that the will of the people hasn't been represented. The ballot did what it was designed to do. If the government had wanted it any other way, then they would've done it differently. But they didn't, they went with a simple in-out format. And again, I'm pretty sure that they made that clear in their manifesto before they were elected, so there was a democratic mandate, once elected, to honour that pledge.
unenlightenedDecember 16, 2018 at 17:19#2379310 likes
...You are very likely going to get three yeses. But they constitute a trilemma of which only two can be had.
So an excellent reason for not running the country by referenda, but by representation is that one needs to avoid contradiction. It does not require even that anyone is themselves voting for a contradiction: if one third votes for 1 & 2, one third for 2 & 3 and one third for 1 & 3, one has a two thirds majority for all three.
Now in this case, we have a single referendum, but with people voting for incompatible reasons, and voting without having considered the ramifications of the decision.
By and large, people did not vote to end the Good Friday agreement, or for the independence of Scotland, but did not either seriously consider that these might be consequences.
There is much emphasis laid on sovereignty, but little consideration of the sovereignty that will be given up in making trade deals elsewhere - the court which would administer disputes in a trade deal with the US, for example, or the regulations on food standards that would have to be aligned.
Much emphasis too on control of immigration, but very little on the loss of control of emigration.
And these two are certainly things that folks in economically depressed areas voted for, as if the transfer of power from Westminster to Brussels has been the reason for their neglect. But if you actually make the comparison, Brussels is the more benign power in terms of developing such regions.
Indeed, in my view, the loss of sovereignty itself is more seriously to the multinational companies than to multinational governance. So the direction in which totalitarianism lies is quite other than in not accepting an advisory vote.
Now in this case, we have a single referendum, but with people voting for incompatible reasons, and voting without having considered the ramifications of the decision.
The problem is, that same criticism can be levelled against our representatives in parliament. Boris Johnson, speaking as Foreign Secretary, said that his policy on cake is pro having it and pro eating it, and David Davis, speaking as Brexit secretary, said that we could strike a deal whereby we enjoy the exact same benefits that we currently do.
But it can be, in accordance with my use of the phrase, logic, and established facts. The will of the people is expressed by the majority of voters, and the majority of voters voted to leave, so the will of the people at that time was to leave.
I went over that. You can either accept the fact that it isn't the case that those who voted to leave in fact wanted to leave or not. It's not about "a greater detail" of the will of the people it's that in fact we can be certain no majority ever was in favour of leave. We only know that for disparate reasons leave reflected an aspect of people's will that they thought remain didn't provide but without knowing who voted leave for what reason it's up in the air what policies really should be implemented.
The problem is, that same criticism can be levelled against our representatives in parliament. Boris Johnson, speaking as Foreign Secretary, said that his policy on cake is pro having it and pro eating it, and David Davis, speaking as Brexit secretary, said that we could strike a deal whereby we enjoy the exact same benefits that we currently do.
We can't protect ourselves from idiots once elected (it's expected the same voices win or in parliament in the end) . We can protect ourselves from badly crafted referenda though, which is why it's so important to realise the stupidity of the type of referenda the leave vote was an example of.
What's ironic, one of the most brilliant examples of a participative democracy in modern times was the process of the UK pension system review.
Reply to Benkei Of course I don't accept that. It's not a fact and it's illogical. If you want to leave because of x, y, z, then you nevertheless want to leave.
Reply to S Wrong. They don't want to leave because of x, y and z. They want x, y and z and leave was the only option offered on the ballot that got close. You're just phrasing your premises to support your conclusion.
Given the myriad of policy options available to get x, y or z, only offering leave and remain tells us nothing about the number of people wanting to leave for the sake of leaving.
unenlightenedDecember 16, 2018 at 19:47#2379860 likes
The problem is, that same criticism can be levelled against our representatives in parliament. Boris Johnson, speaking as Foreign Secretary, said that his policy on cake is pro having it and pro eating it, and David Davis, speaking as Brexit secretary, said that we could strike a deal whereby we enjoy the exact same benefits that we currently do.
No, that's a different problem. By and large, the voters are not idiots, and do not expect contradictions to be implemented. But some politicians are sufficiently two-faced to propose them in the hope that everyone will think they are proposing something they want, and won't notice they are also proposing the opposite. The technical term for such people is 'manipulative lying bastards'.
Don't be ridiculous. We're still talking about the UK. Context matters.
I'm not accustomed to taking anything for granted in that department, maybe just a cultural difference between us. So my question didn't seem at all ridiculous to me. Your statement would be considered alarming in my part of the world.
I'm not accustomed to taking anything for granted in that department, maybe just a cultural difference between us. So my question didn't seem at all ridiculous to me. Your statement would be considered alarming in my part of the world.
I've followed haphazardly the thread, but I think Benkei's main point is that any deliberating body can change it's mind. If I change my mind I am not somehow tyrannically opposing my own will; likewise, if a king, parliament or referendum changes decisions there's no fundamental political dilemma in doing so: new information or arguments come to light and a previous decision is changed.
The problem in changing decisions are secondary to the process itself. For instance, if an individual or a government signs and then reneges on an agreement then this may create problems with whoever the agreement was with -- given the issue it may even be argued to be immoral to renege that particular agreement, but it does not create a constitutional crisis in the fact itself of deciding and undeciding (on any political level: from the individual to referendum of whole countries).
The argument for not polling the people on every decision, both new ones and to confirm existing ones, every single day is that it is simply not practical to do so.
There maybe many practical argument for not having a second referendum on the Brexit issue, but the argument that it renders democracy incoherent in some way doesn't work for the same reason an individual changing a decision does not in itself render the person incoherent (the content of the reasons for the original decision and content and consequences of changing the decision would be where any incoherence would be found).
Absolutely, and polls show that as a whole the British want another referendum, but some here will no doubt continue to argue that giving the people what they want, (which is a chance to change their mind given the dubious circumstances surrounding the last poll), is a terrible injustice to them and an insult to democracy.
Reply to Baden They could hold a second referendum, so why don't they? The democracy is obviously not allowing it. If polling shows my congressman no longer popular, is it an insult to democracy that he continue to serve? Wouldn't the democracy have the power to decide how democratically elected decisions be reconsidered?
Must they hold hourly referenda so that all decisions reflect the pulse of the public in order to meet your definition of democracy? I do believe it's fair to hold the voters to what they voted for, and I don't think any voter had the expectation that his vote was preliminary and that there'd be multiple additional referenda prior to leaving. That is, the vote to leave was really to leave.
You act like fairness and adherence to prior decisions are unrelated, and you put no value on finality, as if indecisiveness is a virtue.
(From my Canadian perspective) my own reading of the whole situation is that the model was Quebec, which had a separatists movement that was partly fueled by "not being allowed to have a referendum, this is not real democracy". This argument is powerful as it's simply true and builds it's own momentum and displaces the argument from the substance of separation to a sense of injustice of being robbed a referendum. Both in the Canadian separatist experience (and many other contexts of different referendum movements for various things), losing a referendum simply dissolves this kind of momentum and what seemed like a political force yesterday simply evaporates the next.
So I believe that Cameron and his inner circle viewed the UKIP movement as similarly partly fueled by "the absence of a referendum as proof of a great injustice", and so a preemptive strike was a better bet than trying to ignore it and letting it make slow but sure gains. The other issues of Quebec nationalism, cultural erosion and regulations being "decided in Ottawa where not-Quebeckers dominate", and anti-immigration (both Anglophones from other provinces and immigrants to Canada) were also similar themes.
However, I think a better lesson from the Quebec separatist movement is the clarity act that came after the close referendum, that was passed some years after the close referendum, where a clear process was outlined on how a province could separate. Step one is to have a referendum that would simply start negotiation between the province and the federal government one what the proposed separation would actually be, then there would need to be an proposed separation agreement made and then a vote. Critically, the vote would need to represent the majority of eligible voters, not simply the majority of who votes; so a higher bar but not anti-democratic nor robbing a province of a right to make majority decisions.
Basically, the clarity act was made to solve the fact that a sudden ill-defined separation vote would be total chaos with dozens of practical problems no one had the slightest answer to: obviously same trade issues of exiting a common market, native Americans having treaties with the federal government, large amounts of people from other provinces living and working in Quebec and vice-versa, as well as things like the country being cut in half.
Must they hold hourly referenda so that all decisions reflect the pulse of the public in order to meet your definition of democracy?
I'm not sure if you read my post, but the argument against this is it isn't practical.
Of course, democratic processes such as deferring to representatives and referendum should be democratically created; I don't think anyone's arguing against that.
If polling shows my congressman no longer popular, is it an insult to democracy that he continue to serve?
For instance, most states I believe have a potential recall process for congressmen. How easy a recall should be is a practical consideration that should be democratically determined; weighing the advantage of "getting a better representative" against the cost and disruption a proliferation of recall votes would create.
You act like fairness and adherence to prior decisions are unrelated, and you put no value on finality, as if indecisiveness is a virtue.
You maybe confusing two separate issues. One issue is whether it is anti-democratic or a constitutional crisis to hold a second referendum. The other issue is whether it's a good idea to have a second referendum or not. That the vote was advertised or understood as "final" in someway, that going back on Brexit would be a international embarrassment accomplishing nothing but significantly weaken the UK within the EU (due to the embarrassment, being out the loop last two years on various committees, and more isolated than before due to changing alignments in the meantime), are arguments for not having a second referendum (which are basically May's arguments for staying with Brexit, though states more indirectly). However, those reasons are practical considerations, not inherently more democratic than a second referendum.
I'm not. My statement was for any deliberating body; I am a deliberating body when making my own decisions; therefore my principle should hold for myself; any mutually exclusive principle should not hold for myself. If the deliberating body represented in the referendum changing its mind would be an instance of tyranny against itself, then so too would an individual changing their own mind be an instance of tyranny.
Of course, it makes no sense to tyrannize myself so it could seem the whole argument makes no sense, but a democratic body tyrannizing itself also makes no sense in essentially the same way. A legitimately democratic referendum by definition cannot be an example of tyranny.
Again, there maybe other reasons not to have a second referendum, but avoiding tyranny or anti-democratic processes in one form or another isn't one of them.
unenlightenedDecember 16, 2018 at 22:07#2380310 likes
Basically, the clarity act was made to solve the fact that a sudden ill-defined separation vote would be total chaos with dozens of practical problems no one had the slightest answer to
Shame we didn't learn that lesson from you in good time.
Reply to unenlightenedReply to boethius In the US there have been referenda to do one thing and referenda to undo that very thing. Gay marriage was one of those referenda: first rejected, then passed. Might there be a third to reject it again? That's possible; it might not be a good thing, but I don't see any reason why it can't happen, all quite legally.
The thing that makes a second vote on Brexit reasonable is the magnitude of the decision. In our experience, the campaigning for or against a given ballot item can be brutal, deceitful, devious, and entirely dishonest, especially from the side that has the most dollars and feels it has the most to lose. I gather there was a well funded side in the Brexit debate that felt it had a good deal to lose, and may have misrepresented the facts. The same thing could happen a second time, but at least the electorate in the UK has had time to think about which way they might vote a second time.
The various states in the USA have, for the most part, never been independent entities (not for very long, anyway) and have always been under an obligation to accept federal decisions they might not like. Many states send more money to the federal government than they get back, and they don't have much of a say in who gets the extra dollars. Southern white people were not very enthusiastic about civil rights reforms, but they were forced to accept it -- on occasion at the point of a federal gun.
States and cities selected to receive batches of refugees, like Somalis, were not asked if they liked that plan. The Federal government made the determination of where they were going to go. If 1,000,000 liberal northerners all decided to move to Mississippi (i don't know why the hell they would do that, but just for example) there is nothing that Mississippi can do about it. Similarly, immigrants into the country can settle where they please.
I understand that freedom of movement in a sovereign nation is a bigger issue than it might be in a system that was always federal in design. So are taxes, regulations, and a lot of other stuff. But it seems like the UK was benefitting from the federal system of the European Community (such as it was and is.
In the US there have been referenda to do one thing and referenda to undo that very thing. Gay marriage was one of those referenda: first rejected, then passed. Might there be a third to reject it again? That's possible; it might not be a good thing, but I don't see any reason why it can't happen, all quite legally.
Yes, we are in agreement here. I listed arguments for "no second referendum" simply to make the difference between the "anti democracy argument" and the "practical argument". By practical arguments I mean not having a Brexit referendum every day or every hour, as well as legitimate arguments elected representatives could make. The argument that the elected representatives advertised it as a "final thing" because once the process is started there's no going back, is in my view a legitimate argument. But by legitimate argument I just mean it can be argued without self-contradictions right off the bat; it is a viable position of the parliament so say "we said it was final, exactly because the process is painful and once started the only viable thing, for all sorts of reasons, is to carry it through".
However, by viable I don't mean to say it's the best decision nor that contradictions won't arise with further arguing; just that arguing no referendum for practical reasons doesn't fail right out of the gate (in contrast to arguing for no-second referendum based on it being more democratic to not vote again, which does, in my opinion, fail straight away).
In short, the current UK parliament is not anti-democratic in "sticking to the deal of a final vote" nor anti-democratic in calling a second referendum. One can question the democratic efficiency or even legitimacy of the UK parliament system to begin with (which I definitely would), but insofar as one accepts parliament as legitimate then they can legitimately "stick to their guns" as it were; as legitimate elected preventatives they could decide any number of things, such as campaign fraud, are reason for a second vote or then decide nothing is sufficient and as the elected wise rulers they need to stick to Brexit since it was known from the outset going back on it isn't tenable regardless the pain; if their decision are bad (which I would say they are) there is a process to replace them with people who will call a second referendum. Even after Brexit is official the UK could rejoin.
However, to argue the lack of a second referendum is anti-democratic is reducible to the UK parliamentary system being anti or insufficiently democratic. My point is that, the UK system being what it is, neither a vote nor not-vote is a constitutional crisis ... which the UK doesn't even have to begin with ...
But I agree with you that a second vote is probably a good idea, and the temporary embarrassment does not outweigh all the negatives of Brexit -- that sometimes it's better to fold even after a sizable commitment.
Wrong. They don't want to leave because of x, y and z. They want x, y and z and leave was the only option offered on the ballot that got close. You're just phrasing your premises to support your conclusion.
Given the myriad of policy options available to get x, y or z, only offering leave and remain tells us nothing about the number of people wanting to leave for the sake of leaving.
Look, no matter how hard you try to spin it, at the end of the day, they chose to vote to leave. I never said anything about leaving for the sake of leaving - that's a complete red herring. The electorate were faced with a choice - [i]the same choice that I had to face[/I] - and the majority of them - [i]unlike me[/I] - decided that leaving was a price worth paying in the hope of achieving x, y, z. No one forced them into making that decision.
So please, cut the crap. They voted to leave. The majority voted to leave. The will of the people is reflected by the fact that the majority of voters decided that leaving was the better of the two options. They wanted to leave (for the sake of x, y, z,) rather than remain, and placing emphasis on the part in brackets won't change that.
I'll leave it at that, as it feels as though my efforts to get this through to you are in vein. I'm done with your feeble denialism and attempts to underplay the significance of the results.
I've followed haphazardly the thread, but I think Benkei's main point is that any deliberating body can change it's mind. If I change my mind I am not somehow tyrannically opposing my own will; likewise, if a king, parliament or referendum changes decisions there's no fundamental political dilemma in doing so: new information or arguments come to light and a previous decision is changed.
The problem in changing decisions are secondary to the process itself. For instance, if an individual or a government signs and then reneges on an agreement then this may create problems with whoever the agreement was with -- given the issue it may even be argued to be immoral to renege that particular agreement, but it does not create a constitutional crisis in the fact itself of deciding and undeciding (on any political level: from the individual to referendum of whole countries).
The argument for not polling the people on every decision, both new ones and to confirm existing ones, every single day is that it is simply not practical to do so.
There maybe many practical argument for not having a second referendum on the Brexit issue, but the argument that it renders democracy incoherent in some way doesn't work for the same reason an individual changing a decision does not in itself render the person incoherent (the content of the reasons for the original decision and content and consequences of changing the decision would be where any incoherence would be found).
It boils down to ethics on a fairly basic level. Should promises be kept? Well, given that over thirty million people turned out to vote, and given that there was a clear majority by over a million people, then yes, this particular promise should be kept at all costs except in the most severe of circumstances, like a no deal scenario that only a minority would find acceptable.
Reply to S I'll assume that the electorate was fully informed and understood what they were voting for: Leave. But leaving in this case is a bit more complicated than just putting on one's hat and walking out. There are costs to be paid, terms, regulations, and rules for a transition drawn up, and all that agreed to by 2 dozen sides--something the government in office has been trying (without success) to accomplish. You are 3 months + a few days away from the end of the 24 month negotiation period and few are happy with the results.
It would seem like it might be a good idea to ask the electorate if they want to maybe stay and avoid the many downsides of just leaving without terms established.
If polling shows my congressman no longer popular, is it an insult to democracy that he continue to serve? Wouldn't the democracy have the power to decide how democratically elected decisions be reconsidered?
Sure, but you could use the analogy with fixed-term elections just as easily to demand that the referendum be re-run after a few years just like elections are. There are no minimum or maximum terms for referenda. We've got to look at the justifications for re-running any given one in context. Which is what some of us have been trying to focus on here.
I do believe it's fair to hold the voters to what they voted for, and I don't think any voter had the expectation that his vote was preliminary and that there'd be multiple additional referenda prior to leaving. That is, the vote to leave was really to leave.
Why is it fair to prevent the voters from enacting a change to their mind? Who are you trying to serve here? Not them in this case as they, according to polls, want a new referendum. Who then? Your search for some abstract rule or principle to rely on hasn't turned up very much of legal or ethical substance to fall back on, so are we not left to focus primarily on what serves the people and their wishes? And if they wish for a new referendum (not multiple additional referenda btw) then what is your justification for denying them that?
You act like fairness and adherence to prior decisions are unrelated, and you put no value on finality, as if indecisiveness is a virtue.
I'm engaged in a weighting of priorities here not an absolute dismissal of all value to the opposing view. So, on the one hand, we have you saying "Indecisiveness is not a virtue and we must adhere to prior decisions because that's fair", and on the other hand, we have me saying "We have a referendum that was potentially won through cheating, the result of which was very close, that occurred a few years ago, that is now having potentially extremely serious unforeseen negative consequences, that polls say people want a chance to re-run, and that there is no legal or significant ethical impediment to rerunning, so let's rerun it."
Reply to Bitter Crank I agree with all of that, but I don't think that now would be the best time. I think that we should give it a bit more time to see whether the pressure of having May's draft withdrawal agreement in its current form voted down will change anything, which I accept seems unlikely, but not impossible.
(From my Canadian perspective) my own reading of the whole situation is that the model was Quebec, which had a separatists movement that was partly fueled by "not being allowed to have a referendum, this is not real democracy". This argument is powerful as it's simply true and builds it's own momentum and displaces the argument from the substance of separation to a sense of injustice of being robbed a referendum.
That's a good point. Maybe if we had've had a referendum sooner, then Remain would've won and we wouldn't be in this mess.
So I believe that Cameron and his inner circle viewed the UKIP movement as similarly partly fueled by "the absence of a referendum as proof of a great injustice", and so a preemptive strike was a better bet than trying to ignore it and letting it make slow but sure gains.
But maybe it was already too late. Or maybe the referendum itself lead to enough of a build up of momentum for Leave to win.
However, I think a better lesson from the Quebec separatist movement is the clarity act that came after the close referendum, that was passed some years after the close referendum, where a clear process was outlined on how a province could separate. Step one is to have a referendum that would simply start negotiation between the province and the federal government one what the proposed separation would actually be, then there would need to be an proposed separation agreement made and then a vote. Critically, the vote would need to represent the majority of eligible voters, not simply the majority of who votes; so a higher bar but not anti-democratic nor robbing a province of a right to make majority decisions.
Basically, the clarity act was made to solve the fact that a sudden ill-defined separation vote would be total chaos with dozens of practical problems no one had the slightest answer to: obviously same trade issues of exiting a common market, native Americans having treaties with the federal government, large amounts of people from other provinces living and working in Quebec and vice-versa, as well as things like the country being cut in half.
Yeah, I don't think that the point that there were better ways in which this could've been handled will get much disagreement.
It boils down to ethics on a fairly basic level. Should promises be kept?
This is not simple ethics. Though most would agree that promises have some moral weight to them, one should not make a fraudulent promise or dismiss a promise for a slight convenience or on a whim, it's a pretty old and trivial philosophical exercise to show that placing "holding promise" as an overriding ethical principle is extremely difficult to defend.
For instance, if I, in a moment of anger, "promise to kill someone" (thinking it was a justifiable killing at the time of the promise), should I keep my promise if I later decide the murder is not justified?
A more trivial example is that in moment of exuberant celebration I promise to give you as many shots as you want, but then I renege on this promise when I see you may overdose and die; I, nor essentially any member of society, would view it as the ethical thing to keep giving you shots, and if you did die and I knowingly let you the defense "a promise is a promise" I doubt would sway any judge or jury in a manslaughter or some similar trial.
These are an extreme and a trivial example but sets up the basic dilemma, which I'd be happy to oblige you with plenty of other examples if you want. The general case however is that changing circumstances making a promise no longer feasible to keep or even circumstances staying the same but simply a recognizing a promise as too foolish to keep or that the promise was unethical at the time, we can easily invent circumstances that I'm confident everyone on the forum would agree reneging on the promise is the ethical course of action. Now it might be reasonable that some consequence goes with the promise breaking, but that's a secondary issue (in the case of Brexit maybe the secondary consequences should be resignations a general election and voting out anyone still associated with it).
In the case of "the promise to stick with Brexit", parliament could make any number of arguments to justify breaking the promise. First, "who made the promise" is not quite the same people as are in charge now, so the "new parliament" can decide is now new enough as not to be bound by the old parliaments promises (just like a new boss can easily cancel whatever promises an old boss made if there's no legal commitment and no one would think much of "promises must be kept"; the old boss was incompetent and got fires, so foolish promises that were made no longer stand unless legally backed). Pretty much every modern nation is based on the argument that it's entirely reasonable justifiable to break an oath to some king at some point in time.
The parliament could also argue that bad faith actions of the leave campaign do substantially outweigh any supposed equivalents with the remain campaign, and so the "good faith" implicit precondition of the promise was breached and the promise no longer holds. It can be further argued that the this good faith assumption did not need to be made explicit because there are laws that govern campaign finance etc.
The parliament could argue that they made the promise under the assumption that article 50 could not be canceled, now that it seems that it can it is their responsibility to reconsider their promise based on this new information.
Or, parliament could make no direct excuse at all for the promise breaking, but argue they have a more important promise to protect the interests of UK citizens and they simply made a mistake in organizing the Brexit vote the way they did and that they must act on their ultimate promise as servants of the public in providing a vote now that there is a concrete Brexit agreement to actually vote on.
Now, I'm not saying all the above arguments are "true". One could argue that in each case there isn't sufficient reason to act (not sufficient campaign violations, not sufficient changes in parliament that they can feel liberated from previous promises, etc.).
My point is that it is not "simple ethics" to conclude no second referendum should be made, it's a very complicated issue and parliament would be entirely within their mandate and power to call a second referendum as well as within their mandate and power to decide on behalf the people to push through Brexit.
Must they hold hourly referenda so that all decisions reflect the pulse of the public in order to meet your definition of democracy?
— Hanover
I'm not sure if you read my post, but the argument against this is it isn't practical.
He knows that it's impractical. The point is that lacking a suitable timeframe between a referendum and a rerun causes problems, and the suggestion is that two years isn't long enough.
Baden's argument is that there's enough of a basis to render the referendum results invalid. I disagree, and my view reflects the reality, as the results haven't been declared invalid by anyone with the authority to do so.
Pattern-chaserDecember 17, 2018 at 13:07#2382080 likes
?Pattern-chaser
A little off-topic, but who's worse, in your opinion: Jacob Reese-Mogg or Boris Johnson? It's a toughie, but I'm thinking Reese-Mogg.
Like Dubya, Boris is not the buffoon he pretends to be. Nor is he as clever as he thinks he is, by a mile. He's out for everything he can get, and will do anything at all to get it. But Rees-Mogg is pure evil! You know that Sauron serves Morgoth, right? Well the complete hierarchy (in order of increasing evil) goes: Sauron, Morgoth, Thatcher, Tebbit, Rees-Mogg. IMO, of course. :wink:
Pattern-chaserDecember 17, 2018 at 13:10#2382090 likes
And remember, it's not the fault of those who voted to leave, and were declared winners, that the Vote Leave campaign overspent, or that politicians on either side put out false or misleading claims. Sure, punish the cheaters, condemn the liars, but don't penalise all of the innocent people who came out to vote leave and won.
But if those "innocent People" were swayed by lies, and might otherwise have voted differently, or chosen not to vote at all? A free and fair vote does not involve lies, and the lead-up to the Brexit vote did.
But there's much more to the current crisis than these lies. They're just part of the problem. :fear:
...if their decisions are bad (which I would say they are) there is a process to replace them with people who will call a second referendum.
Yes. There could be a motion of no confidence, and Labour have the power to start that process, but for the time being they're holding back, and rightly so in my opinion, because of the risk of losing. But, going by what Labour have said, even if the government lost and it lead to a general election with Labour winning, they wouldn't jump straight into calling a second referendum. They'd first try to get a better deal, and only if that fails would they consider the option of calling a second referendum.
Pattern-chaserDecember 17, 2018 at 13:15#2382120 likes
the results haven't been declared invalid by anyone with the authority to do so.
True, but the lies have been recognised by our courts as such, and where they contravened our law, cases are already in progress, or already over. People and organisations have been found guilty. But you're not bothered because the vote hasn't been formally declared invalid? It looks like you're taking a pretty partisan perspective on all this: defend everything to do with Leave; attack anything that might support Remain. That's a shame.
Look, no matter how hard you try to spin it, at the end of the day, they chose to vote to leave. No one said anything about leaving for the sake of leaving - that's a complete red herring. The electorate were faced with a choice - the same choice that I had to face! - and they - unlike me! - decided that leaving was a price worth paying. No one forced them into making that decision.
So please, cut the crap. They voted to leave. The majority voted to leave. The will of the people is reflected by the fact that the majority of voters decided that leaving was the better of the two options.
I'll leave it at that, as it feels as though my efforts to get this through to you are in vein. I'm done with your feeble denialism and your attempts to underplay the significance of the results.
Feeble denialism? :rofl: You just pull arguments out of your ass and call it logic and aren't even aware of the fallacy you keep repeating.
Whereas I have a logical argument supported by evidence based research. So let's go again for those who are actually interested in the latest viewpoints.
Suppose people want to pay a) less taxes, b) less contributions to the EU, c) less immigration, d) economic stability and e) Bwiddish patriotism. It's quite obvious that a, b, c and d can be reached through other means than leave, yes?
So if we only ask do you want to remain or leave, people are going to have to weigh to what extent their a, b, c and d are reflected in those options. But what would've happened if the ballot had the following options.
1. Remain and enjoy the trade deals the EU has and the access to the EU market (covers d)
2. Remain and enjoy the trade deals the EU has and the access to the EU market (covers d) and agree to the deal Cameron agreed with the EU (covers b and c)
3. Remain and enjoy the trade deals the EU has and the access to the EU market (covers d) and agree to the deal Cameron agreed with the EU (covers b and c) and use the low interest rate environment to borrow slightly more in the short end of the curve and lower taxes but increasing budgettary uncertainty for later years which might cause a tax hike in later years (covers a)
4. Leave and lose he trade deals the EU has and the access to the EU market (negative on d) but gain full control over immigration and stop paying EU contributions (covers b and c) important: leave will require negotations with the EU the outcome of which is currently unknown as are the economic effects on the British economy
5. Leave and lose he trade deals the EU has and the access to the EU market (negative on d) but gain full control over immigration and stop paying EU contributions (covers b, c and e) and use the low interest rate environment to borrow slightly more in the short end of the curve and lower taxes but increasing budgettary uncertainty for later years which might cause a tax hike in later years (covers a) important: leave will require negotations with the EU the outcome of which is currently unknown as are the economic effects on the British economy
If weighted voting was included then the above would give some sense of the will of the people on a range of interrelated subjects. Instead they are offered two contextless options without any real means of establishing agreed facts which diminishes the process to whichever political side has its "messaging" best in order. We also see that the "pure" remain option and leave option aren't symmetrical in the number of policy issues they address. Remain only gives us economic stability but leave means those pesky EU bureaucrats get less and the Brits have full control over immigration. Yet, if provided with the full scale of options, we can be quite certain the outcome would be different from what we have now.
In short, leave was a matter of issue voting and not about leaving the EU and this is supported by the research available. The debate now revolves around "whether issue-voting is driven by general EU attitudes or more proposition-specific attitudes" and "what drives EU attitudes (economic/materialist or identity-based concerns)" .
Here's some more background info: http://oxfordre.com/politics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-503
He knows that it's impractical. The point is that lacking a suitable timeframe between a referendum and a rerun causes problems, and the suggestion is that two years isn't long enough.
Yes, I wasn't clear enough that I was trying to make this point that a referendum every 15 minutes being impractical doesn't mean 2 years is impractical. That some interval being certainly impractical does somehow extend to all intervals being impractical. I'm not sure who originally made the argument that accepting a second referendum would be a slippery slope to voting of Brexit every second of the day, but posters have already mentioned that by this logic only one vote could ever be held about anything.
Baden's argument is that there's enough of a basis to render the referendum results invalid. I disagree, and my view reflects the reality, as the results haven't been declared invalid by anyone with the authority to do so.
They are not currently declared invalid by a sufficient authority, I'm quite sure no one is arguing that. In this context "the results are invalid" I would wager this phrase is making reference to what such an authority should decide. This is a notoriously tricking issue as rule breaking is almost inevitable (especially if you can send a mole to break a rule and annul the referendum if you like), but at the same time if the campaign rules have no substance if they can be broken without ever being able to invalidate the results (as the short time-span running up the vote is too short for any enforcement measure to likely succeed beforehand).
I don't know enough about the specific to make an opinion on this point, my main interest is arguing against the idea that a second referendum would be somehow anti-democratic or unethical/unreasonable for the parliament to decide to do. To be clear, I also don't see it as anti-democratic (in itself) to not have a second referendum, the wise representatives can always claim "they know more, even secret intel and negotiations, that can't be made public and they are sure means Brexit can't be undone without damaging the UK" (but this displaces the debate to whether the parliamentary system is sufficiently democratic, but is another debate).
They could hold a second referendum, so why don't they? The democracy is obviously not allowing it.
— Hanover
Whether or not to hold a second referendum is up to the government. It is allowed. We're not simply debating a hypothetical here.
Yes, it's allowed, as I expect Hanover knows, but the current government isn't allowing it, which is probably closer to his meaning, in which case your response would be beside the point.
Why is it fair to prevent the voters from enacting a change to their mind?
For the same reason that it's fair that retailers have the right to refuse a refund on the basis of a change of mind. That isn't covered by any UK law, only by the in-store policies of some, but not all, retailers. And the government made their refund policy clear, so complacent consumers don't have a leg to stand on. Appealing to the manager hasn't worked so far.
And as for cheating, it's fair to let the authorities deal with that. That's what they're there for.
This is not simple ethics. Though most would agree that promises have some moral weight to them, one should not make a fraudulent promise or dismiss a promise for a slight convenience or on a whim. It's a pretty old and trivial philosophical exercise to show that holding a promise as an overriding ethical principle is extremely difficult to defend.
The greater the number of recipients, the greater the duty of keeping the promise. The promise was made to the whole of the UK, which has a population of 66.57 million. There was a confirmed electorate of 46,500,001. And 33,568,184 ballot papers were included in the count. Which gives an exceptionally high turn out of 72.2%.
Any allegations of fraudulent promises should be dealt with appropriately with the systems already in place. There are electoral laws and authorities for determining whether any laws have been broken, and if so, what the consequences will be. People are entitled to their opinion, but they're not entitled to vigilantism. The best that they can do is protest or take it to court.
And I agree that one should not dismiss a promise for a slight convenience or on a whim, which, if it bears any relevance here, would work more in favour of my position and against that of a second referendum.
For instance, if I in a moment of anger "promise to kill someone" (thinking it was a justifiable killing at the time of the promise), should I keep my promise if I later decide the murder is not justified? A more trivial example is that in moment of exuberant celebration I promise to give you as many shots as you want, but then I renege on this promise when I see you may overdose and die; I, nor essentially any member of society, would view it as the ethical thing to keep giving you shots, and if you did die and I knowingly let you the defense "a promise is a promise" I doubt would sway any judge or jury in a manslaughter or some similar trial.
These examples aren't relevant, given that I'm not arguing that there are no circumstances in which a promise should be broken, only that the circumstances in the case of the referendum up to the present moment aren't enough of a basis to warrant breaking the promise that, to the extent that it's within their control, the results of the referendum would be treated as binding, and there wouldn't be another one, at least for a long time.
In the case of Brexit, parliament could make any number of arguments to justify breaking the promise. First, "who made the promise" is not quite the same people as are in charge now, so the "new parliament" can decide is new enough as not to be bound by the old parliaments promises (just like a new boss can easily cancel whatever promises an old boss made if there's no legal commitment and no one would think much of "promises must be kept"; the old boss was incompetent and got fires, so foolish promises that were made no longer stand unless legally backed).
This is back on track. I accept that there are a number of arguments to justify breaking the promise. I am mostly in agreement with Labour's position, which is to honour the result of the referendum, but if we can't get a good enough deal, then all options are on the table, including a second referendum. So, it's to be a last resort.
The parliament could also argue that bad faith actions of the leave campaign do substantially outweigh any supposed equivalents with the remain campaign, and so the "good faith" implicit precondition of the promise was breached and the promise no longer holds. It can be further argued that the this good faith assumption did not need to be made explicit because there are laws that govern campaign finance etc.
Yes, that argument could be made in parliament, and it may have already been made in parliament, but there's a system in place for dealing with these matters, and I am of the position that that system should be allowed to do what it was designed to do, instead of taking matters into our own hands. The actions of Vote Leave haven't gone unaddressed or unpunished. The matter was referred to the relevant authorities and they received a fine.
The parliament could argue that they made the promise under the assumption that article 50 could not be canceled, now that it seems that it can it is their responsibility to reconsider their promise based on this new information.
Or, parliament could make no direct excuse at all for the promise breaking, but argue they have a more important promise to protect the interests of UK citizens and they simply made a mistake in organizing the Brexit vote the way they did and that they must act on their ultimate promise as servants of the public in providing a vote now that there is a concrete Brexit agreement to actually vote on.
There isn't a concrete Brexit agreement to vote on. There will only be one when it actually comes down to the vote in parliament.
But yes, that's an argument that could be made, and I do find it persuasive to some extent, especially since it appeals to my reasons for voting to remain in the first place. But I'm against breaking the promise and rendering the results meaningless. I can't stand the consequence that it would've all been for nothing, that what was in fact my first ever vote in politics turned out to be meaningless and a waste of time. I don't want a second chance, I want the first chance to matter.
Now, I'm not saying all the above arguments are "true". One could argue that in each case there isn't sufficient reason to act (not sufficient campaign violations, not sufficient changes in parliament that they can feel liberated from previous promises, etc.).
They're arguments worth considering, and I have considered them and given my opinion.
My point is that it is not "simple ethics" to conclude no second referendum should be made, it's a very complicated issue and parliament would be entirely within their mandate and power to call a second referendum as well as within their mandate and power to decide on behalf the people to push through Brexit.
Okay, maybe it's not simple ethics. Maybe that was a poor choice of terms. Although I think that you've taken my meaning way beyond what I intended.
What you say about parliament is only hypothetical. As things stand, the reality is that there is to be no vote in parliament on a second referendum. There is only to be a meaningful vote on the final deal. And even if there were to be a vote in parliament on a second referendum, it would still need to get a majority in the house. Both major parties, officially, are against it. Would there be enough rebels? Doubtful.
More likely to shake things up would be a no confidence vote, which is becoming more and more likely.
But if those "innocent People" were swayed by lies, and might otherwise have voted differently, or chosen not to vote at all? A free and fair vote does not involve lies, and the lead-up to the Brexit vote did.
Your idea of what makes a vote free and fair renders it a practical impossibility. There has never been such a vote, and there never will be. So that's a terrible basis on which to judge this matter.
True, but the lies have been recognised by our courts as such, and where they contravened our law, cases are already in progress, or already over. People and organisations have been found guilty.
What cases? The Vote Leave case was about overspending, not lying, so that doesn't count.
But you're not bothered because the vote hasn't been formally declared invalid?
No, I'm bothered. But being bothered about it isn't sufficient grounds for abandoning my position. I'd need much stronger grounds than that, given the severity of the matter. This goes way beyond what you or I think, and we should tread carefully.
It looks like you're taking a pretty partisan perspective on all this: defend everything to do with Leave; attack anything that might support Remain. That's a shame.
On the contrary, my views on a second referendum are about as nonpartisan as you can get in terms of Leave and Remain, given that my view has always been that, irrespective of which side wins the referendum, the results should be honoured. My side lost, yet I'm sticking by my guns and refusing to exploit the situation so that my side can gain the upper hand.
Whereas if Remain had won, how many of those now calling for a second referendum would be doing so? :brow:
Reminds me of Trump saying that if he loses the presidential election, then it's rigged.
Suppose people want to pay a) less taxes, b) less contributions to the EU, c) less immigration, d) economic stability and e) Bwiddish patriotism. It's quite obvious that a, b, c and d can be reached through other means than leave, yes?
So if we only ask do you want to remain or leave, people are going to have to weigh to what extent their a, b, c and d are reflected in those options.
And the majority weighed up the options and decided to leave, so stop saying silly things like that the referendum told us nothing or that the views of the majority aren't reflected in the results. It does tell us something, and the views of the majority [i]are[/I] reflected in the results, just not to the extent that you think would be ideal.
Reply to S Here's another analogy for you. If I hold a gun to your head and tell you to either shoot a kid or his mum and you shoot the mum does that make you a mysogynyst? Limit people's autonomy sufficiently and they'll be in favour of all sort of things that they really don't want.
It would be hilarious if the ramifications weren't so serious.
If I hold a gun to your head and tell you to either shoot a kid or his mum and you shoot the mum does that make you a mysogynyst?
It means that I've decided to shoot the mum rather than the kid, for whatever reason.
If we had a referendum on who to shoot, mum or kid, and a majority voted to shoot the mum, then, irrespective of their reasons, we at least know what their decision was. We know their conclusion.
Reply to Benkei In the early 19th Century, the Dutch transitioned to absolute monarchy because of the failure of their republic. They subsequently just eased back to something more republic-like over the next century.
So I think that means the Dutch would see rule-of-law as something one embraces until the shit hits the fan. True?
I'm just pondering the diversity of views on the OP issue.
...It would seem like it might be a good idea to ask the electorate if they want to maybe stay and avoid the many downsides of just leaving without terms established.
I agree with all of that, but I don't think that now would be the best time. I think that we should give it a bit more time to see whether the pressure of having May's draft withdrawal agreement in its current form voted down will change anything, which I accept seems unlikely, but not impossible.
The only difference apparently being you'd like to wait an extra couple of weeks, or at most months, before supporting my position (except in the "unlikely" case something changes). Glad you've come round. So, unless you want to argue with yourself, I think we're done again.
Baden's argument is that there's enough of a basis to render the referendum results invalid.
No, I've argued they're questionable not invalid. That should be clear from my use of qualifiers like "potentially" when talking about the result being changed due to the cheating that went on. And the result being questionable along with the rest of the context is enough to justify a new referendum, particularly with a no-deal being a real threat. But, again, you've conceded the principle of a new referendum being justified in the face of a no-deal, so the ethical argument is basically over.
Reply to S We've finally arrived. Your point was that according to you the will of the people was to leave. So it should be the will of the people to shoot the mum but we know that's ridiculous. QED.
Reply to frank Frank, to clarify my earlier point about consequences be damned: if I were a politician in Parliament in the UK then I'd happily pursue a solution ignoring the referendum. I'm after all an elected representative in that case and I'm supposed to vote with good conscience based on the information I have. If that means I wouldn't be reelected, so what. If it diminishes trust in the political system for some (even if I'm sure those who want to remain would have an increase in trust), so what. I should do what I think is right and I think that's a simple rule to follow. Brexit is too important to leverage pursuing a personal political career like some have been doing. Boris. Cough. Cough.
Yes, I wasn't clear enough that I was trying to make this point that a referendum every 15 minutes being impractical doesn't mean 2 years is impractical. That some interval being certainly impractical doesn't somehow extend to all intervals being impractical. I'm not sure who originally made the argument that accepting a second referendum would be a slippery slope to voting of Brexit every second of the day, but posters have already mentioned that by this logic only one vote could ever be held about anything.
I don't know where you're getting that from. The point is that two years isn't long enough, and I would be surprised if anyone genuinely disagreed with that point.
Hanover's rhetorical question, in which he questioned whether it was necessary to hold a referendum every hour, was a criticism of the view that in order to be truly democratic, we need to keep up with a change of public opinion, even without proper parameters in place.
I don't know enough about the specific to make an opinion on this point, my main interest is arguing against the idea that a second referendum would be somehow anti-democratic or unethical/unreasonable for the parliament to decide to do. To be clear, I also don't see it as anti-democratic (in itself) to not have a second referendum, the wise representatives can always claim "they know more, even secret intel and negotiations, that can't be made public and they are sure means Brexit can't be undone without damaging the UK" (but this displaces the debate to whether the parliamentary system is sufficiently democratic, but is another debate).
My argument is not simply that it's anti-democratic, as I agree that that would make no sense with regard to holding another referendum, given that a referendum is democratic in nature. But it would be anti-democratic, in a sense, for any democracy worth its salt to permit referenda to be rerun after only two years, as that would be an example of self-inflicted harm to that democracy, given all of the problems that it would cause. It wouldn't be sustainable. It would be shooting itself in the foot.
Eh, you've already just conceded the principle and agreed that a new referendum would be a good idea:
The only difference apparently being you'd like to wait an extra couple of weeks, or at most months, before supporting my position (except in the "unlikely" case something changes). Glad you've come round. So, unless you want to argue with yourself, I think we're done again.
Concede? Come round? I think I've been consistent. I don't think that I've ever supported a no deal scenario, and I've said that that would be a worst case scenario, so if my preferred course of action becomes an impossibility, then that would leave me with few options.
That hardly means that I think that it would be a good idea. It would just be better than the alternatives.
No, I've argued they're questionable not invalid. That should be clear from my use of qualifiers like "potentially" when talking about the result being changed due to the cheating that went on. And the result being questionable along with the rest of the context is enough to justify a new referendum, particularly with a no-deal being a real threat. But, again, you've conceded the principle of a new referendum being justified in the face of a no-deal, so the ethical argument is basically over.
Okay, questionable then. But questionable isn't good enough, the results would need to be invalid - and besides, a rerun would effectively render them invalid anyway.
And again, I haven't conceded anything, I'm just talking about other options in a different way now than I was at an earlier stage, because the situation then wasn't as urgent or seemingly dire as it is now. Back then the prospects looked more hopeful. And a rerun still isn't justified, in my opinion, as things currently stand.
We've finally arrived. Your point was that according to you the will of the people was to leave. So it should be the will of the people to shoot the mum but we know that's ridiculous. QED.
We know no such thing. It [i]would[/I] be the will of the people to shoot the mum. The only thing that's ridiculous is the unrealistic - outlandish even - nature of the hypothetical, not the actual reasoning behind it. (And you're the one who introduced the scenario of choosing between shooting a mum and her kid into a discussion that's supposed to be about the referendum, so don't blame me if it seems ridiculous in that context). You haven't even [i]come close[/I] to refuting my reasoning, but feel free to give it another shot (pun intended).
But it would be anti-democratic, in a sense, for any democracy worth its salt to permit referenda to be rerun after only two years, as that would be an example of self-inflicted harm to that democracy, given all of the problems that it would cause. It wouldn't be sustainable. It would be shooting itself in the foot.
Again, excepting an, in your own words, "unlikely if not impossible" scenario, you've agreed it would be a "good idea" (edit: now you've shifted to "better than the alternatives") to do exactly that. So, having given up the principled arguments for the pragmatics of the likely situation, why do you keep repeating this stuff?
So again, having given up the principled arguments for the pragmatics of the likely situation, why do you keep repeating this stuff?
Because it hasn't come to that yet. The pragmatic option remains hypothetical. I'm not going to jump the gun. And I don't know why you would expect me to.
Yet you did. Then made a half-hearted attempt to unabandon it. Your position, whatever it is, is now utterly incoherent.
Is it really that difficult for you to grasp that my position has been conditional from the start? That I have considered alternatives if things go tits up? Is your position any different in that respect, or did you place all of your eggs in one basket?
There's nothing inconsistent or incoherent about my position, or at least you haven't shown that there is.
Again, you've said it's most likely you will support a referendum and then you say that supporting a referendum in the same time-frame you are likely to support it is an attack on democracy. And you don't see how you've fallen into self-contradiction? Really?
...It would seem like it might be a good idea to ask the electorate if they want to maybe stay and avoid the many downsides of just leaving without terms established. [i.e. a good idea to have a new referendum]
I agree with all of that, but I don't think that now would be the best time. I think that we should give it a bit more time to see whether the pressure of having May's draft withdrawal agreement in its current form voted down will change anything, which I accept seems unlikely, but not impossible.
But it would be anti-democratic, in a sense, for any democracy worth its salt to permit referenda to be rerun after only two years [What you will most likely support], as that would be an example of self-inflicted harm to that democracy, given all of the problems that it would cause. It wouldn't be sustainable. It would be shooting itself in the foot.*
*Bolding and text in square brackets mine.
Your position of most likely accepting a new referendum in a short period from now is almost indistinguishable from mine of accepting one now. The only difference is I'm not accusing myself of being anti-democratic.
Let's put it another way @S, when you (most likely) support the new referendum before the no-deal deadline, will you be supporting something anti-democratic or not?
Reply to Baden That can be explained. What I said about the timeframe between a referendum and a rerun was a generalisation, and I stand by it. But in this case, as a last resort, it would be an exception to the rule, and I accept the detrimental implications of that, but we both seem to agree that it would be better than a no deal scenario. But I'm not as blasé about the shortcomings of that decision as you are.
If we both agree a referendum is in principle desirable given a no-deal scenario then all the principled (anti-democratic etc) objections go out the window and we're left with accepting the referendum will most likely be justified.
Let's put it another way S, when you (most likely) support the new referendum, will you be supporting something anti-democratic or not?
It would be a self-inflicted harm to a democracy, so yes, I would be supporting something which meets the sense of "anti-democratic" that I mentioned previously. But it would not have gained my support as the ideal course of action.
Well, you can hardly blame others for supporting it either as long as it's not their ideal course of action (it's not mine, for example, I would have preferred if a soft-Brexit deal had been struck), In which case, I don't know what the criticism was.
Well, you can hardly blame others for supporting it either as long as it's not their ideal course of action (it's not mine, for example). In which case, I don't know what the criticism was.
The criticism is that your support for a second referendum was, and is, premature. Even at this stage, I still don't think that the time is quite right. I still don't support it. Whereas you expressed support for it some time ago.
You should go back and read your own posts. You gave the strong impression you were in principle against rerunning referendums in such short time periods (exactly what you now say you'll most likely support).
...here's the combination of circumstances under which I think this referendum (or any other) may justifiably be rerun.
1) One side breaks election law i.e. cheats (not merely lies).
2) The result is close enough so that the cheating may have decisively swayed the result. 3) The unforseen negative implications of the result are very serious.
4) Polls show a significant number of voters feel misled and / or have changed their mind on the basis of new information.
All these are in place in this particular referendum, but most likely apply to very few referenda.
The only difference in our positions now seems to be that you think number 3) alone is justification for rerunning the referendum (in the likely case of a no-deal threat) whereas I would require more than that. You could have said that earlier and saved us both a lot of typing
Btw @Hanover is going to be very disappointed at this Brexit betrayal. But, meh, who cares what he thinks. :up:
You should go back and read your own posts. You gave the strong impression you were in principle against rerunning referendums in such short time periods.
Yes, and I am, but I'm not an absolutist, so there can be exceptions where I would sacrifice that principle and consider it the lesser of two evils.
(exactly what you now say you'll most likely support).
As a last resort! And only to avoid a no deal scenario. Can you show me where I've said that I would support a no deal scenario as the next best alternative to a deal? What other alternatives would there be if a deal isn't possible and no deal is a worst case scenario? You box me into a corner and then act like I'm a supporter of a second referendum, but that's quite misleading without qualification.
The only difference in our positions now seems to be that you think number 3) alone is justification for rerunning the referendum (in the likely case of a no-deal threat) whereas I would require more than that. You could have said that earlier and saved us both a lot of typing.
I have never agreed with the Tory sound bite that no deal is better than a bad deal. No deal would be the worst case scenario, so I would support any other option before it came to that, with my preference being for some kind of soft Brexit, as that would do the least harm economically besides remaining, which shouldn't be an option as a result of losing the referendum, except as a last resort.
Btw Hanover is going to be very disappointed at this Brexit betrayal. But, meh, who cares what he thinks. :up:
I too would be disappointed that it would force my hand, just as I was disappointed that Leave won, and just as I was disappointed that being principled meant giving my support to the winners. But leaving without a deal is a red line. And I don't believe that there would be enough support for that particular option. I think that it's even less popular than May's deal.
The upshot would be that Remain is the best option in a number of ways, like economically. And besides, Hanover wouldn't feel the brunt of leaving without a deal, unlike those of us who actually live here in the UK, so for someone like me, it's not just an academic matter, it would effect my actual life in a way that it wouldn't effect the lives of others.
Reply to S Are you hung up on being consistent for consistency's sake here? You know what that Transcendentalist Ralph W. Emerson said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of the little mind." Now, you don't have a little mind, so this couldn't apply to you, but it is still possible to hang on to a comfortable consistency when letting go might make more sense.
I've never seen a nation so in fear of independence. I know the world's a great big scary place little birdie, but take a deep breath, jump off from up high, and flap those little wings. Everything's gonna be alright.
In your own words, it's "unlikely if not impossible" your worst case scenario won't happen. So you most likely will support a referendum under the exact condition I highlighted, which you previously criticized, and in the time-frame you railed against as being anti-democratic and resulting in "democracy shooting itself in the foot". Those are plain facts and your verbal gymnastics to try to downplay them aren't going to convince anyone. You're most likely to support this referendum soon because it happens to suit your pragmatic considerations just like it suits my pragmatic considerations now, the only difference being you want to wait a short time, which by your own admission is probably not going to make any difference. You therefore haven't got a principled leg left to stand on in opposing rerunning this referendum or any other where similar negative consequences are threatened.
I've never seen a nation so in fear of independence. I know the world's a great big scary place little birdie, but take a deep breath, jump off from up high, and flap those little wings. Everything's gonna be alright.
The EU is a club with mutual overall benefits not a foreign colonizer. Leaving it is dumb because you lose those benefits and gain very little in return, and in a no-deal scenario, it's not just dumb but very self-destructive. Little birdies without any wings shouldn't be pushed off cliffs and everything is not going to be alright.
(You may consider the fact that @S is willing to dump every principled argument he's made here in the probable face of no-deal threat as a mark of how not alright things could get.)
I've never seen a nation so in fear of independence. I know the world's a great big scary place little birdie, but take a deep breath, jump off from up high, and flap those little wings. Everything's gonna be alright.
Some Americans just don't understand what exports (or trade) mean to other countries. You just produce for yourselves and get the rest as imports from China. Don't have to care a damn about things like your main export partners as over 300 million of Americans is quite enough of a market.
Export ratio, meaning export of goods and services (% of GDP):
UK: 28,1%
USA: 12,6%
(Germany: 46%)
UK's exports (in £, 2015):
1. To the EU 133 bn
2. To the US 45 bn
(And of course that the EU is in reality more a confederacy made up of independent states, not a federation of non-independent subjected states.)
Are you hung up on being consistent for consistency's sake here? You know what that Transcendentalist Ralph W. Emerson said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of the little mind." Now, you don't have a little mind, so this couldn't apply to you, but it is still possible to hang on to a comfortable consistency when letting go might make more sense.
No, not consistency for consistency's sake, but I get what you're saying. It's a dilemma, at least for me - Michael doesn't seem as troubled - and one has to weigh up the options. I get the consequentialist argument for cancellation or a second referendum, but that would require making certain sacrifices which I'm not so willing to make and would rather avoid altogether or put off until there's no better option.
I've never seen a nation so in fear of independence. I know the world's a great big scary place little birdie, but take a deep breath, jump off from up high, and flap those little wings. Everything's gonna be alright.
It's not fear, to a large extent it's that the economic forecasts are undesirable.
In your own words, it's "unlikely if not impossible" your worst case scenario won't happen. So you most likely will support a referendum under the exact condition I highlighted, which you previously criticized, and in the time-frame you railed against as being anti-democratic and resulting in "democracy shooting itself in the foot". Those are plain facts and your verbal gymnastics to try to downplay them aren't going to convince anyone. You're most likely to support this referendum soon because it happens to suit your pragmatic considerations just like it suits my pragmatic considerations now, the only difference being you want to wait a short time, which by your own admission is probably not going to make any difference. You therefore haven't got a principled leg left to stand on in opposing rerunning this referendum or any other where similar negative consequences are threatened.
This is going around in circles with you emphasising one aspect of my position and me emphasising the other, but we're both just describing my position.
But you're wrong that to say that I haven't got a principled leg left to stand on. One of those principles which remains in tact is that I have yet to resort to the defeatism of yourself and others, which you apparently consider a triviality. I'm not going to jump to any conclusions, I'm just thinking ahead.
It's not a foregone conclusion that we'll end up with no deal.
This figure has gained some interest as of late, making some question who's really gaining an advantage from the centralized Euro. I realize that the UK isn't one suffering, but the German success is an interesting phenomenon.
Little birdies without any wings shouldn't be pushed off cliffs and everything is not going to be alright.
First of all, if the birdies have no wings, then they're going to be eaten by those who do. It's just a matter of time. Second, yes, everything is going to be alright, the song says so:
Frank, to clarify my earlier point about consequences be damned: if I were a politician in Parliament in the UK then I'd happily pursue a solution ignoring the referendum.
I see. I misunderstood your earlier post. What's the route to ignoring the last referendum (other than just having another one, and then possibly another?)
Reply to frank I'd argue to revoke the article 50 notice. Just don't have brexit. A referendum the sort that they would probably have to resort to on short notice is going to be plagued with the same problems and be marred by issue voting.
Reply to Benkei So Parliament would just claim veto power over referendums? Would that need to show up in the British Constitution? Or are there already rules for that?
The greater the number of recipients, the greater the duty of keeping the promise. The promise was made to the whole of the UK, which has a population of 66.57 million. There was a confirmed electorate of 46,500,001. And 33,568,184 ballot papers were included in the count. Which gives an exceptionally high turn out of 72.2%.
Sure, all else being equal, promising to more people adds weight to the promise. However, I was aware that the referendum involved a lot of people and I don't see how this changes any of the reasoning's for a second referendum I posit as defendable. Again maybe not "true" arguments, just of a sound and reasonable structure following likely agreeable ethical principles to most UK residents.
These examples aren't relevant, given that I'm not arguing that there are no circumstances in which a promise should be broken, only that the circumstances in the case of the referendum up to the present moment aren't enough of a basis to warrant breaking the promise that, to the extent that it's within their control, the results of the referendum would be treated as binding, and there wouldn't be another one, at least for a long time.
Ok, we are in agreement here, but (at least in the post I was responding to) your argument was it's simple ethics that promises should be kept; if you make a bold statement like this you should expect to be challenged.
The relevance of the circumstances I bring up is that parliament could make a reasonable defense of a second referendum along any of the lines I mention. My main point is there's no clear constitutional or political or ethical or "fairness" principle that somehow excludes a second referendum. If you agree that in principle a second referendum would be justifiable with "sufficient changes" or "sufficient evidence of campaign fraud" or "sufficient changes to the makeup of parliament that they need not feel bound by poor decisions of passed leadership", then we are in agreement in principle.
As for the "promise of binding", I do not feel this is a simple defense. For instance, what do we mean by "binding"? That article 50 would be triggered? Well, that's already done so "promise fulfilled", what do we do now that a deal is on the table: consult the people once again.
There isn't a concrete Brexit agreement to vote on. There will only be one when it actually comes down to the vote in parliament.
From what I understand the May-EU proposed agreement is the "final offer" as far as the EU is concerned, so it seems to be there's something to vote on.
But I'm against breaking the promise and rendering the results meaningless. I can't stand the consequence that it would've all been for nothing, that what was in fact my first ever vote in politics turned out to be meaningless and a waste of time. I don't want a second chance, I want the first chance to matter.
A second referendum would not render the first meaningless. In any complex planning process it's very normal critical things come up for votes several times; so it's fairly natural that there's a vote to start a process and then the same kind of vote at critical junctures in the process. For instance, if you instruct your lawyer to liquidate all your assets and throw the money out of a helicopter, it's likely they will come back at each critical step to know you still want to carry it through (though I don't mean this analogy as a alarmist parallel for Brexit, it's not like starting a disastrous war or something on that scale; for me the stakes are more geopolitical: I believe, despite the EU having man flaws, it is a much greater force for democracy and peace building than China or the US going forward; so UK staying in EU makes the EU stronger and in a better position to counter-balance China and US; and remember Trump maybe just the beginning of the current US foreign policy trajectory -- we should not assume that Trump is about to go nor that what will follow him will be magically better).
The consequences of the referendum have been triggering article 50, going all the way to 30 months before Brexit deal or no-deal. I believe in the context of the Brexit campaigns, the "binding promise" was more about the idea parliament would just ignore the vote and do nothing; in that scenario, yes I agree it would lower faith in the democratic process; however, the actions of parliament post-Brexit vote have definitely had consequence, and so given all those consequences and actions by the parliament it's quite natural to confirm things in a second vote.
Okay, maybe it's not simple ethics. Maybe that was a poor choice of terms. Although I think that you've taken my meaning way beyond what I intended.
"Promises should be kept" is a good slogan, but the problem with good slogans is that even knowing that the issue is more complicated, the feeling of "having a good slogan" quickly translates to a feeling of "the position is strong as it has such a good slogan that can make gains in twitter memes and sound bits allowed to air by the media". In other words, people can quickly become victims of their own propaganda, especially with a compliant media wanting to shelter people from any nuance (as that quickly creates space to criticize elites); though I'm not saying this is your case, it could be worth reflecting how "average George" can quickly believe good slogans means a good positions must exist that these slogans represent.
What you say about parliament is only hypothetical. As things stand, the reality is that there is to be no vote in parliament on a second referendum. There is only to be a meaningful vote on the final deal. And even if there were to be a vote in parliament on a second referendum, it would still need to get a majority in the house. Both major parties, officially, are against it. Would there be enough rebels? Doubtful.
Yes, my points are mainly on the theme that it's not anti-democratic for Parliament to call a second referendum. Given Parliament "represents the people" it isn't anti-democratic "in itself" for parliament to decide not to have a second referendum (any criticism of this is reducible to the whole Parliamentary scheme, not inconsistency in the system as it is; i.e. no second referendum would be consistent but within a low-efficiency-democratic system as a whole; in other words the same elites-representating vs as-direct-as-practical democratic, such as the Swiss system, debate as existed before Brexit or second-Brexit).
Now, if I was an MP I would vote for a second referendum. The main argument I would use is that if I struck a preliminary agreement with another business and then the lawyers drafted the final version of the agreement, I of course have the right to backout and even if the lawyers (i.e. my representatives) had power of attorney to sign on my behalf -- and even if their understanding of my instructions left room for interpreting that maybe I don't want to review the final draft -- I would definitely want to review the final draft as well as consult me again at critical points. No competent representative in the business world would act otherwise without either incredibly clear instructions to not-re-consult or then some sort of bizarre situation where confirmation is impossible and so they did their best; in the case of Brexit, re-confirmation is not impossible, and any lawyer would, given a similar situation in business or with individuals, that obviously confirming at each step is the best way to know one is faithfully representing their clients; I don't see why political representatives should have lower standards (which is logic that leads directly to the Swiss system, which I am a big fan of). So yes, I'd expect my representatives to respect my preliminary indication of what to do, but I'd also expect them to come back once they have a clear idea of the agreement or execution plan so that I could give a final decision (preliminary agreements are not binding as that makes negotiations basically impossible, it's binding after the signature and parties can walk away before that; in the case of Brexit it's a highly suspect line of reasoning that "the results of the referendum being biding" continues to make every further step towards Brexit also binding, it's entirely consistent that the results are binding to start implementing the objective and further consultation is reasonable to make subsequent critical steps also binding).
Reply to frank The UK has no Constitution except for the Magna Carta, which isn't what we normally understand as being a Constitution. Referenda do not have a regulated place in the UK, so it's really a political decision what to do with the result.
I'd argue to revoke the article 50 notice. Just don't have brexit. A referendum the sort that they would probably have to resort to on short notice is going to be plagued with the same problems and be marred by issue voting.
Why would a second referendum be plagued by the same issues? From what I understand the main problem with the first Brexit vote is that the option to leave had no clear interpretation; no reasonable person would argue that 51% of people voted for a no-deal Brexit for instance, and without that interpretation it's unclear what the mandate is exactly.
However, a second referendum can be between three clear options: EU's offer, no-deal, or remain.
Parliament simply revoking article 50 seems to me, pretty clearly, would be plagued by far more issues; and is exactly what the Brexiters were crying wolf about (that parliament would one way or another ignore the referendum results).
Edit: Also, in terms of time, the EU would certainly grant an extension so a proper referendum can be made if needed; in terms of money the cost of a referendum is far outweighed by the economic implications; and in terms of democracy it's the most valid democratic process on critical issues (why a referendum was called to join the EU in the first place, so completely consistent that a referendum would be called to validate a new relationship with the EU).
Reply to frank Well, they do take their precedents and tradition seriously so making it up as they go isn't quite how it works. :wink:
The problem for the UK is the loss of direct access to the EU market for goods, services and capital. That will lead to an immediate and permanent reduction in GDP.
The problem for the UK is the loss of direct access to the EU market for goods, services and capital. That will lead to an immediate and permanent reduction in GDP.
This makes a number of assumptions: that the UK's free agent status won't allow them to negotiate better deals with other trading partners (like the US, Korea, or wherever), that the free trade within the EU was the most beneficial arrangement for the UK, and that the UK can't negotiate a better arrangement with the EU once they leave.
Britain going at it alone poses all sorts of risks, but if their expertise is superior, then they could be successful here. Judging from the muted enthusiasm over the whole enterprise, I'm beginning to lose confidence in them. Maybe they can hire some Americans to figure it out for them. If nothing else, they'll at least bring some optimism.
The problem for the UK is the loss of direct access to the EU market for goods, services and capital. That will lead to an immediate and permanent reduction in GDP.
How do you know it would be permanent? The UK imports a hefty load from the EU, so it's not like they have no power to negotiate a nice deal. And there are other markets.
Honestly I don't know what to make of the UK government. I'm not sure how it has managed to function this long.
The UK is steeped in tradition. It's not like they radically swing from one direction to the next. They have a monarchy for God sake. And it's not like the US Constitution has been used to maintain tradition and stability in the US. It's actually been used as a force for great change.
As Benkei also alluded to, Britain is a common law country, meaning its courts adhere very closely to precedent. I'd also point out that even in those countries with constitutions, many don't have constitutional courts vested with the power of striking down legislation. The point being, the US's method is just one of many.
However, a second referendum can be between three clear options: EU's offer, no-deal, or remain.
The referendum is already contaminated by the results of the first thereby unnecessarily restricting the offered options. Remain still doesn't in any way address the issues people want to vote on, whereas both leave options do to a certain extent. See my previous example with five possible options to give you an idea. So it will still be issue voting and the only reason remain could win is because the leave vote would be fractured as the issues people would vote for are captured by both leave options.
that the UK can't negotiate a better arrangement with the EU once they leave.
This doesn't make sense if you really think about it. Why would the EU offer a better deal to non-member States? It's not going to happen barring some full scale disintegration of the EU.Also good luck with finding an alternative market as developed with similar purchasing power and the size of the EU. So they'll have GDP growth at some point again but the GDP reduction for the next 2 to 5 years will be real (and a permanent loss compared to remaining).
How do you know it would be permanent? The UK imports a hefty load from the EU, so it's not like they have no power to negotiate a nice deal. And there are other markets.
The Dutch stand to lose 4.7% of GDP because of Brexit. We still closed ranks as part of the EU because the value of the EU is not only economic. There isn't a nice deal available as it would undermine the EU if not being part of it doesn't make you significantly worse off than being in it.
That was a bad choice of words on my part. I meant the reduction will happen and you can't win it back, it's like running a 400 m race having to run 100 m extra compared to the rest of the track.
The referendum is already contaminated by the results of the first thereby unnecessarily restricting the offered options. Remain still doesn't in any way address the issues people want to vote on, whereas both leave options do to a certain extent. See my previous example with five possible options to give you an idea. So it will still be issue voting and the only reason remain could win is because the leave vote would be fractured as the issues people would vote for are captured by both leave options.
I mentioned three clear options to contrast with the first clear vs unclear referendum. I didn't mean to exclude the potential for even more options. Ranked choice seems to already deal with vote splitting. Do you think this wouldn't work for some reason, or are you against ranked choice in principle?
However, I completely agree with your points on why a no-deal Brexit (and Brexit to begin with) is a terrible choice.
From what I understand of the EU-May deal, it's basically "stay in the EU with a few ornamental changes, and have 80 years to activate the real Brexit". And I assume the politicians are in agreement that they won't let a no-deal Brexit happen, either calling an referendum or proceeding, as you suggest, of a parliament vote against the deal and then vote to remain in the EU (though I just don't see how that's politically palatable, so I assume they'll go with referendum or then accept May's deal).
edit: even now I can't bring myself to believe UK politicians are foolish enough to go no-deal ... but they've been proving me wrong so far ...
The Dutch stand to lose 4.7% of GDP because of Brexit. We still closed ranks as part of the EU because the value of the EU is not only economic. There isn't a nice deal available as it would undermine the EU if not being part of it doesn't make you significantly worse off than being in it.
I think a lot of UK commentators, and certainly more voters, don't quite get these two critical parts.
A "good deal for the UK" is an existential threat to the EU, the only options are crashing out (so painful no other country would try it) or then functionally staying in the EU but now with no say (no other country would see the point). The UK is big but not big enough to have leverage over the EU to make existential concessions.
And even with these two option of crash-out or basically stay in the EU, Brexit could still cause a cascade of events that lead to the break up of the EU.
The EU is both a successful peace mission and a failed neoliberal-corporatist experiment (with undertones of NATO encroachment to Russia's border and playing second fiddle to disastrous US militarism in the middle east) with these bills now coming due. It's tempting to walk away from the failure parts, I do sympathize with the Brexiters, but on a global scale the EU can anchor a peaceful re-ordering during the US-China inversion. Without the EU, most countries will have no choice but to switch from US to Chinese patronage, and if we now view the US's promotion of democracy during tenure as world super power as wanting we will give it a stellar rating compared to what we will see with unchecked Chinese geopolitical influence (especially once they start to really need those east-Asian and African and South-American resources to maintain internal stability).
This figure has gained some interest as of late, making some question who's really gaining an advantage from the centralized Euro. I realize that the UK isn't one suffering, but the German success is an interesting phenomenon.
You are correct. The real winner of the Eurozone is naturally Germany.
You see, during the old times when countries had their separate currencies, the old trick was to devalue your currency and hence get your export industry back to being competitive for a while ...until inflation kicked in. Once all these countries that joined the eurozone couldn't resort to this gimmick as there was a single currency, the masters in competitiveness, the German export industry, were the ones being even more the winners. But heck, can you name some awesome Greek company making some well known industrial products like Volkswagen, Daimler Ag or Siemens etc? Nope.
The EU is both a successful peace mission and a failed neoliberal-corporatist experiment (with undertones of NATO encroachment to Russia's border and playing second fiddle to disastrous US militarism in the middle east) with these bills now coming due. It's tempting to walk away from the failure parts, I do sympathize with the Brexiters, but on a global scale the EU can anchor a peaceful re-ordering during the US-China inversion.
The EU was simply an awesome idea as an union for commerce. It's hideous as a vehicle for political union especially if the objective is some kind of US of Europe. I think the worst threat to the EU are the idiots in charge that are trying to make it into a tight political federation.
The EU was simply an awesome idea as an union for commerce. It's hideous as a vehicle for political union especially if the objective is some kind of US of Europe. I think the worst threat to the EU are the idiots in charge that are trying to make it into a tight political federation.
The tighter federation is a failure of the corporatist forces, not the peace building I am referring to. The goal of the EU constitution was basically so corporations can overrule local governments, which is anti-democratic and anti-peace. But, the EU constitution didn't pass precisely because the EU is not a federation where a central bureaucracy can impose their will on local structures.
However, in terms of promoting dialogue and cooperation between nations, and more importantly creating an economic and diplomatic block to implement shared values on the global stage, the EU is a big success.
The EU has far more impact on global affairs than the sum of all the individuals countries would have separately, and I would argue this influence is far more positive than what would otherwise occur. EU development aid policies, inter-governmental cooperation, a block of "power" that does have leverage visi-a-vis other great powers, as well as trade relations, has a massive affect on global politics. The EU's policies promote democracy and human rights in all sorts of ways, and the EU is also a template and example for peaceful close intergovernmental relations.
Of course plenty of criticism of the EU is valid on many levels, and it's possible (though I think now very unlikely) the EU doubles down on corporatist police-state trajectory, but if the EU were to breakup I find it exceedingly likely China and the fully developed distopian police state Chinese model will start to fill in all the cracks at the global level. China has zero interest in promoting democracy and human rights, does not serve as a democratic model, and (absent the EU as an alternative economic partner) China will be able to provide vassal states both economic development, protection and their social control technology (which will become more and more refined).
These geo-political considerations need to then be put in the context of ecological disruptions and resource crisis. The EU is in my view our likeliest chance to solve our ecological problems, it is a large enough trading block to implement large policy initiatives.
Of course, if climate change is a hoax, if China's a success case of how capitalism can thrive without democracy, if massive famines and resource wars aren't "our problem", then of course the EU is a silly thing. Not to say that you personally have such opinions, but I wish here to highlight that the EU is more than just commerce for people who see it as a force for peace, human rights and reasoned global policy initiatives (compared to it not existing at all), and despite a lot problems to fix and a hard road to help build and promote democracies elsewhere and also start solving the ecological crisis, still a good bet and worth contributing too.
Edit: So for us EU proponents in the above sense, Brexit is not simply "will Britain GDP do better within or outside the EU", but very potentially a start of a process that breaks up the EU; the UK is a big piece and leaving has lot's of political consequences, many unforeseeable.
I mentioned three clear options to contrast with the first clear vs unclear referendum. I didn't mean to exclude the potential for even more options. Ranked choice seems to already deal with vote splitting. Do you think this wouldn't work for some reason, or are you against ranked choice in principle?
I think UK politicians will feel compelled to recognise the results of the first referendum and don't think that realistically their thinking will have evolved or will evolve in the time left that it would lead to a sensible referendum. So it seems politically impossible. Ignoring that I'd think it would be good to have a referendum although I'm still not sure if it is already ready for one considering the lack of detailed analyses of various options.
unenlightenedDecember 19, 2018 at 11:29#2387300 likes
Edit: So for us EU proponents in the above sense, Brexit is not simply "will Britain GDP do better within or outside the EU", but very potentially a start of a process that breaks up the EU; the UK is a big piece and leaving has lot's of political consequences, many unforeseeable.
It's very interesting you say that, and thanks for the general analysis too. The suspicion I have is that it is the UK that will break up, with N. Ireland (eventually) federating with the South, and Scotland going independent and seeking to rejoin the EU. But we agree that it is divisive, perhaps it is a mutual myopia, or perhaps both will happen ...
Someone gave a great summary of what is happening globally, that there is a growing attraction to and rise of "Strong Leaders", who set about dismantling the institutions that were set up after WW2 to protect us from the repetition of "Strong Leaders" that brought us to that war. Well at least no one can accuse the UK of having a Strong Leader, though many wish for one. :roll:
unenlightenedDecember 19, 2018 at 15:22#2387660 likes
The EU has far more impact on global affairs than the sum of all the individuals countries would have separately, and I would argue this influence is far more positive than what would otherwise occur.
This is true. For example, this is why Russia is so against the EU and would be extremely happy if it dissolved. Any European country alone isn't at all superior to Russia. And smaller countries (just like my own) wouldn't dare to protest against the annexations of Russia with sanctions if not part of a bigger community.
When you look at geopolitics in Europe with a longer view focus, one can see an obvious thing that is lacking especially in Eastern Europe, and that is the void that has been let after the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. In a way the EU has replaced the old power politics in this area and has been able to sweep aside old tensions. The other organization that has also eased tensions between European countries has been naturally NATO and membership in the mutual defence organization.
Just to give one example is to look where Hungarians are a majority:
Sure, all else being equal, promising to more people adds weight to the promise. However, I was aware that the referendum involved a lot of people and I don't see how this changes any of the reasoning's for a second referendum I posit as defendable. Again maybe not "true" arguments, just of a sound and reasonable structure following likely agreeable ethical principles to most UK residents.
I was just raising a counter point. It would only change the arguments that you presented if you were to accept that it's reason enough to reach a different conclusion.
Ok, we are in agreement here, but (at least in the post I was responding to) your argument was it's simple ethics that promises should be kept; if you make a bold statement like this you should expect to be challenged.
That's a misreading. That's not at all what I meant. I meant that, despite the complexities involved in discussions about Brexit, some of it can be boiled down to some key ethical issues of a more general nature, that we're all familiar with, such as whether a promise should be kept, and under what circumstances would it be justified to break one.
And no, I never said that promises should be kept without qualification, and that's certainly not what I meant to suggest. I wouldn't make such a claim.
My main point is there's no clear constitutional or political or ethical or "fairness" principle that somehow excludes a second referendum.
Sure there is, and lots of people would make that argument. I'm not even a Brexiteer, at least in the fullest sense, since I voted to remain. Try speaking to those on the other side of that vote. I guarantee you, you will find that lots of them will be of the opinion that a second referendum would be wrong and/or unfair, and should therefore not be permitted, at least not any time soon.
If you agree that in principle a second referendum would be justifiable with "sufficient changes" or "sufficient evidence of campaign fraud" or "sufficient changes to the makeup of parliament that they need not feel bound by poor decisions of passed leadership", then we are in agreement in principle.
I've argued against some of those reasons. As I've said, the only circumstances in which I would accept a second referendum as a viable option is as a last resort if we were headed straight for a no deal Brexit.
As for the "promise of binding", I do not feel this is a simple defense. For instance, what do we mean by "binding"? That article 50 would be triggered? Well, that's already done so "promise fulfilled", what do we do now that a deal is on the table: consult the people once again.
The referendum results being treated as binding would mean that the government does everything in their power to follow through on them, i.e leave. It wouldn't just mean triggering article 50, because they have the power to revoke it. The promise wouldn't be fulfilled if the government did anything that risked undermining or effectively invalidating the results, like holding a second referendum.
And bypassing our representatives in parliament to consult the people directly over the current deal or the final deal isn't the only option or necessarily the best.
From what I understand the May-EU proposed agreement is the "final offer" as far as the EU is concerned, so it seems to be there's something to vote on.
The scare quotes are appropriate. We can't know whether it truly is the final offer until the last minute. Both sides could be bluffing to some extent in order to put pressure on the other side. The media has today reported on new government plans for a no deal scenario, which could also be a tactical move to some degree.
In any complex planning process it's very normal critical things come up for votes several times; so it's fairly natural that there's a vote to start a process and then the same kind of vote at critical junctures in the process.
But that wasn't how it was sold. I wouldn't expect to be given a second shot if I gambled away all of my chips in a casino.
The consequences of the referendum have been triggering article 50, going all the way to 30 months before Brexit deal or no-deal. I believe in the context of the Brexit campaigns, the "binding promise" was more about the idea parliament would just ignore the vote and do nothing; in that scenario, yes I agree it would lower faith in the democratic process; however, the actions of parliament post-Brexit vote have definitely had consequence, and so given all those consequences and actions by the parliament it's quite natural to confirm things in a second vote.
Yes, there have been consequences, such as those you mention. I'm not denying that. But the whole shebang could become meaningless in the sense that it would've all been for nothing if we end up remaining.
Lots of political decisions have consequences, and people can feel differently about things over time, but that in itself is a fairly weak justification for going back to the public a mere two years later for a do over - and that's what it would be. If you just wanted confirmation of what people think, then you could look at the most recent polling data.
There were no doubt plenty of people who would've liked a do over of the referendum on Scottish independence in 2016, two years after the vote. There were also no doubt plenty of people who would've liked a do over of the 2010 general election two years after it was held. But that doesn't mean that they should get what they want. As a model, that would be both unworkable and undesirable. People want their decisions to mean more than that. If we could just potentially cancel any such decision after a short period of time, then making that initial decison would lose much of that importance. Furthermore, it could end up either wasting a lot of time, money and effort in the case of acting on the initial results, or just cause a pointless two year delay until there's a vote that actually counts.
I say again, the option of a second referendum should be taken as nothing other than a last resort in order to stand a chance of avoiding the unwanted disaster of a no deal scenario. It isn't in itself justified, nor should it be tolerable in light of anything other than the imminent danger of crashing out without a deal.
Yes, my points are mainly on the theme that it's not anti-democratic for Parliament to call a second referendum.
It would to some extent be an act of self-harm by the establishment within the political system [i]to[/I] that very system of which both they and we are a part. That political system is, by the way, a form of democracy. So, although it might not mean or want to be, it is in a sense anti-democratic. Just because a second referendum would be more directly democratic than alternatives, that doesn't mean that it wouldn't undermine the democracy of the United Kingdom; and if it risks doing that, then it's not so different to threats of an explicitly anti-democratic nature.
Now, if I was an MP I would vote for a second referendum.
I don't think that I could do so in good conscience at this stage. The priority should be working towards acquiring a deal good enough to gain a majority in parliament. There's a mandate to leave on good terms, to which I'd be duty bound to respect.
The main argument I would use is that if I struck a preliminary agreement with another business and then the lawyers drafted the final version of the agreement, I of course have the right to backout and even if the lawyers (i.e. my representatives) had power of attorney to sign on my behalf -- and even if their understanding of my instructions left room for interpreting that maybe I don't want to review the final draft -- I would definitely want to review the final draft as well as consult me again at critical points. No competent representative in the business world would act otherwise without either incredibly clear instructions to not-re-consult or then some sort of bizarre situation where confirmation is impossible and so they did their best; in the case of Brexit, re-confirmation is not impossible, and any lawyer would, given a similar situation in business or with individuals, that obviously confirming at each step is the best way to know one is faithfully representing their clients; I don't see why political representatives should have lower standards (which is logic that leads directly to the Swiss system, which I am a big fan of). So yes, I'd expect my representatives to respect my preliminary indication of what to do, but I'd also expect them to come back once they have a clear idea of the agreement or execution plan so that I could give a final decision (preliminary agreements are not binding as that makes negotiations basically impossible, it's binding after the signature and parties can walk away before that; in the case of Brexit it's a highly suspect line of reasoning that "the results of the referendum being biding" continues to make every further step towards Brexit also binding, it's entirely consistent that the results are binding to start implementing the objective and further consultation is reasonable to make subsequent critical steps also binding).
That interpretation is susceptible to the criticism that there was what was essentially a verbal contract - which was made public knowledge - which stipulated that the government would treat the results of the referendum as binding, even though the referendum was technically only advisory, and even though the ECJ has since ruled that the UK can revoke article 50. It certainly wasn't sold to us as advisory or as a preliminary indication. It could be further argued that if the government were to violate that verbal contract, then they should be held to account in some way. There should be repercussions.
Moreover, you mention a final say, yet there is already due to be a final say. It's due to happen in the House of Commons, and it's on whether or not to accept the deal that is due to be put to the members of that house: our representatives. You might favour a different - more direct - democratic system, but the reality is that that's not the system that we've got here. You might also favour there being more options than that, but the fact is that we already decided to leave, and it would take something big to happen for additional options to become more of a reality. We're not there yet.
I think that the real choice is - or will be - between striking a deal or cancellation. The former could be May's deal, an altered version, or a different deal. (And the deal [i]could[/I] change, even if there is signalling on either side that it won't). The latter could be with or without a referendum. And no deal is considered to be the least acceptable option by many, perhaps most, myself included, so I'm still not convinced that it'll actually come to that.
Pattern-chaserDecember 20, 2018 at 11:42#2390350 likes
I think UK politicians will feel compelled to recognise the results of the first referendum and don't think that realistically their thinking will have evolved or will evolve in the time left that it would lead to a sensible referendum. So it seems politically impossible. Ignoring that I'd think it would be good to have a referendum although I'm still not sure if it is already ready for one considering the lack of detailed analyses of various options.
Yes I agree a referendum doesn't seem likely. The plan seems to be to go right to the edge of the "crash out" and so force accepting May's deal; or at least this seems May's plan. I don't know enough about UK politicians to guess what other factions maybe planning. However, if this plan doesn't work, I wager a referendum is more likely than no-deal Brexit and the EU would supply more time if that's needed. Parliament just cancelling Brexit is also in the running but seems less likely to me. A no-deal Brexit seems insane, but so was a vague Brexit vote with vague promises of the vague results being totally binding.
That's a misreading. That's not at all what I meant. I meant that, despite the complexities involved in discussions about Brexit, some of it can be boiled down to some key ethical issues of a more general nature, that we're all familiar with, such as whether a promise should be kept, and under what circumstances would it be justified to break one.
Yes, this is also what I'm arguing against. The principle "promises should be kept" is actually quite difficult to apply, even to just add weight among many other considerations.
The "we'll consider it binding" is only really meaningful to consider as referring to the individuals politicians that participated in this claim and not "all parliament", even at the time. There was no law passed explaining what "binding" meant and actually making it "binding" on the government (until repealed of course).
Parliament is not a singular cohesive moral agent, so just to establish who exactly made this promise to begin with is a complicated task. Obviously any new MP could say "hey, I didn't make this promise". Since there was an election in the meantime, any politician that was MP at the time could say their mandate has changed (any representative can always justify a change in position based on claiming their constituents have changed position; whether disingenuous or not, it's a sound argument); so even politicians that unequivocally participated in the promise could say "it was a promise of the previous parliamentary session", now there's a new sessions and it's our job to look at all the options. But I would wager most MP's could easily say they "didn't really back the promise", that they viewed it as a promise of the PM and cabinet at the time.
Then, what was "binding" referring too?, if it wasn't a mandate for a no-deal Brexit and the chaos that would follow, then the only alternative is that it's a mandate to "get a better deal with the EU by a negotiated exit" ... but then who's to say what's a better deal or not?
After doing this, there remains the possibility that the promise has been kept, that everyone understood it to be triggering article 50 which the government did, which at the time everyone understood would "lock in Brexit"; in other words, the "binding actions" have been carried out, that the resulting situation is not what people expected doesn't somehow extend the scope of the "binding promise" one way or another.
So even just establishing what the promise actually meant and who should still feel bound to it and to what extent it has been fulfilled is a complicated philosophical task requiring reviewing each MP's statements and even state of mind of what they believed "binding meant" when they made or were associated with the promise.
That's the problem with vague promises and why verbal contracts rarely get uphold in law. The purpose of a written contract isn't so much as to prove the agreement was struck (a easily forged signature isn't much proof, which is why there are notaries for when the proof is the essential part), but much more to actually spell out what people are agreeing to and why what seems like a simple agreement can be easily dozens or hundreds of pages.
Then, once all this is established there's all the further issues of under what conditions is it right to break the promise and do those conditions exist.
Yes I agree a referendum doesn't seem likely. The plan seems to be to go right to the edge of the "crash out" and so force accepting May's deal; or at least this seems May's plan. I don't know enough about UK politicians to guess what other factions maybe planning. However, if this plan doesn't work, I wager a referendum is more likely than no-deal Brexit and the EU would supply more time if that's needed. Parliament just cancelling Brexit is also in the running but seems less likely to me. A no-deal Brexit seems insane, but so was a vague Brexit vote with vague promises of the vague results being totally binding.
The more I think about it the more likely I find it that the article 50 notice will be revoked if there's no deal to be had. At least to me that seems the only sane options if the alternative is a no-deal Brexit since there won't be enough time for another referendum.
unenlightenedDecember 20, 2018 at 13:19#2390560 likes
Looks like I'm in agreement with Tory cabinet minister, Amber Rudd.
[quote=BBC News]"I have said I don't want a People's Vote or referendum in general but if parliament absolutely failed to reach a consensus I could see there would be a plausible argument for it," the work and pensions secretary told ITV's Robert Peston show.[/quote]
As well as Labour shadow cabinet minister, Angela Rayner.
[quote=BBC News]Speaking on the same programme, Labour's shadow education secretary Angela Rayner said talk of another referendum was "hypothetical" at this stage and would represent a "failure" by Parliament.
She accused the prime minister of trying to scare MPs into backing her deal by delaying the vote on it to the latest possible date.[/quote]
Indeed it has/is, but you commented that we are afeared of independence, when there is no longer independence to be had. Unless you suggest we should emulate N Korea in their isolation? And even they depend (heavily) on China, the only nation that will deal with them. Independence is only attractive in theory, in today's world.
Indeed it has/is, but you commented that we are afeared of independence, when there is no longer independence to be had. Unless you suggest we should emulate N Korea in their isolation? And even they depend (heavily) on China, the only nation that will deal with them. Independence is only attractive in theory, in today's world.
Like I said, it's always been a matter of degree, which doesn't imply you have to accept the degree of autonomy that exists in N. Korea in order to be independent. The UK removing itself from the EU won't make it isolationist. I fully expect trade to continue, just under terms negotiated by Britain. I think there's a definition of "independent" that doesn't include being a hermit.
Pattern-chaserDecember 20, 2018 at 14:43#2390920 likes
I fully expect trade to continue, just under terms negotiated by Britain.
And how long (after Brexit) must we wait before these negotiations start, never mind bear fruit? At least one country has told us to 'get in line', as they're currently negotiating deals with bigger and more important trading partners than us. Meantime ... no imported food for us? :chin:
I think there's a definition of "independent" that doesn't include being a hermit.
A hermit chooses to live in isolation. We won't be choosing that, we'll be finding that it's the case because everyone else is too busy living their interconnected, dependent, lives to have anything to do with a very minor country unable to transcend (or even accept) the loss of its historic empire.... :roll:
unenlightenedDecember 20, 2018 at 15:13#2391080 likes
But never mind the chaos, never mind the so-called decision, and whether anyone can or will make it or has made it, the important thing is that Jeremy Corbyn might have muttered to himself 'Stupid woman", when May was literally doing her pantomime routine in parliament. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-46628420/mps-accuse-corbyn-of-calling-may-stupid-woman
This doesn't make sense if you really think about it. Why would the EU offer a better deal to non-member States? It's not going to happen barring some full scale disintegration of the EU.Also good luck with finding an alternative market as developed with similar purchasing power and the size of the EU. So they'll have GDP growth at some point again but the GDP reduction for the next 2 to 5 years will be real (and a permanent loss compared to remaining).
Not all of Europe is in the EU, like Switzerland, Norway, Iceland (to the extent that is part of Europe), to name a few. Why will Britain's departure spell such disaster if other nations have fared well without the EU association? Is there something distinct about Britain's dependence on the EU that doesn't affect these other nations? Maybe the rebel states could form their own confederacy.
Reply to Hanover Switzerland, Norway and Iceland are EFTA countries with strongly aligned laws with EU laws. They basically accept EU law (but can veto for themselves and other efta members) without having any say in how those laws come about. Moreover, they have had ample time to negotiate other trade and tax deals with other countries, which gives them a basis on which to deal with non - eu countries. The UK on the other hand is going to free fall into a situation with barely any trade deals into place.
ChangelingDecember 20, 2018 at 20:16#2392010 likes
No, we should seek a better one. There should be a no confidence vote on the government when the time is right. But if that fails, and it's either May's deal or no deal, then yes, we should take May's deal.
What basis do you have to think there's a better deal? The government has prioritised control of the UK borders, goods over services. If you want a better deal you need to adjust priorities or there's nothing better to be had.
What basis do you have to think there's a better deal? The government has prioritised control of the UK borders, goods over services. If you want a better deal you need to adjust priorities or there's nothing better to be had.
That might be true, but a different government would have different priorities. There could be a change of government as a consequence of a successful vote of no confidence against the government. A government lead by someone other than Theresa May would have a different set of priorities, which would lead to seeking a different deal, and a different deal could arguably be a better deal.
You can say that that seems unlikely, but the same can be said of May's deal passing a vote. So if we're setting aside these kind of considerations in our talk of what should happen, then my preference is for an alternative deal.
ChangelingDecember 21, 2018 at 12:51#2393790 likes
Reply to S Is there still time to get a better deal?
You can say that that seems unlikely, but the same can be said of May's deal passing a vote. So if we're setting aside these kind of considerations in our talk of what should happen, then my preference is for an alternative deal.
Sure. And for any government to have enough time to negotiate a new deal will require revocation of the article 50 notice. Works for me.
ChangelingDecember 22, 2018 at 02:51#2395320 likes
Reply to Evil Given the deadline of March 29, I don't see how else it could work to have elections, a new government with new priorities, which will then negotiate with the EU over a new deal. Given the holidays they would have 3 months. That doesn't seem possible without delaying the deadline and the UK can only do that unilaterally by revoking its article 50 notice.
It would to some extent be an act of self-harm by the establishment within the political system to that very system of which both they and we are a part. That political system is, by the way, a form of democracy. So, although it might not mean or want to be, it is in a sense anti-democratic.
I don't see what the contention is here. A referendum would happen if the Parliament voted for it to happen, so would satisfy the current system of democracy and simply be an extension of it.
Just because a second referendum would be more directly democratic than alternatives, that doesn't mean that it wouldn't undermine the democracy of the United Kingdom; and if it risks doing that, then it's not so different to threats of an explicitly anti-democratic nature.
I don't see how this works. Why would parliament calling a second referendum undermine UK democracy?
I've argued against some of those reasons. As I've said, the only circumstances in which I would accept a second referendum as a viable option is as a last resort if we were headed straight for a no deal Brexit.
This seems to directly contradict your next statements:
The referendum results being treated as binding would mean that the government does everything in their power to follow through on them, i.e leave. It wouldn't just mean triggering article 50, because they have the power to revoke it. The promise wouldn't be fulfilled if the government did anything that risked undermining or effectively invalidating the results, like holding a second referendum.
If the referendum was a binding mandate to leave, "does everything in their power to follow through on them, i.e. leave", then there's basis to have a referendum nor a vote in parliament that could revoke article 50. Parliament could vote down the deal, but then there must be a no-deal Brexit.
It's not a principles position to say on the one had "the referendum was binding to leave" but on the other hand "I would accept a second referendum [...] if we were headed straight for a no deal Brexit". It may feel principles, but thee principles are no consistent. The refernedum wasn't a vote for "negotiate a good exit from the EU and if that doesn't work cancel it", so if you want to stick to the results of the referendum as binding to leave, then what follows from this principle is leaving the EU deal or no-deal.
If you accept revoking article 50, either by parliament directly or by parliament calling a second referendum that revokes it, is better than a no-deal Brexit, that is to accept either mandate of the referendum was not to leave deal or no-deal or then the situation has changed enough to warrant reviewing (by parliament or a referendum) the decision to leave.
Your position seems to be that sticking to a principle until it's too inconvenient and then abandoning it, is a more principled position than accepting the position can be abandoned on a more nuanced discussion of the many principles in play.
That interpretation is susceptible to the criticism that there was what was essentially a verbal contract - which was made public knowledge - which stipulated that the government would treat the results of the referendum as binding, even though the referendum was technically only advisory, and even though the ECJ has since ruled that the UK can revoke article 50. It certainly wasn't sold to us as advisory or as a preliminary indication. It could be further argued that if the government were to violate that verbal contract..
The problem, as I've mentioned, is that "parliament" nor "the government" is a single moral agent to begin with, so any MP can argue "they didn't make that promise". On-top of that "what exactly was the promise" is up for debate.
Moreover, you mention a final say, yet there is already due to be a final say.
This is the core problem in your position. If you accept the parliament can have a final say then that final say could be to hold a second referendum to have a "final-final" say (in other words it's not a final say). If you accept the parliament can decide vote one way or another, then they are legitimate in deferring whatever decision they might make to a second referendum.
You seem to be interpreting things already assuming that there won't be a second referendum and the parliament has the right to not-call a second referendum, and somehow that parliament could do this is justification in itself. I agree nothing is forcing UK parliament to call a second referendum, but that they have the power to decide not to call a second referendum implies that they have the power to call a second referendum. The main purpose of my arguments is to show a second referendum isn't somehow anti-democratic, and that parliament could base a decision to hold a second referendum on a wide range of reasonable and sound arguments (that doesn't make those argument true).
Given the deadline of March 29, I don't see how else it could work to have elections, a new government with new priorities, which will then negotiate with the EU over a new deal. Given the holidays they would have 3 months. That doesn't seem possible without delaying the deadline and the UK can only do that unilaterally by revoking its article 50 notice.
The process to extend the deadline isn't revoking article 50, nor even require any action on the part of the UK. The deadline is an imposition by the EU, and the EU states can vote to grant an extension; legally speaking they could do it unilaterally but I assume UK would need to ask.
There was an article the other day discussing exactly this, and that France and Spain may be motivated to block granting an extension.
However, I feel no one has any real principles to refer to in casting a veto against an extension for a second referendum to happen (although there's lot's of principled reasons to not grant the extension simply for the UK negotiate more), and it's very difficult to block a whole continent wide "almost consensus" for narrow self-interest (or just to spite the English). There's too much at stake and there would be too much pressure from Germany and the Nordic EU members and EU bureaucrats against a potential French veto for more time for a referendum.
I'm not saying it's guaranteed ... it would be a crazy irony that the French give UK time to have a second referendum, while dealing with the yellow-vests who have mostly consolidated around a demand to have more referendums in France. So it wouldn't be comfortable for France ... but the UK revoking article 50 is I think also sufficiently humiliating for the English political class and still weakens the UK's position within the EU for some time and simply revoking article 50 is a lot easier to deal with (French businesses don't want Brexit either).
All the options are bad now that the UK has verified that the EU won't give them a better deal (including not being willing to bend core EU principles to solve internal UK problems that any form or Brexit creates), but a second referendum seems to me the only way to really "settle" the issue and move on.
A no-deal Brexit would be an order of magnitude greater political suicide for the conservatives, potentially lead to large social unrest and serves no purpose.
If May's deal has no Parliament or public support (since it's clearly just a worse way to stay in the EU), then there's really no reason to pass it and even if they (whoever thinks it's a good idea, presumably May) managed to force it through it may result simply in wanting to get back in the EU later.
Parliament voting to revoke article 50 simply proves the Brexiters fear-mongering that the Parliament would never respect a leave vote and would just dilly-daddle and then cancel it. A second referendum is much easier to defend and provides some closure. The argument "it's not fair to vote again" simply doesn't holdup to scrutiny, and Brexiters holding on to this would eventually just be sulking in a corner.
Edit: Brexiters would probably still say it was dlli-daddling anyway, but there is actually a deal on the table and plausible basis to believe it's close to the best the EU would offer. More importantly, the prominent leavers are no where to be seen, so the "bad-faith" argument is much easier to throw at the leave campaign of not having a clue how to actually leave. For instance, UKIP hasn't been stumping everyday demanding that they should lead the negotiations since they would easily get so, so many concessions so easily from the EU and that a "better deal" would be this, this and that (the embarrassment of demonstrating their ignorance about what to do is worse than staying silent and implicitly accepting their bad-faith, but having the consolation prize of re-emerging after article 50 is reversed to accuse everyone else of bad-faith too). In other words, if Leave is A. better for the UK and B. the government was negotiating in bad faith, then certainly we'd hear about it from the Leavers: since we don't hear from them on how they would be easily doing it better, it's pretty easy to argue that they weren't of good faith to begin with (that their campaign was to build momentum for isolated aspects of their platform, such as anti-immigration, that they would have continued to beat on about when remain won the referendum, which everyone assumed, and their campaign was not some actual plan to leave the EU and resolve all the issues that creates).
Given the deadline of March 29, I don't see how else it could work to have elections, a new government with new priorities, which will then negotiate with the EU over a new deal. Given the holidays they would have 3 months. That doesn't seem possible without delaying the deadline and the UK can only do that unilaterally by revoking its article 50 notice.
It wouldn't necessarily lead to a general election. The Tory party would have a chance to form an alternative government. Either way, I don't think that it's impossible to obtain an alternative deal either in that in time or with an extension. I'm sure that contingency plans have been considered and discussed, and the opposition party has been in talks with the EU from the start, so it's not like there'd be starting from scratch. And a general election takes place over just a single day.
According to the guy who actually drafted article 50, who probably knows what he's talking about, you're wrong about a delay:
[quote=John Kerr, The Guardian]Almost certainly that will require some extension of the article 50 deadline beyond 29 March. The treaty is very clear about this – it can be done but requires unanimity among all EU states. If our purpose in asking for an extension was to allow time for a referendum, there is no doubt that all would agree. Brexit would be bad for everyone, though obviously worst for us.[/quote]
And there are other articles accessible online which confirm that it is possible for article 50 to be extended.
[quote=BBC News]One possible option would see Parliament having a role in deciding whether to extend the transition period or enter the backstop arrangement, if no trade deal has been reached by the end of December 2020.
The transition period is due to kick-in when the UK leaves the EU on 29 March. It can only be extended once for "up to one or two years" - but if the two sides have still not agreed a deal by the end of that second period, then the backstop will apply.
[...]
They could, as the agreement already suggests, just extend the "transition period", giving the two sides longer to come up with a free trade deal that would mean the dreaded backstop is never used.[/quote]
Corbyn has said that the earliest an election could take place is February - as a month needs to pass after a government has resigned before a vote can take place.
If Labour won, he said he would still want to pursue Brexit, and try to get a deal agreed before 29 March 2019 - the day the UK is set to leave the EU.
When asked about a second referendum, he offered no support, saying: "I think we should vote down this deal; we should then go back to the EU with a discussion about a customs union."
Reply to Benkei It wasn't that part that I was taking issue with, it was the part immediately after, where you said "by revoking article 50". As I understand it, it wouldn't be revoked, and it wouldn't need to be. It would just be extended.
Reply to S Extending the deadline is not a unilateral action. That would have to be agreed. The only unilateral action available to the UK would be a revocation. My post didn't deal with any agreements to be made with the EU, because parties can always agree to whatever new terms they want. That isn't an interesting point to make.
Extending the deadline is not a unilateral action. That would have to be agreed. The only unilateral action available to the UK would be a revocation. My post didn't deal with any agreements to be made with the EU, because parties can always agree to whatever new terms they want. That isn't an interesting point to make.
I don't really get your focus on unilateral options available to the UK. What's relevant is that article 50 can be extended if need be, whether you find that point interesting or otherwise. And it's relevant because it could pave the way for alternative paths.
Reply to S I was replying to what you thought was a mistake. And perhaps as a contracts lawyer the obvious to me might be of interest to you but I assumed everybody knows parties can always change their agreement. That goes for agreements between sovereigns as well. Apparently that assumption is a bit too optimistic. At the same time, not everybody is aware of the ECJ ruling though because the right to unilateral action is usually restricted. Otherwise treaties wouldn't be worth the paper they're written on.
Meanwhile I'm still waiting for that apology for not reading carefully what I wrote and insisting I was wrong where I wasn't (twice).
Reply to Benkei Alright, I admit that you got me there with the unilateral qualification. I didn't read carefully enough and missed that. Twice. Sorry! :razz:
You may consider that rare admission of error and apology a Christmas present. :grin:
I'm not sure if the confusion has been cleared up already, but there are two extensions.
Extending the negotiation deadline is a EU decision, i.e. the EU could unilaterally decide to not impose border controls and tariffs and extend the article 50 deadline to some later date. For instance, if the UK is in parliament deadlock, vote of no-confidence the week before the deadline, and simply does nothing, the EU could decide to grant an extension (there is no set process that the UK must request a extension by some formal mechanism, the EU could decide it by themselves to; to avoid chaos for EU citizens and business for instance).
However, absent parliament deadlock and a collapsed government, presumably it would be a mutual thing to agree on an extension. I mention the EU could grant an extension unilaterally just to underline that article 50 is an EU law and changing it would require an EU decision process: The consensus of all the EU countries. So in theory a single EU country could block an extending of the article 50 deadline (apparently France and Spain would be the most motivated).
These are small details but could become suddenly relevant.
Extending the article 50 deadline is not the same as extending the transition period that is part of May's agreement. Once May's agreement is in place, the whole article 50 deadline goes away and a new bilateral treaty between the UK and EU is in place ... which basically keeps the UK functionally in the EU for a period that could be extended unilaterally by the UK for up to 80 years (expressed by using 20XX as date placeholder, which to me is a weird way of saying it).
I don't really get your focus on unilateral options available to the UK. What's relevant is that article 50 can be extended if need be, whether you find that point interesting or otherwise. And it's relevant because it could pave the way for alternative paths.
I agree here with Benkei that the EU would not help in the case of UK wanting to extend article 50 simply to negotiate more.
However, if the UK asked for a 1-2 month extension in order to do a referendum, in diplomatic parlance the EU would "look like a douche" for not granting that, so I think it would be likely. At the end of the day the EU still doesn't want the UK to remain and a referendum to remain would be the best way to put the issue behind to rest.
Given the cost of Brexit to the UK and that many issues still have no way to resolve (good Friday agreement) and that Brexit will supercharge Scottish independence and maybe Whales, and all the prominent Leavers jumped ship, I think the EU would be confident that the UK wouldn't start the whole thing over again any time soon.
The only unilateral action available to the UK would be a revocation.
The more I think about this, the more tricky it becomes. At the moment it isn't official, just the recommendation of some top EU lawyer. But if it was official, any country could trigger article 50, try to get a better deal and if not revoke article 50; doing it whenever they want as much as they want. This may lead to the EU being forced to simply not negotiate whenever article 50 is triggered but offer only "crash-out or revoke"; not sure if this would be a good development or not, nor if the EU court would consider this scenario in a final decision to allow unilateral revoking (of course, revocation could always be bilateral).
Edit: Unilateral revoking of article 50 would even allow a group of countries to do it together, protesting this or that, and create one-sided brinkmanship since they can just cancel a minute before the deadline. Since all countries have to be treated equally within the EU, there's nothing the EU could do to disincentivise this sort of behaviour. As a contract lawyer, Reply to Benkei , I imagine you'd never accept a party able to cancel a deal, try to negotiate a better deal and shop around, and then be able to simply cancel the cancelling and go back the first deal if they don't find better.
I agree here with Benkei that the EU would not help in the case of UK wanting to extend article 50 simply to negotiate more.
Even under a late change of Prime Minister who was open to a deal seen as more attractive by both the EU and parliament? I guess they could try to force us into cancelling Brexit or leaving without a deal. If it was Corbyn in charge, maybe he'd fail to get a better deal and bow down to the pressure of having a second referendum. Or it could all backfire spectacularly and we end up leaving without a deal, with both sides ending up worse off than otherwise.
I guess they could try to force us into cancelling Brexit or leaving without a deal
Yes, this is the EU's current position.
It could change of course, but Benkei and I both agree that it's very unlikely the EU would grant an extension simply to see if the UK could get a better deal.
Benkei finds it unlikely the EU would grant an extension even for a time to have a proper second referendum, whereas I think they would do that; but the decision would be up to EU governments. Without EU governments being unanimous in changing the treaty, EU technocrats in Brussels would be forced to eject UK from the EU, as that's the law as it stands.
Even UK's right to revoke article 50 (i.e. without all the EU governments agreeing) is not officially a law, just recommendation as I mentioned. It could be basically the EU trolling the UK (messing with May's ability to say "Brexit is locked in, it's deal or no-deal"), and they'd actually not give unilateral revocation rights (as it's a crazy precedent; an analogy would be the right to give your work 2 weeks notice, then just send an email the night of your last day and then just show up and keep working there if your other plans fell through; "no backsies" is a pretty well established legal precedent, so this whole "right to revoke article 50" doesn't have any legal foundation as far as I can see).
Or it could all backfire spectacularly and we end up leaving without a deal, with both sides ending up worse off than otherwise.
As it stands, the EU views a no-deal Brexit far more painful for the UK than the EU, whereas showing the EU red-lines (the so called "pillars") can be bent would undermine all further EU negotiations with both member states and trading partners as well as create a "UK trading backdoor".any country could exploit. This is why most experts say there simply is no better deal to be had, and May's deal is way better than they expected (expectation was UK would be punished in someway, whereas May's deal is pretty fair and allows UK to simply delay the real problems leaving entails until the end of the century; problem is there's no real basis to say the deal is better than staying in the EU, and 80 years of transition would basically be a diplomatic farce).
It could change of course, but Benkei and I both agree that it's very unlikely the EU would grant an extension simply to see if the UK could get a better deal.
I'm not just talking about the UK getting a better deal, I'm talking about a better deal for both. But anyway, I don't think that I'm disagreeing with either yourself or Benkei to any great extent on this point. You may well be right that it's a long shot. But it's not impossible or absent of any incentive, and it's what I'd push for until I'd exhausted all of my efforts and concluded that it was necessary to turn to a Plan B.
I haven't studied the decision in detail but a quick scan suggests that the article 50 notice is considered a declaration of intent to leave and not a formal notice. The distinction seems a bit silly so maybe someone who had more time can read the whole thing.
[quote=Lisa Nandy MP]In Wigan, people constantly tell me that they will never vote again if the result is overturned. There has long been a loss of trust in politicians, but the chaos surrounding Brexit is provoking a collapse of trust in democracy itself. There is no route to healing the country and beginning to rebuild those communities that have lived through decades of decline without that trust.
In Britain, we are beset by waves of populism and a [url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p06hsc1d]resurgent far right[/URL] that thrives on fear, mistrust, and democratic crisis. Our institutions—from Parliament and the political parties to the media and civil society—are simply not fit to respond. The vote to leave the EU was a political earthquake, a clamour for change that has been a long time coming. As Abraham Lincoln put it, in no less a moment of historical rupture, “The dogmas of the quiet past are unfit for the stormy present.” That is the hard truth for our political system. We elected representatives cannot carry on divorced from an understanding of the sentiment out in the country. We either adapt and change, or we will be erased.[/quote]
By opinion I meant simply to differentiate with a ruling by the court. But I seem to be behind the times, I wasn't aware a court has made a ruling recently, previously I had only read about the ombudsman recommendation, or is this a separate thing?
Also, it says in this document "preliminary ruling", is there further steps to get to a final ruling, or this legaleze to say final ruling in this context for some reason?
Thanks for posting the link, it's an interesting read. They did indeed consider the crazy abuse unilateral revocation of article 50 would create:
38. The Council and the Commission, while agreeing that a Member State is entitled to revoke the notification of its intention to withdraw before the Treaties have ceased to apply to that Member State, dispute the unilateral nature of that right.
39. According to those institutions, the recognition of a right of unilateral revocation would allow a Member State that has notified its intention to withdraw to circumvent the rules set out in Article 50(2) and (3) TEU, which are intended to ensure an orderly withdrawal from the European Union, and would open the way for abuse by the Member State concerned to the detriment of the European Union and its institutions.
40. The Council and the Commission argue that the Member State concerned could thus use its right of revocation shortly before the end of the period laid down in Article 50(3) TEU and notify a new intention to withdraw immediately after that period expired, thereby triggering a new two-year negotiation period. By doing so, the Member State would enjoy, de facto, a right to negotiate its withdrawal without any time limit, rendering the period laid down in Article 50(3) TEU ineffective.
41. In addition, according to those institutions, a Member State could at any time use its right of revocation as leverage in negotiations. If the terms of the withdrawal agreement did not suit that Member State, it could threaten to revoke its notification and thus put pressure on the EU institutions in order to alter the terms of the agreement to its own advantage.
42. In order to guard against such risks, the Council and the Commission propose that Article 50 TEU should be interpreted as allowing revocation, but only with the unanimous consent of the European Council.
This argument makes complete sense to me.
I can honestly not follow how the conclusion to grant unilateral revocation rights is reached. Basically they refer to the principle that a country cannot be forced to leave the union against their will ... but the purpose of triggering article 50 is exactly a willful exit. It seems (to me) pretty weak quibbling to say a "that Member State changes its mind and decides not to withdraw from the European Union" is now "forcing the member state to leave against their will".
So will be interesting if this isn't the final decision if it gets reversed, likewise if the ruling become final, or is already final, it's interesting how the EU would deal with future article 50 negotiation (or that they have to amend the treaty to make the "exit as a member state" immediate at the start of article 50 but a 2 year status quo agreement, or something along those lines).
So will be interesting if this isn't the final decision if it gets reversed, likewise if the ruling become final, or is already final, it's interesting how the EU would deal with future article 50 negotiation (or that they have to amend the treaty to make the "exit as a member state" immediate at the start of article 50 but a 2 year status quo agreement, or something along those lines).
It's a final decision. It's based on a request of another court on the interpretation of EU law, in this case a Scottish Court. People can appeal the decision of the Scottish Court but not the basis of that interpretation which is now established EU law.
Pattern-chaserDecember 28, 2018 at 14:10#2412920 likes
Hasn't the EU already told us it's this deal or none? They are the biggest economic power bloc on the planet. Once we've left, we're just a third-world country struggling (and failing) to accept the end of our Empire. The position we occupy in the world, on the UN Security Council, and our privileged position in the EU, are all courtesy based on our history. We no longer rate that kind of respect, as we are about to find out when we leave our cosy seat in the EU....
They are the biggest economic power bloc on the planet. Once we've left, we're just a third-world country struggling (and failing) to accept the end of our Empire. The position we occupy in the world, on the UN Security Council, and our privileged position in the EU, are all courtesy based on our history. We no longer rate that kind of respect, as we are about to find out when we leave our cosy seat in the EU...
You are preaching to the choir. I voted to remain.
Pattern-chaserDecember 28, 2018 at 19:35#2413510 likes
Reply to S Then why mention a 'better deal'? There won't be one.
You are preaching to the choir. I voted to remain.
Given that you are happy to pay £13billion in fees, £4billion in fish, £4billion in benefits to EU citizens, to sustain a £95billion deficit in traded goods, for whatever benefit you think you get in return, why does no other country pay the same?
Given that you are happy to pay £13billion in fees, £4billion in fish, £4billion in benefits to EU citizens, to sustain a £95billion deficit in traded goods, for whatever benefit you think you get in return, why does no other country pay the same?
You can cherry pick stats until the cows come home, but I'm siding with the economists on this one.
I believe Project Fear has such a device, though it seems to be malfunctioning for the last couple of years.
Sure, and you expect me to believe that you know better than the experts, I suppose? They've been wrong before, so we should just go ahead and disregard what they've been saying?
You can cherry pick stats until the cows come home, but I'm siding with the economists on this one.
Sure, but why is UK expected to pay so much, when no other country does? Germany pays more in fees, but is vastly over compensated in surplus in trade of goods.
The customs union cannat be called "free-trade" when it costs the UK so much.
Sure, but why is UK expected to pay so much, when no other country does? Germany pays more in fees, but is vastly over compensated in surplus in trade of goods.
The customs union cannat be called "free-trade" when it costs the UK so much.
I don't know whether or not what you're saying is true, but if your purpose in saying it is to dissuade me from the notion that our membership of the European Union is the best thing since sliced bread, then there's no need for it. I just think that it's better than the available alternatives.
I don't know whether or not what you're saying is true, but if your purpose in saying it is to dissuade me from the notion that our membership of the European Union is the best thing since sliced bread, then there's no need for it. I just think that it's better than the available alternatives.
Being an open free-trading democracy, is always better than the alternatives.
Being an open free-trading democracy, is always better than the alternatives.
No, it's a matter of priorities. When comparing an open free-trading democracy to alternative democracies, my priority is what makes us economically better off. I shouldn't end up economically worse off as a consequence of your fondness for the idea of open free-trade.
No, it's a matter of priorities. When comparing an open free-trading democracy to alternative democracies, my priority is what makes us economically better off.
Many people prefer to live in a sovereign democracy than a undemocratic burgeoning police-state, even if that state invests a great deal of your money into propaganda.
The Brexit vote was proof that the British still value self-determination. Project Fear could not be ignored, and everyone believed that, while the Bank of England and Treasury predictions may have been slightly pessimistic, UK was in for some serious economic problems if the country voted Leave. I seem to recall the BoE predicted 600,000 immediate job losses.
If your only concern is your wallet, it might be worth noting that UK would be bankrupt if it were not for its profitable trade with the Rest of the World.
Many people prefer to live in a sovereign democracy than a undemocratic burgeoning police-state, even if that state invests a great deal of your money into propaganda.
If your only concern is your wallet, it might be worth noting that UK would be bankrupt if it were not for its profitable trade with the Rest of the World.
It's not my only concern, but it's a primary concern. And prior to the referendum, we were not at risk of going bankrupt as a result of losing profitable trade with the rest of the world, so what you're saying is misleading. We would continue to profitably trade with the rest of the world in or out of the European Union.
It's not my only concern, but it's a primary concern. And prior to the referendum, we were not at risk of going bankrupt as a result of losing profitable trade with the rest of the world, so what you're saying is misleading. We would continue to profitably trade with the rest of the world in or out of the European Union.
Less than 8% of UK GDP has anything to do with selling goods to EU, according to the EU Commission. They don't want your stuff, they just want your money, your fish, and £4billion in benefits.
Less than 8% of UK GDP has anything to do with selling goods to EU, according to the EU Commission. They don't want your stuff, they just want your money, your fish, and £4billion in benefits.
According to the office of national statistics, in 2016, the income from UK exports to the EU alone was worth almost as much as the income from UK exports to the rest of the world (£235.8 billion compared with £284.1 billion respectively). And almost half (48%) of UK goods exports went to the EU. So they most definitely want our stuff.
And, although I don't have the number at hand, given these statistics, the percentage of UK GDP which has to do with selling goods to the rest of the world can't be much higher, so again, you're cherry picking.
Also, you should know that UK services, and financial services in particular, make up a significant portion of our exports. So why focus exclusively on UK goods?
Pattern-chaserDecember 30, 2018 at 14:49#2418280 likes
Because very few countries are as rich as we are? Only five countries in the whole world (which boasts hundreds of countries) have more than we do. And besides, I thought Germany paid more than we do, and maybe other members too? :chin:
Because very few countries are as rich as we are? Only five countries in the whole world (which boasts hundreds of countries) have more than we do. And besides, I thought Germany paid more than we do, and maybe other members too?
Of these "hundreds of countries", how many of them give away a £4billion fishing industry, pay £4billion in benefits to citizens of neighbouring countries, suffer a £95billion deficit in traded goods, and pay £13billion for the privilege?
Of these "hundreds of countries", how many of them give away a £4billion fishing industry, pay £4billion in benefits to citizens of neighbouring countries, suffer a £95billion deficit in traded goods, and pay £13billion for the privilege?
Why would any sane country do that?
You're doing it wrong, and I suspect that you're doing it wrong on purpose to try to make the situation look worse than it is, and I'm going to keep exposing you every time that you do this. You need to look at net profit, not just expenses, and you need to compare that to what it is estimated to be after leaving. Economists, who know what they're doing a lot more than you, have done these kind of calculations and worked out that we'll likely be worse off, i.e. lower net profit.
The £95billion figure is not the overall trade deficit figure, which is actually the lower figure of £67billion. And the comparative figure for your £95billion for non-EU countries is a trade deficit of £42billion. (Source).
Here is a fact check on the UK's trade deficit with the EU. By the way, note that about 80% of the UK economy comes from providing services, and we have a trade surplus with the EU in services.
Unfortunately, the exotic spresm that is Brexit can't be unspressed without consequence.
Can’t be followed through without consequence either. And as I’ve said before, my crystal ball is telling me that the consequences of Brexit - especially a No Deal Brexit - would be worse than the consequences of revoking Article 50.
Can’t be followed through without consequence either. And as I’ve said before, my crystal ball is telling me that the consequences of Brexit - especially a No Deal Brexit - would be worse than the consequences of revoking Article 50.
This is strange, because paying £13billion in fees annually, £4billion in fish, £4billion in benefits to EU citizens, to maintain a £95billion deficit in traded goods seems pretty catastrophic already.
Less than 8% of UK GDP depends on selling goods to EU.
A no deal Brexit will simply mean that things carry on as they are (as WTO rules demand) but the UK is free to trade openly with the rest of the world, rekindle it economic links with the Commonwealth, and become a functioning democracy once more. Oh, and it saves £39billion and gets its fishing industry back.
unenlightenedJanuary 18, 2019 at 09:43#2473600 likes
We could leave the WTO as well - imposing its rules on us undemocratically.
I think people are seriously misjudging the mood of the British.
The British are desperate and angry. Unfortunately at entirely the wrong people. That something is popular does not prevent it from being a disaster. But you miss the point as usual. The WTO is an international governing body like the EU. We could leave, and take back control. It would be another really bad idea.
The British are desperate and angry. Unfortunately at entirely the wrong people. That something is popular does not prevent it from being a disaster. But you miss the point as usual. The WTO is an international governing body like the EU. We could leave, and take back control. It would be another really bad idea.
As I said, UK already trades under WTO (where the EU will allow). In fact, Germany's single largest trading partner is China, with which it trades mostly under WTO.
UK's single most profitable trading partner is USA, with whom it will have a free trade agreement soon after Brexit, so whether USA is in WTO or not is irrelevant to UK.
Trade deals are being offered to UK from across the globe. WTO is merely a fall-back where no deal exists, like with China or USA.
Even here the officials are preparing for the no-deal Brexit:
If you are a British citizen living in Finland, here is what we recommend you to do:
•Register your right of residence in Finland, if you have not done that already.
The registration might be of advantage if the United Kingdom decides to withdraw from the EU and British citizens are required to apply for a residence permit in Finland in the same way as any other so called third-country nationals.
The registration might be of advantage if the United Kingdom decides to withdraw from the EU and British citizens are required to apply for a residence permit in Finland in the same way as any other so called third-country nationals
UK citizens already have to register their residence in Finland, and demonstrate they have sufficient funds to support themselves and their family. Same applies across the EU.
unenlightenedJanuary 18, 2019 at 11:10#2473760 likes
Except Britain, of course, which has to put up with hordes of Finns coming here to take advantage of the wonderful happy life that we all lead here with our super-generous benefits system and state of the art health service.
Except Britain, of course, which has to put up with hordes of Finns coming here to take advantage of the wonderful happy life that we all lead here with our super-generous benefits system and state of the art health service.
UK is only managing a net immigration from EU of 74,000 per anum at the moment. The 248,000 from elsewhere will help take up the slack.
I don't think there is a large Finnish population in UK, but there are a million Poles, and approaching four million EU citizens in total.
Leave means cleave basically! There are two tribes and their makeup is largely predicted by their personalities IMO. The leavers are largely introverts and the remainers extroverrts.
unenlightenedJanuary 18, 2019 at 12:00#2473980 likes
I don't think there is a large Finnish population in UK, but there are a million Poles, and approaching four million EU citizens in total.
Gosh, 4 million is a lot, I don't think my spare bedroom is big enough. But back to the WTO, that unaccountable undemocratic overwhelmingly foreign organisation imposing its trade rules on us. Let's take back control, Leave the WTO!
Gosh, 4 million is a lot, I don't think my spare bedroom is big enough. But back to the WTO, that unaccountable undemocratic overwhelmingly foreign organisation imposing its trade rules on us. Let's take back control, Leave the WTO!
I find it rather amusing that the UK has more representation on the WTO than it does on the EU Commission.
unenlightenedJanuary 18, 2019 at 12:09#2474000 likes
Reply to Inis That's because it is even more undemocratic than the EU. But the British people were never consulted about joining the WTO, and we demand a referendum.
That's because it is even more undemocratic than the EU. But the British people were never consulted about joining the WTO, and we demand a referendum.
I also find it deeply amusing that UK is forced to be a member of WTO by the EU, yet still manages to have more representation on WTO than the EU Commission.
After Brexit, UK will effectively have to re-join WTO as an independent member.
UK citizens already have to register their residence in Finland
Looking at the timid plea asking people to register, I'm not so sure how adamant the authorities have been of this with Britons as members of the EU. You see, in our small northern country, Britons make only a tiny community. It was earlier reported that there are 4 000 Britons living here. Then the figure climbed to 4 500 and now the number has gone up to 5 000. A 25% increase tells that the numbers weren't so exact in the first place.
Britain, of course, which has to put up with hordes of Finns coming here to take advantage of the wonderful happy life that we all lead here with our super-generous benefits system and state of the art health service.
Of course! In your Island Kingdom there are 20 000 of our lazy freeriders with Finnish passports enjoying your benefits and just idling around and drinking beer. Just like my best friend, who works there in a managerial position at BP. Hope you throw all those bums out and among them my friend, who then perhaps has to take the job offer from the Norwegian Statoil. He just dismisses the whole Brexit thing as a non-event, so rudeness from his country of residency would be good for his cocky attitude.
And as the EU messes up everything (where the EU, there a problem) and your politicians seem not to be better, a total fiasko is possible. Looking at it positively, it would be nice that we would go back to old time travelling days when not only did you need a passport, but also a visa to enter a country. And what else to get people more happy than to make a huge immigration chaos and demand people to apply for residence permits everywhere. I can imagine all those over one million Britons living in the continent and those millions of EU citizens in your country waiting in line in overcrowded immigration centers along with the Iraqis, Syrians and Afghanis.
Here the applications from Britons for Finnish citizenship has gone up over +200%. Yet what better thing to do than create a problem for a group of foreigners that really in no way have been a problem here. Here's one story:
Originally from Manchester in England but now living in Tampere, Andrew Frankton is just beginning the process of applying for Finnish citizenship. Having lived in Finland for 22 years, he certainly meets the residency requirement - but his application is currently hindered by his poor Finnish language skills.
“If you put a gun to my head and said ‘speak Finnish’, I would just say ‘pull the trigger’,” jokes Frankton.
Undeterred, he has been attending Finnish language courses and he is determined to reach the proficiency level required to pass the YKI language test required for all applicants to qualify for Finnish citizenship. Without Finnish citizenship, his status as an EU national resident in Finland could be in question.
Unfortunately, my friend might be correct that not much if anything happens with a no-deal Brexit on the surface. Even the EU Comission has urged to take easy with Andrew Frankton and with other Britons here.
When it comes to Brits living in Finland, the Commission says the government should “take a generous approach to the rights of UK citizens” and “should take measures to ensure that UK citizens legally residing in the EU on the date of withdrawal will continue to be considered legal residents”.
Can’t be followed through without consequence either. And as I’ve said before, my crystal ball is telling me that the consequences of Brexit - especially a No Deal Brexit - would be worse than the consequences of revoking Article 50.
Well, I agree with your first sentence, and like I said, a No Deal Brexit is the worst case scenario, so yes, revoke Article 50 if it's a last resort to prevent a No Deal Brexit. I still don't think that we'll end up in with a No Deal Brexit, though.
unenlightenedJanuary 18, 2019 at 14:18#2474510 likes
I rather think we will end up with no deal brexit, because whatever happens will be very unpopular, and anyone who blinks will lose their own support without getting any new support. If May softens, the Tory party will split, if Corbyn supports a referendum Labour will split, and uniting around a horror of no deal does not amount to an agreement to act to stop it, in the face of the baying mob.And without an agreement in parliament on a change of course, even a delay is unlikely.
And then some civil unrest, economic collapse, the break up of the Union and we'll all wake up, those that survive, to find ourselves serfs on the Rees-Mog estate and grateful for it M'lud.
unenlightenedJanuary 18, 2019 at 14:21#2474530 likes
I'm convinced that May will find a way to wiggle out of the Brexit that she never wanted and blame someone else for it. She's good like that.
Brexit can be delayed with EU permission, but there are mixed signals from EU whether they would give permission and for how long. They have already allocated some of the UK MEP seats to other countries, and are unlikely to want their parliament turned into a farce if UK returns a load of eurosceptic MEPs in the May EU elections.
If May wants to stop Brexit altogether, she is going to need primary legislation, and I'm unaware of any on the horizon.
The EU has offered a free trade deal in return for Northern Ireland.
She wiggled her way out of supporting a hard Brexit by dumping her red lines in the Irish sea. As a consequence there was a leadership challenge which she wiggled her way out of losing by promising to step down at the next election. Then she wiggled her way out of having to support the soft Brexit she didn't really want either by conspiring to lose the vote on it by a record margin. Next she'll wiggle out of no-deal by extending the deadline or some other such maneuver by getting the moderates in her party to rebel against her. And finally she'll find a way to wiggle out of any Brexit at all by getting Labour or some cross-party alliance to leave her no other choice. That's a lot of wiggling for someone stuck in a cornfield.
unenlightenedJanuary 18, 2019 at 14:54#2474730 likes
Reply to Baden Nah, she is stuck with the leadership of a party that unanimously despises her, but wants to keep her in place to take the blame, and she is stuck trying to implement a policy she does not believe in, and that nobody wants. As a consummate wiggler myself, I would in her shoes force both sides to support me by threatening to resign and thereby make someone else have to take the blame - ideally Corbyn. My real nightmare scenario for Labour is that she calls a general election, delays brexit and contrives to split the Conservatives, forcing a Labour win. And then it will all be their fault.
Well, call me a Pollyanna, but I still reckon Jacob Mouse-Mugg is more likely to get eggs Benedict all over his face rather than the Bulldog's breakfast of Brexit he so covets.
Well, call me a Pollyanna, but I still reckon Jacob Mouse-Mugg is more likely to get eggs Benedict all over his face rather than the Bulldog's breakfast of Brexit he so covets.
How can Brexit be stopped? By law, EU treaties cease to apply to UK on 29th March.
There is provision for extending the A50 notice in the Withdrawal Act. But how long would the EU be willing to grant the extension for? And, as far as I can ascertain, such an extension can only happen once.
Would make the EU elections in May very interesting.
But how long would the EU be willing to grant the extension for?
I don't know, but a no-deal is not inevitable nor is any Brexit at all (though some kind of Brexit is more likely than a no-deal imo). And I don't expect a no-deal because I expect economic concerns will trump ideological ones.
unenlightenedJanuary 18, 2019 at 21:16#2476320 likes
This is the best Brexit diagnosis I've seen. The right historical context, the usual suspects identified.
This is the best Brexit diagnosis I've seen. The right historical context, the usual suspects identified.
Hysterical claptrap. UK trades profitably with the rest of the world under WTO, and many countries lining up for a trade deal, including USA, Japan, and Commonwealth countries. UK's problem is its £95billion deficit in traded goods with EU. An economic disaster.
I don't know, but a no-deal is not inevitable nor is any Brexit at all (though some kind of Brexit is more likely than a no-deal imo). And I don't expect a no-deal because I expect economic concerns will trump ideological ones.
Under UK Law, a no-deal Brexit is the default, and will happen, unless something better is agreed. 700,000 German jobs depend on selling goods to UK.
unenlightenedJanuary 18, 2019 at 22:28#2476450 likes
Chances of official Brexit by the deadline currently hovering at around 25% according to those with skin (i.e. hard cash) in the game. Even that's generous, I'd say. Read a bit more about parliament's power to thwart Brexit and anti-Brexit Tory rebels like Oliver Letwin and you'll see why.
E.g. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/08/cross-party-alliance-of-mps-tells-may-we-will-stop-no-deal-brexit
Chances of official Brexit by the deadline currently hovering at around 25% according to those with skin (i.e. hard cash) in the game. Even that's generous, I'd say. Read a bit more about parliament's power to thwart Brexit and anti-Brexit Tory rebels like Oliver Letwin and you'll see why.
Brexit is a criminal conspiracy against the British people.
Cameron was a eurosceptic who sabotaged his credibility, and lost on purpose for Remain.
He cancelled an EU-ID card scheme in 2010, and his Home Secretary Theresa May presented the bill to Parliament. The same year he made a bizarre immigration pledge - adding, "or vote me out" - which Theresa May failed to deliver in spectacular fashion.
Cameron announced there would be a referendum in 2013, in defiance of the expressed will of Parliament in 2011, who rejected a referendum by 485/111. Cameron then made it a manifesto commitment the Commons could not block, and the Lords could not amend. So Cameron DICTATED there would be an in/out referendum on the EU.
The EUID card could have given UK government exact numbers on who came and went, how long they stayed, and - as allowed under EU law, remove them if not employed after three months.
Instead, 330,000 EU immigrants in 2015, figures published during the campaign period.
Add to that Cameron's "renegotiation" weeks before the vote - that was predestined to fail because it asked for things that would require EU treaty change. It served to educate the public - with all the coverage it got in the media, but had no genuine purpose.
As soon as he touched back down on UK soil, he appointed himself chief advocate for Remain - and appointed his aide, Craig Oliver, to oversee the Remain campaign.
When Cameron resigned, Craig Oliver was recommended for a knighthood. May was promoted to Prime Minister - and is pushing on with brexit based on a crooked referendum, a marginal vote, rejected by MP's, and rejected by the House of Lords, regardless!
Brexit is a criminal conspiracy against the British people.
How would you characterise the Soros funded campaign by the elites to undermine democracy?
unenlightenedJanuary 19, 2019 at 13:45#2477440 likes
So what could actually prevent a no-deal Brexit on 29 March? Here are all the options:
1. If the deal is ratified – approved – by the UK Parliament and the European Parliament without conditions or amendments. In this case, Brexit under the terms negotiated by Mrs May proceeds.
2. If the deal is ratified by the UK Parliament with conditions or amendments. These would then need to be agreed with the European Council, consented to by the European Parliament, and the Council of the European Union will need to conclude the deal acting by qualified majority. It is questionable whether there is time for this, so this option may need to be combined with 3(a) below.
3. If the UK and the EU27 agree to delay the date that the UK leaves the EU, while one of the following takes place: a) Further negotiations on the Withdrawal Agreement or the Framework for the Future Relationship; b) A general election; c) A second referendum.
4. The UK rescinding its notification under Article 50 and remaining in the EU.
I just can't see Parliament getting its head far enough out of its arse to manage any of this. I think 2 would require 3 for definite, and 3a has been ruled out by the EU. 1 would require a climb-down of huge proportions that seems very unlikely -115 MPs changing their minds.
The chances of settling on a referendum seem small at the moment, a general election might be more attractive, but it's hard to see how it can be arrived at.
4. Is simple enough to be doable, but since the whole thing is about the mismatch between politicians and electorate MPs will be much frit.
So I conclude that No deal is the most likely result because politicians are weak, irresponsible and incompetent.
Brexit would very likely lead to breaking of UK, Scotland preferring EU as independent and Northern Ireland preferring EU as member of Ireland. Tory leadership (unlike Tory and UKIP voters) most likely considers EU membership as lesser evil that UK breaking up and only England and Wales remaining. This, most likely, is the decisive, fundamental calculation.
Next, tactical question for Tory leadership, how to avoid Brexit and put the political blame of remaining on the opposition? As it seems, the tactic seems to be to botch up the "deal" on purpose, and leave it to majority of House of Commons to take initiative to last minute revoke of article 50 nominally "against" the May government, to avoid threat of no deal Brexit, but de facto doing exactly as planned. And majority of the public opinion wrath goes against Labour.
I'd have to ask - when you say "democracy" what on earth are you referring to?
Well, in the specific case of Brexit, democracy is embodied in the referendum, its result. and the government's promise to implement the result. This culminated in the EU (Withdrawal) Act which became law in June 2018.
The well-funded attempts by the Establishment, the Elites, and Corporatists to undermine the democratic process, will have repercussions far beyond Brexit, if they succeed.
I don't know, but a no-deal is not inevitable nor is any Brexit at all (though some kind of Brexit is more likely than a no-deal imo). And I don't expect a no-deal because I expect economic concerns will trump ideological ones.
Yes, regarding a no-deal, I'm actually looking forward to the "I told ya so!" moment. But if it ends up being another scenario like the last presidential election, I'm going to be pissed. Hopefully the world hasn't gone [i]completely[/I] mad.
Thus far, I like the way that the opposition parties and rebels within the governing party have forced the [i]weak and unstable[/I] government's hand on a number of Brexit related issues. Theresa May threatens a no-deal, but would she actually go through with it? She was a Remainer, and doing that would turn a lot of people against her and potentially ruin her career, which is already hanging on the edge of a knife.
Well, in the specific case of Brexit, democracy is embodied in the referendum, its result. and the government's promise to implement the result. This culminated in the EU (Withdrawal) Act which became law in June 2018. The well-funded attempts by the Establishment, the Elites, and Corporatists to undermine the democratic process, will have repercussions far beyond Brexit, if they succeed.
The 2016 referendum was corrupt and anti democratic in about six...teen different ways. As already stated, Cameron was a long term eurosceptic who defied the expressed will of Parliament to provide for a referendum entirely on his own recog - as a manifesto commitment no-one could obstruct. I've explained how his immigration pledge and renegotiation sabotaged his credibility, even as he appointed himself chief spokesman for Remain. And that's saying nothing of the rumour he once fucked a pig!
But take your pick from a menu of other anti-democratic elements:
Take the fact Cameron told the public, the result of a legally advisory referendum would be implemented, thereby forcing the hand of Parliament, in relation to the chaos caused by a screeching racist and absurdly false propaganda campaign, stolen facebook data, Russian interference, financial corruption. And that's to say nothing of the brutal murder of an MP during the campaign - threats to march on Parliament, and judges declared "enemies of the people" in the media. Add to that the fact that the official Leave campaign was outsourced to an unaccountable rabid right wing economic policy pressure group called the Tax Payer's Alliance, while the Remain campaign was kept in house, and controlled by Cameron and his aide, Craig Oliver.
Skip forward to today, and Cameron's Home Secretary - who cancelled the EU-ID card scheme that would have given the UK control, sacked the head of the borders agency, Brodie Clarke, and allowed 660,000 immigrants into the country in 2015, and published those figures in the campaign period - is now pressing on with brexit based on a corrupt referendum, a marginal 52%/48% vote, rejected by MP's, rejected by the House of Lords - then I fail to see how the term "democracy" applies.
Brexit is a criminal conspiracy against the British people.
— karl stone
Grab your tin foil hats, folks! (It's incompetence, not conspiracy. You're giving Cameron & Co. too much credit).
Too much credit? Credit is given where it's due. Cameron has a first class degree in politics from Oxford, and cut his teeth in politics as advisor to eurosceptic MP Micheal Howard. In 2005, Cameron wrote a manifesto for Howard, that contains Leave campaign rhetoric word for word, relating immigration and EU membership - and demanding an in/out referendum.
Cameron provided for that referendum 10 years later - but we are supposed to believe he didn't really want to. People are led to believe he was forced into it by the rise of UKIP - a tiny anti immigrant party who were absolutely nowhere until Cameron's absurd immigration pledge, and who were never a threat to Cameron because we vote in constituencies - not nationally. Given that's factually wrong - why do people believe it? And how can anyone imagine Cameron believed his immigration pledge - to which he added, "or vote me out."
Credit where credit is due - Cameron worked all his political life for this, and he got what he wanted. The idea a man with a first in PPE from Oxford, who rose like a rocket through the ranks of the Conservative Party to become PM, 'fell out of the EU by accident' is absurd on the face of it. It's not incompetence, it's genius. Only, criminal genius.
The 2016 referendum was corrupt and anti democratic in about six...teen different ways.
— karl stone
Who represents you on the EU Commission?
Lord Hill resigned if I recall correctly. But in fact, national appointees to the EU Commission represent the EU. Nation state governments are represented in the Council of Ministers, and the people are represented in the EU Parliament.
Contrary to common misconceptions, while the EU Commission alone proposes legislation, legislative proposals are developed in coordination with the Council and Parliament. Proposals are then voted on by the Council and the Parliament, but the Commission has no voting rights whatsoever. It's actually a very transparent and elegantly democratic system.
Reply to karl stone You're right. I just can't think of any other examples of clever and qualified politicians whose plans have backfired. Is that even possible? It must therefore have been a clever conspiracy from the start.
He didn't want Brexit. He was playing with fire and got burnt.
The 2016 referendum was corrupt and anti democratic in about six...teen different ways. As already stated, Cameron was a long term eurosceptic who defied the expressed will of Parliament to provide for a referendum entirely on his own recog - as a manifesto commitment no-one could obstruct. I've explained how his immigration pledge and renegotiation sabotaged his credibility, even as he appointed himself chief spokesman for Remain. And that's saying nothing of the rumour he once fucked a pig!
But take your pick from a menu of other anti-democratic elements:
Take the fact Cameron told the public, the result of a legally advisory referendum would be implemented, thereby forcing the hand of Parliament, in relation to the chaos caused by a screeching racist and absurdly false propaganda campaign, stolen facebook data, Russian interference, financial corruption. And that's to say nothing of the brutal murder of an MP during the campaign - threats to march on Parliament, and judges declared "enemies of the people" in the media. Add to that the fact that the official Leave campaign was outsourced to an unaccountable rabid right wing economic policy pressure group called the Tax Payer's Alliance, while the Remain campaign was kept in house, and controlled by Cameron and his aide, Craig Oliver.
Skip forward to today, and Cameron's Home Secretary - who cancelled the EU-ID card scheme that would have given the UK control, sacked the head of the borders agency, Brodie Clarke, and allowed 660,000 immigrants into the country in 2015, and published those figures in the campaign period - is now pressing on with brexit based on a corrupt referendum, a marginal 52%/48% vote, rejected by MP's, rejected by the House of Lords - then I fail to see how the term "democracy" applies.
Too much credit? Credit is given where it's due. Cameron has a first class degree in politics from Oxford, and cut his teeth in politics as advisor to eurosceptic MP Micheal Howard. In 2005, Cameron wrote a manifesto for Howard, that contains Leave campaign rhetoric word for word, relating immigration and EU membership - and demanding an in/out referendum.
Cameron provided for that referendum 10 years later - but we are supposed to believe he didn't really want to. People are led to believe he was forced into it by the rise of UKIP - a tiny anti immigrant party who were absolutely nowhere until Cameron's absurd immigration pledge, and who were never a threat to Cameron because we vote in constituencies - not nationally. Given that's factually wrong - why do people believe it? And how can anyone imagine Cameron believed his immigration pledge - to which he added, "or vote me out."
Credit where credit is due - Cameron worked all his political life for this, and he got what he wanted. The idea a man with a first in PPE from Oxford, who rose like a rocket through the ranks of the Conservative Party to become PM, 'fell out of the EU by accident' is absurd on the face of it. It's not incompetence, it's genius. Only, criminal genius.
Lord Hill resigned if I recall correctly. But in fact, national appointees to the EU Commission represent the EU. Nation state governments are represented in the Council of Ministers, and the people are represented in the EU Parliament.
You note correctly, that you have no representation on the EU body with monopoly on legislative initiative, monopoly on fiscal initiative, and which enforces EU treaties. You seem to be happy with this anti-democratic arrangement, yet complain that when people actually vote, the process is undemocratic.
This makes no sense, unless you really don't care for democracy, but are happy to smear your opponents as undemocratic, because you know they care about such things.
Lord Hill resigned if I recall correctly. But in fact, national appointees to the EU Commission represent the EU. Nation state governments are represented in the Council of Ministers, and the people are represented in the EU Parliament.
You note correctly, that you have no representation on the EU body with monopoly on legislative initiative, monopoly on fiscal initiative, and which enforces EU treaties. You seem to be happy with this anti-democratic arrangement, yet complain that when people actually vote, the process is undemocratic. This makes no sense, unless you really don't care for democracy, but are happy to smear your opponents as undemocratic, because you know they care about such things.
Why did you respond to me with a subject entirely unrelated to anything I wrote? If you don't recall, I said this:
The 2016 referendum was corrupt and anti democratic in about six...teen different ways. As already stated, Cameron was a long term eurosceptic who defied the expressed will of Parliament to provide for a referendum entirely on his own recog - as a manifesto commitment no-one could obstruct. I've explained how his immigration pledge and renegotiation sabotaged his credibility, even as he appointed himself chief spokesman for Remain. And that's saying nothing of the rumour he once fucked a pig!
But take your pick from a menu of other anti-democratic elements:
Take the fact Cameron told the public, the result of a legally advisory referendum would be implemented, thereby forcing the hand of Parliament, in relation to the chaos caused by a screeching racist and absurdly false propaganda campaign, stolen facebook data, Russian interference, financial corruption. And that's to say nothing of the brutal murder of an MP during the campaign - threats to march on Parliament, and judges declared "enemies of the people" in the media. Add to that the fact that the official Leave campaign was outsourced to an unaccountable rabid right wing economic policy pressure group called the Tax Payer's Alliance, while the Remain campaign was kept in house, and controlled by Cameron and his aide, Craig Oliver.
Skip forward to today, and Cameron's Home Secretary - who cancelled the EU-ID card scheme that would have given the UK control, sacked the head of the borders agency, Brodie Clarke, and allowed 660,000 immigrants into the country in 2015, and published those figures in the campaign period - is now pressing on with brexit based on a corrupt referendum, a marginal 52%/48% vote, rejected by MP's, rejected by the House of Lords - then I fail to see how the term "democracy" applies.
— karl stone
and:
Too much credit? Credit is given where it's due. Cameron has a first class degree in politics from Oxford, and cut his teeth in politics as advisor to eurosceptic MP Micheal Howard. In 2005, Cameron wrote a manifesto for Howard, that contains Leave campaign rhetoric word for word, relating immigration and EU membership - and demanding an in/out referendum.
Cameron provided for that referendum 10 years later - but we are supposed to believe he didn't really want to. People are led to believe he was forced into it by the rise of UKIP - a tiny anti immigrant party who were absolutely nowhere until Cameron's absurd immigration pledge, and who were never a threat to Cameron because we vote in constituencies - not nationally. Given that's factually wrong - why do people believe it? And how can anyone imagine Cameron believed his immigration pledge - to which he added, "or vote me out."
Credit where credit is due - Cameron worked all his political life for this, and he got what he wanted. The idea a man with a first in PPE from Oxford, who rose like a rocket through the ranks of the Conservative Party to become PM, 'fell out of the EU by accident' is absurd on the face of it. It's not incompetence, it's genius. Only, criminal genius.
I was talking about your reference to a "progression of mindless pro-Brexit nonsense".
You mean pro-Democracy nonsense, surely.
The UK cancelled their referendum on EU membership in 2006 because it was clear that the people would vote the same way as France and the Netherlands. At that point the idea that a referendum should be ignored, as they did on the continent, was anathema to even the Europhiles. How things change.
The UK cancelled their referendum on EU membership in 2006 because it was clear that the people would vote the same way as France and the Netherlands. At that point the idea that a referendum should be ignored, as they did on the continent, was anathema to even the Europhiles. How things change.
Again, you seem to be sidestepping the issues raised in my posts. The 2016 referendum was undemocratic and corrupt, and a valid democratic result cannot follow from an undemocratic and corrupt process. The vote should be ignored. It was a split decision in an advisory referendum. Despite rampant corruption, leave won by a nose. It's not the will of the people. There's no plan that commands a majority in the House of Commons, or the Lords, and the policy is a failed policy - certain to result in a damaging no-deal exit. Absolutely it should be ...set aside.
The 2016 referendum was corrupt and anti democratic in about six...teen different ways. As already stated, Cameron was a long term eurosceptic who defied the expressed will of Parliament to provide for a referendum entirely on his own recog - as a manifesto commitment no-one could obstruct. I've explained how his immigration pledge and renegotiation sabotaged his credibility, even as he appointed himself chief spokesman for Remain. And that's saying nothing of the rumour he once fucked a pig!
But take your pick from a menu of other anti-democratic elements:
Take the fact Cameron told the public, the result of a legally advisory referendum would be implemented, thereby forcing the hand of Parliament, in relation to the chaos caused by a screeching racist and absurdly false propaganda campaign, stolen facebook data, Russian interference, financial corruption. And that's to say nothing of the brutal murder of an MP during the campaign - threats to march on Parliament, and judges declared "enemies of the people" in the media. Add to that the fact that the official Leave campaign was outsourced to an unaccountable rabid right wing economic policy pressure group called the Tax Payer's Alliance, while the Remain campaign was kept in house, and controlled by Cameron and his aide, Craig Oliver.
Skip forward to today, and Cameron's Home Secretary - who cancelled the EU-ID card scheme that would have given the UK control, sacked the head of the borders agency, Brodie Clarke, and allowed 660,000 immigrants into the country in 2015, and published those figures in the campaign period - is now pressing on with brexit based on a corrupt referendum, a marginal 52%/48% vote, rejected by MP's, rejected by the House of Lords - then I fail to see how the term "democracy" applies.
and:
Too much credit? Credit is given where it's due. Cameron has a first class degree in politics from Oxford, and cut his teeth in politics as advisor to eurosceptic MP Micheal Howard. In 2005, Cameron wrote a manifesto for Howard, that contains Leave campaign rhetoric word for word, relating immigration and EU membership - and demanding an in/out referendum.
Cameron provided for that referendum 10 years later - but we are supposed to believe he didn't really want to. People are led to believe he was forced into it by the rise of UKIP - a tiny anti immigrant party who were absolutely nowhere until Cameron's absurd immigration pledge, and who were never a threat to Cameron because we vote in constituencies - not nationally. Given that's factually wrong - why do people believe it? And how can anyone imagine Cameron believed his immigration pledge - to which he added, "or vote me out."
Credit where credit is due - Cameron worked all his political life for this, and he got what he wanted. The idea a man with a first in PPE from Oxford, who rose like a rocket through the ranks of the Conservative Party to become PM, 'fell out of the EU by accident' is absurd on the face of it. It's not incompetence, it's genius. Only, criminal genius.
That's a very compelling argument. Thanks for that!
Again, you seem to be sidestepping the issues raised in my posts. The 2016 referendum was undemocratic and corrupt
— karl stone
And had Remain won, I'm sure you would be complaining about the corruption.
A hypothetical scenario? Do you expect me to respond to that? Something dredged from your fevered brexiteer imagination - when you won't respond to the facts laid out before you? So let's get this straight - your position is: brexit no matter what. Yes? So now you can STFU. You have nothing else to say.
A hypothetical scenario? Do you expect me to respond to that? Something dredged from your fevered brexiteer imagination - when you won't respond to the facts laid out before you?
A hypothetical scenario? Do you expect me to respond to that? Something dredged from your fevered brexiteer imagination - when you won't respond to the facts laid out before you?
— karl stone
You haven't laid out a single fact though.
Another from the "brexit no matter what" club? The facts don't matter to you. Nothing else does. You have nothing to say, so STFU. Or engage with the facts:
The 2016 referendum was corrupt and anti democratic in about six...teen different ways. As already stated, Cameron was a long term eurosceptic who defied the expressed will of Parliament to provide for a referendum entirely on his own recog - as a manifesto commitment no-one could obstruct. I've explained how his immigration pledge and renegotiation sabotaged his credibility, even as he appointed himself chief spokesman for Remain. And that's saying nothing of the rumour he once fucked a pig!
But take your pick from a menu of other anti-democratic elements:
Take the fact Cameron told the public, the result of a legally advisory referendum would be implemented, thereby forcing the hand of Parliament, in relation to the chaos caused by a screeching racist and absurdly false propaganda campaign, stolen facebook data, Russian interference, financial corruption. And that's to say nothing of the brutal murder of an MP during the campaign - threats to march on Parliament, and judges declared "enemies of the people" in the media. Add to that the fact that the official Leave campaign was outsourced to an unaccountable rabid right wing economic policy pressure group called the Tax Payer's Alliance, while the Remain campaign was kept in house, and controlled by Cameron and his aide, Craig Oliver.
Skip forward to today, and Cameron's Home Secretary - who cancelled the EU-ID card scheme that would have given the UK control, sacked the head of the borders agency, Brodie Clarke, and allowed 660,000 immigrants into the country in 2015, and published those figures in the campaign period - is now pressing on with brexit based on a corrupt referendum, a marginal 52%/48% vote, rejected by MP's, rejected by the House of Lords - then I fail to see how the term "democracy" applies.
and:
Too much credit? Credit is given where it's due. Cameron has a first class degree in politics from Oxford, and cut his teeth in politics as advisor to eurosceptic MP Micheal Howard. In 2005, Cameron wrote a manifesto for Howard, that contains Leave campaign rhetoric word for word, relating immigration and EU membership - and demanding an in/out referendum.
Cameron provided for that referendum 10 years later - but we are supposed to believe he didn't really want to. People are led to believe he was forced into it by the rise of UKIP - a tiny anti immigrant party who were absolutely nowhere until Cameron's absurd immigration pledge, and who were never a threat to Cameron because we vote in constituencies - not nationally. Given that's factually wrong - why do people believe it? And how can anyone imagine Cameron believed his immigration pledge - to which he added, "or vote me out."
Credit where credit is due - Cameron worked all his political life for this, and he got what he wanted. The idea a man with a first in PPE from Oxford, who rose like a rocket through the ranks of the Conservative Party to become PM, 'fell out of the EU by accident' is absurd on the face of it. It's not incompetence, it's genius. Only, criminal genius.
If UK abandons democracy, it will be like France on a Saturday, except it will be every day.
We'll still have our democracy though, so your premise is flawed. It's far from ideal that we've got ourselves in such a mess that one possible resolution which needs to be considered is going back on the results of a democratic vote. A democratic vote the result of which both main parties committed to honouring. But a no-deal Brexit is not a price worth paying for that. Not out of my wallet, anyway. On the other hand, if we little people are going to be financially compensated by the richest of bastards, then go for it. But there's a greater chance of hell freezing over than that happening, so...
Cue the pro-Brexit propaganda, cherry picking, etc.
By the way, remind me, how did the French feel about having less money in their pockets as a result of decisions implemented by the political elite? The very political elites that they, as a majority, themselves democratically voted into power. I could've sworn that they've been out on the streets in their droves causing a ruckus for precisely that reason.
We'll still have our democracy though, so your premise is flawed. It's far from ideal that we've got ourselves in such a mess that one possible resolution which needs to be considered is going back on the results of a democratic vote. A democratic vote the result of which both main parties committed to honouring. But a no-deal Brexit is not a price worth paying for that. Not out of my wallet, anyway.
Cue the pro-Brexit propaganda, cherry picking, etc.
It wasn't democratic, for the reasons stated, at length, repeatedly above - and let's face it, probably below! The fact the referendum was well attended is not in dispute. The fact people had their reasons, is also not in dispute. The idea the myriad of reasons people voted Leave relate directly and solely to EU membership is a far more dubious proposition. To funnel all that generalized discontent into a specific policy that would disadvantage those very people most, is the rotten cherry atop the huge shit sundae that is brexit.
It wasn't democratic, for the reasons stated, at length, repeatedly above - and let's face it, probably below! The fact the referendum was well attended is not in dispute. The fact people had their reasons, is also not in dispute. The idea the myriad of reasons people voted Leave relate directly and solely to EU membership is a far more dubious proposition. To funnel all that discontent into a policy that would disadvantage those very people most, is the corrupt cherry on the huge shit sundae that is Brexit.
You're wrong on that point, as I've also argued throughout this discussion. The referendum was indeed democratic, and not only was it democratic, if it wasn't democratic for the stated reasons, then many other votes that have been held would be likewise undemocratic. It's all or nothing, as I see it. But that's hogwash. I can't think of a single undemocratic referendum or general election in the U.K. unless, for example, you go way back to the days when women and poor people couldn't vote, rotten boroughs, and the like. Baden tried to argue that the referendum is a unique situation which warrants exceptional and unprecedented treatment. I don't buy that argument. It ain't [i]that[/I] unique.
It wasn't democratic, for the reasons stated, at length, repeatedly above - and let's face it, probably below! The fact the referendum was well attended is not in dispute. The fact people had their reasons, is also not in dispute. The idea the myriad of reasons people voted Leave relate directly and solely to EU membership is a far more dubious proposition. To funnel all that discontent into a policy that would disadvantage those very people most, is the corrupt cheery on the huge shit sundae that is brexit.
— karl stone
You're wrong on that point, as I've also argued throughout this discussion. The referendum was indeed democratic, and not only was it democratic, if it wasn't democratic for the stated reasons, then many other votes would be likewise undemocratic. But that's hogwash. Baden tried to argue that the referendum is a unique situation which warrants exceptional and unprecedented treatment. I don't buy that argument. It ain't that unique.
I'm really not wrong though. That's the sad thing. You're only saying that, not actually challenging the facts as I've set them out. Because you can't. Am I right?
The 2016 referendum was utterly corrupt, and brexit is a bad idea. It really is a bad idea. It serves merely to empower a group of people who opted out of the Social Chapter of the Maastricht Treaty to create a low wage, low regulation jobs market, while selling off all the council housing, and selling off the utilities for peanuts to their city slicker pals, who failed to put accession controls in place on the 2007 expansion of the EU, so all those immigrants came to Britain to work in that low wage, low regulation jobs market, who refused to build council housing while subsidizing shitty wages with tax payers money, starving public services of funding. None of which is the EU's fault. So yes, people had their reasons - but to funnel their discontent into a policy that will give those Thatcherite Tory bastards a clean slate and absolute power is the very worst thing those with real grievances could possibly do.
Cameron was a long term eurosceptic who defied the expressed will of Parliament to provide for a referendum entirely on his own recog - as a manifesto commitment no-one could obstruct.
Both the Conservatives and the Greens had manifesto commitments for an EU referendum. Cameron was never a eurosceptic, and campaigned strongly for Remain. The claim of yours that Cameron was a eurosceptic is entirely fictional.
Take the fact Cameron told the public, the result of a legally advisory referendum would be implemented, thereby forcing the hand of Parliament
Fiction again.
The EU Referendum Act 2015 was passed by 544-53 votes in the Commons, and laid the legal foundation for holding a referendum.
The EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 passed in the Commons by 494-122.
So, it took two pieces of primary legislation, passed by overwhelming majority of MPs to hold a referendum, and to give power to the prime minister to implement the result. Cameron wasn't even around for the second part.
We'll still have our democracy though, so your premise is flawed. It's far from ideal that we've got ourselves in such a mess that one possible resolution which needs to be considered is going back on the results of a democratic vote. A democratic vote the result of which both main parties committed to honouring. But a no-deal Brexit is not a price worth paying for that. Not out of my wallet, anyway.
What do you think you get for £13billion membership fee, £4billion in fish, £4billion in benefits to EU citizens, and a £95billion deficit in traded goods?
I'm really not wrong though. That's the sad thing. You're only saying that, not actually challenging the facts as I've set them out. Because you can't. Am I right?
Nice try. Maybe leave the goading to the experts. I'm not challenging any facts. I'm challenging your evaluation of them. And I've already been there, done that.
What do you think you get for £13billion membership fee, £4billion in fish, £4billion in benefits to EU citizens, and a £95billion deficit in traded goods?
If UK received anything of value in return approaching that huge financial burden, then why does no other EU country pay a similar penalty?
That's a separate issue. I am not required to explain that. It is known that the UK [i]does[/I] receive substantial economic value from our relationship with the EU, as many credibly sourced statistics indicate. And many credible and authoritative sources have concluded that we'll be better off in than out. Like I told you before, you can cherry pick all you like, but I'm not foolish enough to be tricked like that.
What an interesting discussion you've been having since I've been gone. Quick, now babble until we're on page 18:
The 2016 referendum was corrupt and anti democratic in about six...teen different ways. As already stated, Cameron was a long term eurosceptic who defied the expressed will of Parliament to provide for a referendum entirely on his own recog - as a manifesto commitment no-one could obstruct. I've explained how his immigration pledge and renegotiation sabotaged his credibility, even as he appointed himself chief spokesman for Remain. And that's saying nothing of the rumour he once fucked a pig!
But take your pick from a menu of other anti-democratic elements:
Take the fact Cameron told the public, the result of a legally advisory referendum would be implemented, thereby forcing the hand of Parliament, in relation to the chaos caused by a screeching racist and absurdly false propaganda campaign, stolen facebook data, Russian interference, financial corruption. And that's to say nothing of the brutal murder of an MP during the campaign - threats to march on Parliament, and judges declared "enemies of the people" in the media. Add to that the fact that the official Leave campaign was outsourced to an unaccountable rabid right wing economic policy pressure group called the Tax Payer's Alliance, while the Remain campaign was kept in house, and controlled by Cameron and his aide, Craig Oliver.
Skip forward to today, and Cameron's Home Secretary - who cancelled the EU-ID card scheme that would have given the UK control, sacked the head of the borders agency, Brodie Clarke, and allowed 660,000 immigrants into the country in 2015, and published those figures in the campaign period - is now pressing on with brexit based on a corrupt referendum, a marginal 52%/48% vote, rejected by MP's, rejected by the House of Lords - then I fail to see how the term "democracy" applies.
and:
Too much credit? Credit is given where it's due. Cameron has a first class degree in politics from Oxford, and cut his teeth in politics as advisor to eurosceptic MP Micheal Howard. In 2005, Cameron wrote a manifesto for Howard, that contains Leave campaign rhetoric word for word, relating immigration and EU membership - and demanding an in/out referendum.
Cameron provided for that referendum 10 years later - but we are supposed to believe he didn't really want to. People are led to believe he was forced into it by the rise of UKIP - a tiny anti immigrant party who were absolutely nowhere until Cameron's absurd immigration pledge, and who were never a threat to Cameron because we vote in constituencies - not nationally. Given that's factually wrong - why do people believe it? And how can anyone imagine Cameron believed his immigration pledge - to which he added, "or vote me out."
Credit where credit is due - Cameron worked all his political life for this, and he got what he wanted. The idea a man with a first in PPE from Oxford, who rose like a rocket through the ranks of the Conservative Party to become PM, 'fell out of the EU by accident' is absurd on the face of it. It's not incompetence, it's genius. Only, criminal genius.
Baden did a better job of arguing that the referendum was invalid or undemocratic or however it's to be worded, and I don't agree with him, so I definitely don't agree with you. I do accept that there were lies, campaign overspending, a [I]relatively[/I] close result (Leave actually got 1,269,501 more votes), but I don't think that that's a sufficient reason, so I reach a different conclusion, and that's that.
unenlightenedJanuary 20, 2019 at 18:55#2483590 likes
Less than 8% of UK GDP depends on selling goods to EU, according to the EU Commission.
— Inis
That's a lovely cherry. Where did you pick it?
It's a petty small figure isn't it. Definitely cherry rather than pineapple. Perhaps it reflects the fact that a lot of The UK GDP is for local consumption. I think this indicates that the peasants still have far too much money to spend.
So it looks very small in isolation, so that's how he's going to present it, and he's just going to keep repeating this stuff, and doing stuff like this, as he has continually been doing, despite objections, because he's here to spread propaganda, and so he should be banned or at least given a warning if he hasn't already.
So...? About half of the UK's total trade is with the EU:
Total trade with the EU sits at about 44% of GDP and falling, but that is irrelevant. UK pays money to the EU, gives up its fish and pays £4billion in benefits to EU Citizens, in return for access to the Common Market in traded goods. There is effectively no Common Market in services.
I suppose it's possible that like Terrapin he thinks we're all morons, in which case maybe both of them should get a room and work at repopulating the world with geniuses.
I suppose it's possible that like Terrapin he thinks we're all morons in which case maybe both of them should get a room and work at repopulating the world with geniuses.
Terrapin is worth [i]at least[/I] about a hundred of this guy. He's no where near as bad as him.
What percentage of UK GDP depends on selling goods to non-EU countries for comparison?
UK runs a surplus in traded goods with the rest of the world, and its most profitable trading partner is the USA, with which the UK returns a trade surplus of £34billion.
When the UK can trade with who it wants, under the terms it agrees, the economic growth will be phenomenal. Open free-trading democracies always beat protectionist customs unions.
Reply to Inis That's not an answer. You're a con artist. Let's look at UK trade with the US compared to UK trade with the EU:
[quote=Office for National Statistics][A]s a union of 27 other countries, the EU still had a much greater share of UK exports than the US in 2016 (43% compared with 18%). A report in the FT showed how for almost every category of goods exported, the EU was by far a bigger market than the US.[/quote]
When the UK can trade with who it wants, under the terms it agrees, the economic growth will be phenomenal.
Growth is important, but so are other factors, including and especially net profit. You don't give a credible overall assessment. You either don't have the skill set or the level of skills required, or you're just choosing to avoid it and be purposefully selective instead. When it comes to overall economic forecasts, it will be Inis vs. most economic authorities. I know who I'm siding with.
That's not an answer. You're a con artist. Let's look at UK trade with the US compared to UK trade with the EU:
UK trades more with the rest of the World than the EU. This is obvious since UK trade with EU accounts for 44% of GDP, despite the paltry 8% of GDP in traded goods.
Trade with USA accounts for the greatest trade with any other country, and it is massively profitable. With every EU country, UK runs a trade deficit, apart from Ireland. In fact UK deficit with Germany is totally offset by UK trade with USA.
However, Uk does not have to pay £13billion to trade with USA.
You cherry-picked the statistics again. 44% represents exports only. 53% of all imports come from the EU.
No.
According to the Office for National Statistics, UK total trade with the EU was £622billion in 2017, which includes imports, exports, goods and services.
Trade with the Rest of the Words was £650billion, which includes exports, imports, goods and services.
If you don't even understand your own figures or can't read:
"The EU, taken as a whole is the UK’s largest trading partner. In 2017, UK exports to the EU were £274 billion (44% of all UK exports). UK imports from the EU were £341 billion (53% of all UK imports)."
You cherry-picked the statistics again. 44% represents exports only. 53% of all imports come from the EU.
As I pointed out before, he also quotes statistics relating to goods only, which excludes services. I wonder why this could be?
[U]1. Main points[/u]
Total UK exports of services (excluding travel, transport and banking) showed record growth in 2016, rising from £123.2 billion in 2015 to £142.7 billion in 2016, an increase of 15.8%.
Total UK imports of services (excluding travel, transport and banking) also showed record growth in 2016 and rose by £10.2 billion to a total of £68.7 billion, an increase of 17.4%.
The information and communication sector showed the largest growth in 2016 for both UK exports and imports of services in 2016, rising by £6.5 billion and £5.1 billion respectively.
The European Union was the geographic area that saw the largest increases in total UK exports and imports of services with rises of £9.2 billion and £5.0 billion respectively in 2016.
UK exports of financial services products made the largest contribution to the rise in 2016 increasing from £14.9 billion in 2015 to £18.4 billion.
[B]4. Around half of UK trade in services in 2016 was with Europe[/b]
Europe has traditionally been a major destination for UK exports of services, accounting for slightly below half of total services exports in 2016. The value of UK exports (excluding the travel, transport and banking sectors) to Europe have followed an upward trend in recent years and showed record growth in 2016 of 17.8%, rising by £10,567 million to a peak of £70,085 million.
Growth in UK exports to Europe has been more subdued in recent years, with annual increases of 2.7% (2014) and 1.4% (2015). Most of the increase in 2016 was attributable to the European Union (EU), where UK exports rose by £9,169 million to a level of £53,267 million. In terms of individual countries, the increase in exports was driven by three main countries: Germany, the Republic of Ireland and France.
The Americas and Asia were the second- and third-largest destinations for UK services exports in 2016, accounting for 28% and 17% respectively. Both regions experienced increases in 2016, with the Americas rising by £5,622 million to £39,675 million and Asia rising by £3,326 million to £24,778 million.
Similarly to exports, Europe is also a major source of UK services imports, accounting for above half of the total value in 2016. The value of UK imports of services originating from Europe increased by £5,227 million to £36,710 million in 2016. The increase was driven by a rise in imports from the EU, which rose by £5,013 million to £30,879 million. Germany, the Netherlands and the Republic of Ireland were the main individual countries driving the increase.
Other important regions for UK services imports were the Americas and Asia, which accounted for 27% and 16% of the total value respectively in 2016. UK imports from the Americas saw a £3,237 million rise to £18,650 million in 2016, while imports from Asia rose by £1,597 million to £10,662 million.
650+622=1272
622/1272=0.49
Therefore 49% of UK trade is with the EU not 44%.
Well, figures go up and down. ONS reported 43% for 2016, the BBC claims 44% is the 2015 figure. The fact remains that UK trades more with the rest of the world, and it trades profitably with them. It does not have to pay £13billion to do this, give away £4billion in fish, or pay £4billion in benefits for the privilage.
Reply to Inis That is a red herring, which is an informal logical fallacy.
My point was that the figure you quote, that 8% (although it's actually 7.4%) is relating to goods only, at the exclusion of services, and I've also pointed out that you don't quote the equivalent statistic for non-EU countries, leaving us with nothing to compare it to. That is cherry picking, another informal logical fallacy.
Do you not care that you're committing informal logical fallacies? You only care about spreading propaganda? If so, I think that it's about time that you were banned.
You cherry-picked the statistics again. 44% represents exports only. 53% of all imports come from the EU.
You see total trade involves imports and exports. Do you understand that now? I don't think we can really make progress until you can wrap your head around the basics of what the words we're using mean.
Actually never mind. You're a better advertisement for the opposing point of view than I ever could be. Carry on.
I suppose his dodgy tactics [i]have[/I] given us an incentive to look at the bigger picture, which then exposes the economic disadvantages to Brexit.
That works in our favour, not his. He needs to find a more gullible audience to gain the upper hand. The number one philosophy forum was perhaps not the wisest of choices.
My point was that the figure you quote, that 8% (although it's actually 7.4%) is relating to goods only, at the exclusion of services, and I've also pointed out that you don't quote the equivalent statistic for non-EU countries, leaving us with nothing to compare it to. That is cherry picking, another informal logical fallacy.
There is no Common Market in services. There is no Customs Union in services. The UK pays what it does in return for access to the Common Market in goods. £13billion in return for a £95billion deficit is unsustainable.
Reply to Inis You've shown that you can selectively quote statistics. Well done. But how about an economic forecast? Are you capable of that? Are you an economist? Can you quote any credible sources with favourable economic forecasts? And what's the consensus on this?
A [url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-46358120]BBC News article[/URL] from 28th November 2018 says that the government has published its official economic analysis of the impact of its Brexit deal. And that it suggests that the government's version of Brexit could leave the size of the UK economy up to 3.9% smaller after 15 years, compared with staying in the EU. But a no-deal Brexit could deliver a 9.3% hit - according to the forecast.
Interesting. If everything is going to be just as good, if not better, then why isn't that reflected in this economic forecast?
What do you think I'll find if I go searching for more economic forecasts from other credible sources?
You've shown that you can selectively quote statistics. Well done. But how about an economic forecast? Are you capable of that? Are you an economist? Can you quote any credible sources with favourable economic forecasts? And what's the consensus on this?
I defer to Project Fear for economic fore casts, but nevertheless, as part of basic economic theory, open free-trading democracies always prevail.
Reply to Inis That's exactly the kind of reply that I expected from you. So, we have Inis, with little-to-no in-depth knowledge of complex economics, versus a consensus of experts. Who should we believe? That's a toughie!
Thanks Dave! You alone decided we would have a referendum, that you made a manifesto commitment that couldn't be blocked by Parliament or amended by the Lords. You pledged to reduce immigration then failed spectacularly. You tried to renegotiate a long list of complaints published in the media, that couldn't be renegotiated because they required treaty change. You appointed yourself chief spokesman for Remain, while farming out the Leave campaign to an unaccountable right wing economic policy pressure group,. You carried vast amounts of baggage with you into the referendum, baggage of your own creation - to give the people a say on a policy that's either pointless or catastrophic. Thank you very pigging much!?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca-v9rGE4-o
unenlightenedJanuary 21, 2019 at 10:18#2486550 likes
I defer to Project Fear for economic fore casts, but nevertheless, as part of basic economic theory, open free-trading democracies always prevail.
Brexit was nothing to do with money.
And the EU is the largest free trade block...
But it's not about money and all those fish... its about taking back control from those faceless bureaucrats and giving it to a bunch of [s]incompetent mendacious sleeze-bags[/s] proper representatives of the people in Westminster, who cannot even agree amongst themselves how to run their own parliament, never mind the country, because if we don't want to be run by a bunch of toffs and tossers from Eton and Oxford, We can just vote them out. Any time, really, and we will, quite soon, it's easy, we just haven't got around to it yet... but compared to leaving the EU, it'll be a doddle, especially with all that extra power we're giving them - I mean ourselves...
Reply to Inis This is totally uninformative for two obvious of reasons:
It doesn't reflect trade in services;
It doesn't reflect trade made possible with non-EU countries (e.g. third countries) thanks to EU negotiated trade deals or EU internal rules.
For instance, the possibility for UK based financial institutions to act as a gateway for third country persons to access the EU financial market will be largely lost after Brexit. No number of bilateral trade deals with third countries is going to reopen the EU market for UK based financial firms. This fragmentation is bad for both the EU and the UK but more so for the UK - just have a look at where the UK platforms are relocating (mostly the Netherlands) and the UK banks (mostly Frankfurt) that are opening EU27 offices and relocating personnel.
In fact, the recent exemption to continue to allow EU institutions to meet their clearing obligations by clearing at LCH, while again good for those EU institutions, would've spelled disaster for a number of large UK-based swap dealers. I expect it will be phased out in the long run, moving euro-denominated swap business to the EU27. That's a business at LCH with a present value of that swap portfolio of around 100 billion euros - and if a chunk of it moves to EUREX, jobs are sure to follow.
So no single market in services exists. The most that can be said is that a single market in some services exists.
There exists separate EU legislation to deal with many of the areas above, but much of it, particularly in the area of financial services, is achieved via mutual recognition agreements between individual member states.
Reply to InisThey are exempted from the Services Directive but have their own directives ensuring a single market for services. Your first list is covered entirely by MiFID, EMIR, CRD IV, BRRD, short selling regulation and Solvency. That's all EU law and has nothing to do with "mutual recognition". But please, continue like you know what you're talking about.
It's one of the four pillars of the EU after all, freedom of movement, capital, goods and services.
What about services, though? Particularly financial services. Many of them have already departed for Europe, I believe.
44% of all British exports (that is products and services) went to the EU. Of the imports the UK got over half of them from the EU.
From one statistic, UK trade-to-GDP ratio is 28,1%. That would give that trade is about 12% of GDP, a bit higher than 8%, but roughly in the same ballpark (as the statistics, exact time and measurement can differ).
Hence, that 8% or 12% might sound little, but if there are huge changes, the effects are big. Let's not forget that a -2% GDP change one calls a severe recession.
Naturally if City would lose it status as an European financial hub, that would have dramatic consequences. I assume it won't, the British aren't so crazy, and simply the EU isn't as determined to really challenge London's position.
David Cameron alone decided we would have a referendum, against the expressed will of Parliament in 2011 - who voted against holding a referendum by 485/111. Cameron announced there would be a referendum in 2013, then made it a manifesto commitment that couldn't be blocked by Parliament or amended by the Lords. Cameron pledged to reduce immigration then failed spectacularly to do so. He tried to renegotiate a long list of complaints - published in the media, that couldn't be renegotiated because they would have required treaty change. Cameron appointed himself chief spokesman for Remain, while farming out the Leave campaign to an unaccountable right wing economic policy pressure group,. Cameron carried vast amounts of baggage with him into the referendum, baggage of his own creation - and made economic threats that did nothing to counter the egregious lies and racist propaganda of the Leave campaign. Cameron did lie, I agree - obvious lies by which he further sabotaged any residual credibility he brought to the Remain cause. Cameron lost on purpose for Remain - in a referendum he alone decided would happen.?
unenlightenedJanuary 21, 2019 at 19:13#2488180 likes
Your claim makes more sense than most conspiracy theories; do you have any more than circumstantial evidence for it?
Yes, plenty. Cameron was a long term eurosceptic who wrote a manifesto for Micheal Howard in 2005 - that related eu membership and immigration, calling for a referendum, and does so using leave campaign rhetoric word for word. There's the youtube video from 2009 of Cameron calling for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. He called again for a referendum in the 2010 manifesto - at the same time he canclled an EU ID card scheme that would have given the UK that control over immigration, while making a non-credible promise to reduce immigration. In Europe, Cameron took the UK out of the centrist federalist alliance in the EU Parliament, and joined right wing nationalists. Once you start looking it just goes on and on - he was absolutely not a Remainer.
If you'll permit me to add my previous remarks here:
David Cameron alone decided we would have a referendum, against the expressed will of Parliament in 2011 - who voted against holding a referendum by 485/111. Cameron announced there would be a referendum in 2013, then made it a manifesto commitment that couldn't be blocked by Parliament or amended by the Lords. Cameron pledged to reduce immigration then failed spectacularly to do so. He tried to renegotiate a long list of complaints - published in the media, that couldn't be renegotiated because they would have required treaty change. Cameron appointed himself chief spokesman for Remain, while farming out the Leave campaign to an unaccountable right wing economic policy pressure group,. Cameron carried vast amounts of baggage with him into the referendum, baggage of his own creation - and made economic threats that did nothing to counter the egregious lies and racist propaganda of the Leave campaign. Cameron told obvious lies by which he further sabotaged any residual credibility he brought to the Remain cause. Cameron lost on purpose for Remain - in a referendum he alone decided would happen.?
It's really rather obvious that Cameron was a false advocate for Remain. And the kicker is that the Leave campaign lied outrageously, incited racial hatred, stole facebook data to target people directly with propaganda - and still only won by a hair's breadth. Brexit is not the will of the people. It's a scam.
p.s. to say nothing of the rumour released in 2015 alleging he once .... a dead pig's head!
unenlightenedJanuary 21, 2019 at 20:24#2488460 likes
It would be a violation of my prime directive to defend Cameron, but there's very little here to distinguish Cameron the machiavellian conspirator from Cameron the amoral advocate-whatever's-convenient smug incompetent.
I do have a general principle, Occam's blunt penknife, that states that other things being equal, a cock-up is a better theory than a conspiracy - and a cock up a pig is certainly not evidence of cunning planning ability.
It would be a violation of my prime directive to defend Cameron, but there's very little here to distinguish Cameron the machiavellian conspirator from Cameron the amoral advocate-whatever's-convenient smug incompetent. I do have a general principle, Occam's blunt penknife, that states that other things being equal, a cock-up is a better theory than a conspiracy - and a cock up a pig is certainly not evidence of cunning planning ability.
So, you're saying that a man with a first class degree in philosophy, politics and economics from Oxford University genuinely believed he could reduce immigration to the tens of thousands - adding 'or vote me out' - and that it was merely a coincidence he found himself on the wrong side that pledge in the referendum that he provided for, and on which he failed deliver in spectacular fashion?
You're saying it's just coincidental incompetence that his Home Secretary Theresa May was the longest serving Home Secretary in living memory, who also cancelled the EU ID scheme six years before the referendum, sacked the longstanding head of the Borders Agency, Brodie Clarke, allowed 660,000 immigrants into Britain in 2015, and published those figures during the campaign period? It's similarly coincidental she then became Prime Minister pursuing brexit with an absolute determination, and was not criticized or sacked as Home Secretary for her spectacular failure on immigration, despite the fact Cameron had said tens of thousands 'or vote me out'?
You're saying that people were led to believe that UKIP forced Cameron into a referendum he didn't want - when the facts show, quite clearly that UKIP were nowhere until Cameron made that silly immigration pledge - and also that Cameron wanted a referendum for many years before, because... of smug incompetence or something?
I am generally in agreement with Hanlon's Razor, the aphorism being: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
But it's not adequately explained, and Cameron is not stupid. He had a first class degree in PPE from Oxford and rose through the ranks of the Conservative Party like a rocket to the pinnacle of his profession - and you're saying he was a bumbling incompetent who fell out of the EU by accident?
If you look at the manifesto's and youtube video - they are evidence of clear premeditation of something he then actually did: call a referendum. He wasn't forced into by UKIP, because they were nowhere before Cameron, and because we vote in 650 constituencies - not nationally. UKIP's narrow policy platform may gain a lot of votes nationally, 11 million at the peak, but very rarely - a sufficient number in any one constituency. 11 million votes = 1 MP. And mostly Labour votes in the North. UKIP were never a threat to Cameron. So why have people been led to believe UKIP pressured Cameron into something he didn't want, that he clearly did want?
It's the fact he championed Remain in the referendum that is inconsistent with the facts. It just doesn't tally, and frankly - the cash for access scandal, proves his dishonesty. Would it be a surprise to find leading Leave campaign donors were among those who paid for access? Not to me!
I am generally in agreement with Hanlon's Razor, the aphorism being: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
But it's not adequately explained, and Cameron is not stupid. He had a first class degree in PPE from Oxford and rose through the ranks of the Conservative Party like a rocket to the pinnacle of his profession - and you're saying he was a bumbling incompetent who fell out of the EU by accident?
Having a degree from a highly respected university and being a rising star in the ranks of a political party doesn't mean you have a grasp of political reality at all. Stupidity here doesn't mean that the person would score low in an IQ test. Stupidity here means that you go with the thinking of the power elite and being blind to your own hubris without actually realizing what you are doing and only in hindsight realizing how bad decisions you have made.
Just think about another example: Blair supporting Dubya's invasion of Iraq. How much applause and popularity did he get in hindsight for that? How crucial was it for the UK, really? The French passed that one and yes, Americans had their cry baby tantrum with "freedom fries" as a result... and forgot the whole thing later as they usually do.
And then when Obama wanted the UK to join a similar endeavour with bombing Syria, the UK did pass. Result: Obama didn't do anything, in fact he didn't start a war which he had promised. How worse did the relations got after that?
"Talented stars" in the political arena can make quite easily bad decisions they regret later.
Having a degree from a highly appreciated university and rising in the ranks of a political party doesn't mean you have a grasp of political reality at all. Stupidity here doesn't mean that the person would score low in an IQ test. Stupidity here means that you go with the thinking of the power elite without actually realizing what you are doing and only in hindsight realizing how bad decisions have been done.
Just think about another example: Blair supporting Dubya's invasion of Iraq. How much applause and popularity did he get in hindsight for that? How crucial was it for the UK, really? The French passed that one and yes, Americans had their cry baby moment with "freedom fries" as a result... and forgot the whole thing later as they usually do.
And then when Obama wanted the UK to join a similar endeavour with bombing Syria, the UK did pass. Result: Obama didn't do anything, in fact he didn't start a war which he had promised. How worse did the relations got after that?
"Talented stars" in the political arena can make quite easily bad decisions they regret later.
Your principle is sound, but does not apply in this case.
Your principle is sound, but does not apply in this case.
Why so?
How couldn't the rulers be oblivious to the fact that what they are proposing could go wrong? To think that fine, we have the support for EU membership, perhaps we can silence the opposition with a referendum that we will win?
Your principle is sound, but does not apply in this case.
— karl stone
Why so?
How couldn't the rulers be oblivious to the fact that what they are proposing could go wrong? To think that fine, we have the support for EU membership, perhaps we can silence the opposition with a referendum that we will win?
If there was evidence showing a long and contentious relationship between two neighbors, and one of them was recorded on video telling the other 'I'm going to kill you' - and was then later discovered standing over the body with a bloody knife in hand, his claiming 'it was an accident' is not a defense. Clear evidence of premeditation renders false any such claim.
What you are asking me to believe is that a man who said he wanted a referendum, and who provided for a referendum, didn't in fact want the referendum he provided for. That's not credible. Yet people have been led to believe that Cameron didn't want a referendum, but was forced into it by the rise of UKIP. When you look at the voting statistics, that's clearly not the case. UKIP followed in Cameron's wake, only making significant gains from 2013 onward.
If you say you will do something and then you do it - it is a fact that you intended it. Cameron intended to have a referendum, and he provided for one as a manifesto commitment, such that it could not be blocked by Parliament or amended by the Lords. He could easily have brought forward a bill in the normal way - and discharged any obligation he felt, knowing it would be rejected by Parliament as it was in 2011 by a massive majority of 485/111.
I could go on. I've stated the facts above - and there are a great long list of other things that cannot be explained in any other terms than that Cameron deliberately sabotaged his own credibility on key issues in the referendum campaign - which he provided for by undemocratic means, not least immigration, and adopted the Remain position in order to lose on purpose.
Strong and stable, 'nother fable. Maybe not the best of sources. But we agree that there are credible sources out there which confirm what I'm saying. Unlike Inis, I don't think that I know better than the experts.
Pattern-chaserJanuary 22, 2019 at 12:12#2491050 likes
Naturally if City would lose it status as an European financial hub, that would have dramatic consequences. I assume it won't, the British aren't so crazy, and simply the EU isn't as determined to really challenge London's position.
I have a friend in fintech, in a pretty senior position, and she disagrees with you. Many major players have already purchased new offices in Europe, and departed.
Then why the heck have you been quoting figures relating to trade and profit? Have you completely lost your mind?
This guy...
For many, it was ideological. That's the problem. My vote to remain definitely had a lot to do with money. The Brexit voting public, a considerable portion of whom won't even be around that much longer for the consequences, have fucked me and my generation over if this goes through, and if the economic forecasts turn out to be fairly accurate. Thanks for putting my cost of living at risk, and thanks putting a shit ton of jobs at risk, and thank you David Cameron. Thank you also Boris Johnson for spreading misleading figures which must've tricked at least a few people into voting for the side which ended up winning, thank you to Nigel Farage for his usual dirty tricks, and thank you to the Vote Leave campaign for breaking the law by overspending. Thank you to all of the mindless nationalists, and thank you to all of the racists and xenophobes. Mother fuckers, the lot of you. Maybe Plato was right: we need a wise philosopher king in charge. Someone like me. :grin:
unenlightenedJanuary 22, 2019 at 13:13#2491150 likes
So, you're saying that a man with a first class degree in philosophy, politics and economics from Oxford University genuinely believed
Not at all. I'm saying that a man with a first class degree in philosophy politics and economics has no beliefs, no principles and no morals. I'm saying that neither Cameron or May give a fig about anything but their own position and their own power and status.
I'm saying Cameron wanted a referendum because he was losing support to Ukip, not because he had an opinion about the EU. I'm saying that hatred of the EU has been manufactured over years to divert attention from the real causes of the social degradation that has been taking place. We got a bad deal over fishing, because the people negotiating for us cared more about banking and insurance, and for them fish was a price worth paying. The British government has presided over regional decline, and impoverishment, and blamed it on the EU and Johnny foreigner. They really don't care about in or out, deal or no deal, because their world is tucked away on the Cayman Islands and won't be affected.
You're right. I just can't think of any other examples of clever and qualified politicians whose plans have backfired. Is that even possible? It must therefore have been a "criminal" conspiracy from the start.
Then why the heck have you been quoting figures relating to trade and profit? Have you completely lost your mind?
The Brexit vote was about sovereignty and democracy. Everyone expected an immediate economic hit. This was assured by the government, Bank of England, and even Barack Obama.
Well, the economic catastrophe didn't happen. Rather than an immediate loss of 500,000 - 800,000 jobs on voting Leave, as Mark Carney promised, instead UK enjoys the highest rate of employment since before entering the EEC. Rather than economic collapse, UK is now projected to be the fastest growing European G7 country after Brexit. The ONS has just released very encouraging economic figures on job, wages, and borrowing.
Nevertheless #ProjectFear continues to rumble on, so I choose to confront it with reality.
Reply to Inis You do like cherry picking your statistics don't you? How's GDP growth doing as compared to other countries and the GDP projection?
Furthermore, it's hard to compare a counterfactual with reality but whatever the UK economy is doing now (during a general worldwide economic upswing) we don't know what it would've done if it hadn't voted in favour of Brexit. Expectations is it would've done better, which is why you see GBP currency pairs with major currencies such as EUR and USD trade consistently at lower exchange rates as it expresses the expectation that interest rates in Britain will rise in order to stimulate the economy and avoid deflation. The benefit is of course that exports will be cheaper but despite that the UK lags in GDP growth compared to its now "more expensive" EU members.
Meanwhile, a lot of companies in the UK have effectuated their contigency planning, which doesn't bode well for the economy either. http://www.cbi.org.uk/news/8-out-of-10-businesses-say-brexit-hits-investment-as-speed-of-talks-outpaced-by-reality-firms-face-on-ground/
Not at all. I'm saying that a man with a first class degree in philosophy politics and economics has no beliefs, no principles and no morals. I'm saying that neither Cameron or May give a fig about anything but their own position and their own power and status.
I'm saying Cameron wanted a referendum because he was losing support to Ukip, not because he had an opinion about the EU. I'm saying that hatred of the EU has been manufactured over years to divert attention from the real causes of the social degradation that has been taking place. We got a bad deal over fishing, because the people negotiating for us cared more about banking and insurance, and for them fish was a price worth paying. The British government has presided over regional decline, and impoverishment, and blamed it on the EU and Johnny foreigner. They really don't care about in or out, deal or no deal, because their world is tucked away on the Cayman Islands and won't be affected.
Your opinion makes more sense than most unenlightened views; do you have any more than circumstantial evidence for it?
unenlightenedJanuary 22, 2019 at 14:41#2491300 likes
do you have any more than circumstantial evidence for it?
No.
Well I could probably muster some evidence that the EU is not responsible for the woes it is credited with, because - well it just isn't a monolith by design, but a common bureaucracy controlled by the negotiations and agreements between nations. The democratic deficit is put there to restrict its power, not to augment it. If you look at what the UK has accepted, and what it has rejected, I think you will find support for it being the UK government's concern to protect its financial powers more than its industrial; Hull can die as long as London thrives is UK policy, not EU.
You do like cherry picking your statistics don't you? How's GDP growth doing as compared to other countries and the GDP projection?
Furthermore, it's hard to compare a counterfactual with reality but whatever the UK economy is doing now (during a general worldwide economic upswing) we don't know what it would've done if it hadn't voted in favour of Brexit. Expectations is it would've done better, which is why you see GBP currency pairs with major currencies such as EUR and USD trade consistently at lower exchange rates as it expresses the expectation that interest rates in Britain will rise in order to stimulate the economy and avoid deflation. The benefit is of course that exports will be cheaper but despite that, which should make UK products and services more interesting but at the same time the UK lags in GDP growth.
Meanwhile, a lot of companies in the UK have effectuated their contigency planning, which doesn't bode well for the economy either. http://www.cbi.org.uk/news/8-out-of-10-businesses-say-brexit-hits-investment-as-speed-of-talks-outpaced-by-reality-firms-face-on-ground/
You sound like you know what you're talking about, so you must be part of "Project Fear".
Reply to Inis How many EU countries are there? How many are in the G7? Spoiler, 28 and 3. That IMF paper also shows the UK will underperform compared to the EU average. In other news, the EC forecasts UK GDP growth at 1.2% tying it with Italy for last place. Both forecasts assume a soft Brexit by the way.
And that's despite a depreciated currency...
Meanwhile, spreads and volatility in UK equities have increased as well, reflecting the risks market participants perceive. Rating agencies have downgraded UK debt as well.
From an economic point of view Brexit sucks for every party involved. For instance, for the Netherlands, where I live, it can have an effect of up to 1.2% of GDP. That's 10 billion EUR in costs.
Well I could probably muster some evidence that the EU is not responsible for the woes it is credited with, because - well it just isn't a monolith by design, but a common bureaucracy controlled by the negotiations and agreements between nations. The democratic deficit is put there to restrict its power, not to augment it. If you look at what the UK has accepted, and what it has rejected, I think you will find support for it being the UK government's concern to protect its financial powers more than its industrial; Hull can die as long as London thrives is UK policy, not EU.
I studied the EU as part of a politics degree, and I'd like to see a United States of Europe. The 'us and them' dynamic underlying Leave campaign rhetoric and opinions is, as you suggest here - fundamentally false. We are the EU in as much as other member states are the EU. So where you said above: 'We got a bad deal over fishing, because...' That's just not how it is. The common fisheries policy has serious flaws - but it was a policy developed in coordination with member states represented in Council and the Parliament.
In my own view, fishing is barbaric and should be scrapped. A United States of Europe would allow us to develop and apply the technology to farm fish on an industrial scale (pun not intended). But anything smacking of federalism has been automatically resisted by the UK. In as much as Leavers have been denied a referendum, so have those who desire a US of Europe. It's what the UK signed up to - an explicit ambition to promote 'ever closer union among the people's of Europe' - a commitment with regard to which the UK government have unilaterally acted in bad faith since 1973.
So now, when I hear 'us and them' - when I hear 'sovereignty' trumpeted as an unquestionable good, I have to ask myself, to what purposes has that sovereignty been put, and the assumption that 'ever closer union' is resisted in defense of the interests of the British people is somewhere between dubious and ludicrous. They sold off all the council housing and haven't built any social housing in 40 years, sold off the utilities to their pals in the city for peanuts, they opted out of EU legislation designed to protect workers - the Social Chapter of the Maastricht Treaty - to create a low wage low regulation jobs market, attractive to immigration, and subsidized shitty wages with tax payers money, starving public services of funding.
And so on and on. But to get back to the point, a brexit referendum sold on an 'us and them' dynamic, that simply presumes government employs sovereign powers in the interests of the British people, that blames the EU - for problems created by acting in bad faith toward the EU, and when you add in the corrupt nature of the referendum, and the fact that brexit will disadvantage the very people fooled into voting for it the most - to protect a sovereignty that has been protected at their expense, creating the very discontent upon which the Leave campaign preyed, I'm rendered speechless with anger. Suffice to say, brexit is the very worst remedy imaginable.
unenlightenedJanuary 22, 2019 at 16:37#2491540 likes
Reply to karl stone I think we're so much on the same page that I won't quibble.
brexit will disadvantage the very people fooled into voting for it the most - to protect a sovereignty that has been protected at their expense, creating the very discontent upon which the Leave campaign preyed,
This, conspiracy or mere tragedy, is the heart of the matter. And here is the connection with the US. Who knew til the shutdown that middle class Americans were just one pay check away from penury and food banks? And their 'take back control' hero was Trump!
Wouldn't you say though that the real problem is that the game of monopoly has reached its end, the winners have taken all, and the game is over.
I think we're so much on the same page that I won't quibble.
brexit will disadvantage the very people fooled into voting for it the most - to protect a sovereignty that has been protected at their expense, creating the very discontent upon which the Leave campaign preyed,
— karl stone
This, conspiracy or mere tragedy, is the heart of the matter. And here is the connection with the US. Who knew til the shutdown that middle class Americans were just one pay check away from penury and food banks? And their 'take back control' hero was Trump!
Wouldn't you say though that the real problem is that the game of monopoly has reached its end, the winners have taken all, and the game is over.
I have a scientific conception of reality that recognizes religious, political and economic ideological concepts as conventions and traditions arising from our evolutionary history - and in those terms, this is but a moment after dawn for humankind. An awkward moment to be sure, but entirely negotiable. The very dynamics I criticize - I criticize as absolutes that exclude a scientific understanding of reality, but in acceptance of scientific truth they are cultural treasures, science can easily afford to protect and celebrate - while providing for a long and prosperous future.
unenlightenedJanuary 24, 2019 at 15:09#2497610 likes
Reply to karl stone Well I found something of a connection that makes your conspiracy theory a bit more likely...
The same fellow supporting remain and leave champions is a bit suspicious...
It is rather odd how that chap seems intent on giving all his money to the Tory party. I rather suspect however, there's a PIIC covering up the whole rotten saga - so it will never come out in the British press.
From an economic point of view Brexit sucks for every party involved. For instance, for the Netherlands, where I live, it can have an effect of up to 1.2% of GDP. That's 10 billion EUR in costs.
I get it. Uk must pay £13billion membership fee, £4billion in fish, £4billion in benefits to EU citizens, and suffer a £95billion deficit in traded goods, so your country can benefit to the tune of EUR10billion?
Anything else you want?
Meanwhile Dalia Grybauskait? hints she might veto Brexit notice period extension. She wants no-deal.
Fuck it, screw the foolhardy masses who voted to leave. Let's work towards reversing it in a way that'll minimise the fallout.
I cannot equate defrauding of the politically ignorant with the idea of 'the foolhardy masses.' I have a long term fascination with politics - but don't ask me anything about football. Is that foolhardy? No. You could easily deceive me into believing the ball was in - or offside, or whatever. It's just ignorance. And the Leave campaign played upon real grievances and concerns. The lie was that those real issues are the fault of the EU, and can be resolved by brexit. Those who voted Leave, the vast majority of them knew little or nothing about politics - and they were deceived. This isn't a matter of 'the foolhardy masses' - this is a matter of political corruption.
Reply to Inis Yes. I want you to stop misrepresenting the facts all the time by cherry picking data and spreading misleading or false information. It's not nearly as much as you state it is and it is also meaningless without understanding the gains. It's kind of like saying 'an iPhone costs 300 EUR to make so we shouldn't do it because it's to expensive!'. On the UK contribution:
Meanwhile, based on figures from 2005 to 2015 the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Belgium, Luxemburg, Denmark, France and Austria all contributed more to the EU as percentage of their GDP. This still excludes the Fontainebleau Abatement, which probably puts the UK net contribution even belowthan Italy's.
The economic benefits of being part of the EU are nevertheless clear (it costs us 230 EUR a year per person and results in a 1,500 EUR benefit). And of course a Nexit is discussed in the Netherlands but that's a matter of EU bureacracy, sovereignty and local autonomy and a perceived democratic deficit. The EU, by the way, is in its structure less democratic than the Dutch structure but more democratic than the UK structure. So "taking back control" in the UK is quite misleading as it is mostly about taking back control for a specific elite in the UK. But whatever, don't let actual facts get in your way.
The trade deficit in the UK widened from 3.4 billion GDP to 8.7 billion GBP during a time the pound depreciated in respect of the EUR. The 95 billion is not a familiar figure. Have you decided to take an arbitrary time period and added all the yearly deficits together?
Finally, the EU can hardly be blamed for UK citizens wanting to import non-UK manufactured goods and retain non-UK services. That's a consequence of free trade markets that UK citizens have access to those goods.
It is unknown whether the trade deficit will improve due to Brexit. Any economists claiming one way or the other is just guessing. The depreciated GBP should lead to a reduced purchasing power abroad, so less imports. UK goods would be relatively cheaper for foreign bowers, so more exports. But, there's a barrier to trade now as the EU negotiated trade deals with third countries are lost and the "trade deal" of the EU is lost as well. Where the UK has no real alternative to buy abroad what it cannot provide itself, all other EU countries can avoid the hassle of dealing with UK customs by turning to any other country in the EU for that product or service. That will obviously lead to less exports for the UK to EU countries.
Finally, capital flows are significantly larger than trade flows. Where it used to be that trade deficits would correct themselves in a floating exchange rate environment the exchange rate nowadays is set by capital flows and trade flows have a neglible effect. It's therefore unclear what the GBP currency pairs will trade at in the future, which will be the main driver in the long run as to what happens with the trade deficit. A strong GBP will continue the trade deficit, a weaker one can reduce it or lead to a surplus. I doubt (as in when hell freezes over), however, the UK government is prepared introduce capital controls.
Yes. I want you to stop misrepresenting the facts all the time by cherry picking data and spreading misleading or false information. On the UK contribution:
OK So the membership fee is closer to £14billion.
The deficit in traded goods is still £95billion.
EU still takes £4billion in fish from UK waters.
EU citizens still take £4billion in benefits.
And UK is still on track to leave the burgeoning fascist state that is the EU on 29th March.
Those who voted Leave, the vast majority of them knew little or nothing about politics - and they were deceived. This isn't a matter of 'the foolhardy masses' - this is a matter of political corruption.
The people who voted Leave did so because they want to live in a functioning democracy.
Also, there was not a single argument to Remain, other than fear mongering, and that's not really an argument.
When the UK can chart its own destiny, make its own trade deals, set its own taxes and regulations, escape the protectionist tariff barriers, it will once again become an economic powerhouse and a bulwark against the burgeoning totalitarianism engulfing Europe.
When the UK can chart its own destiny, make its own trade deals, set its own taxes and regulations, escape the protectionist tariff barriers, it will once again become an economic powerhouse and a bulwark against the burgeoning totalitarianism engulfing Europe.
I know by the very fact you say that, you have no real idea what it means. You stand as proof that:
Those who voted Leave, the vast majority of them knew little or nothing about politics - and they were deceived. This isn't a matter of 'the foolhardy masses' - this is a matter of political corruption.
I know it because I know many people who voted Leave, and through the extensive research done by polling organisations. e.g.
Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”. One third (33%) said the main reason was that leaving “offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.” Just over one in eight (13%) said remaining would mean having no choice “about how the EU expanded its membership or its powers in the years ahead.” Only just over one in twenty (6%) said their main reason was that “when it comes to trade and the economy, the UK would benefit more from being outside the EU than from being part of it.”
There was no Remain campaign. Cameron was a brexiteer - who sabotaged his credibility and lost on purpose for Remain
That is the opposite of the truth. Cameron was a staunch Remainer, campaigned strongly for remain, and there are literally 100s of videos on youtube that captured the historical record. e.g.
I know it because I know many people who voted Leave, and through the extensive research done by polling organisations. e.g.
Nearly half (49%) of leave voters said the biggest single reason for wanting to leave the EU was “the principle that decisions about the UK should be taken in the UK”. One third (33%) said the main reason was that leaving “offered the best chance for the UK to regain control over immigration and its own borders.” Just over one in eight (13%) said remaining would mean having no choice “about how the EU expanded its membership or its powers in the years ahead.” Only just over one in twenty (6%) said their main reason was that “when it comes to trade and the economy, the UK would benefit more from being outside the EU than from being part of it.”
No mention of a 'functioning democracy.' And what's the sample size of this poll? It's says - "nearly half of leave voters' - but that's misleading. They didn't interview all leave voters, or half of them. Further, the questions asked now - about why people voted leave, very likely have little to do with why people voted at the time. They are responding to a list of choices - categories into which the survey must place them for the purposes of the report. Reality isn't like that.
There was no Remain campaign. Cameron was a brexiteer - who sabotaged his credibility and lost on purpose for Remain
— karl stone
That is the opposite of the truth. Cameron was a staunch Remainer, campaigned strongly for remain, and there are literally 100s of videos on youtube that captured the historical record. e.g.
Try this video from 2009, and tell me Cameron didn't want a referendum but was forced into it by UKIP!
British people don't want to be part of a burgeoning fascist state with its own army.
I assume you think that describes the EU - but it just doesn't. The EU is an elegantly democratic institution - with human rights, workers rights, consumer and environmental protection built into the founding treaties. Those values are the very antithesis of fascism. I can't imagine you even know what the word fascism means. You're making it more and more difficult to maintain the idea that you are not foolhardy, but were merely misled.
Minus the rebate, minus the expenditures of the EU in the UK, you get around 9 billion GDP. In return for which you have access to the largest free trade block in the world. Effectively each UK citizen pays 135 GBP, or 155 EUR, per year. The Dutch pay 230 per capita but make more than up for it in the benefits it generates (somewhere between 1500 to 2000 per year per capita). And here the CBI explains to you why it was a benefit to the UK as well: http://www.cbi.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/our-global-future/factsheets/factsheet-2-benefits-of-eu-membership-outweigh-costs/
But of course people actually running a business don't know what they're talking about. :rofl:
In any case, the UK paid and is paying far less than the other most-developed European countries. So the complaint about the membership fee is just pathetic. If youthink being part of a free trading block can be a free lunch then you don't understand the complexities of having to maintain a functioning and integrated market. Just have a look at the total public expenditures in the UK as a whole.
Ah, it's cherry picking again and a blatant attempt at misrepresentation. The trade balance is the total of goods and services. The most recent numbers from November 2017 to November 2018 is 28.6 billion GBP compared to 4.1 billion GDP as of end 2017. A strong rise compared to before which is driven by falling foreign direct investment in the UK due to the uncertainty of Brexit. Something you can blame your politicians for.
Based on what information because the "data on migrants and benefits is incomplete, fragmented and not routinely available"? When people voted on Brexit no information was available on the costs of benefits paid by the UK government to EU citizens. The estimates I found in the House of Commons Library were from March 2017 on data in 2013/2014 at results in 1.7 billion GBP over 2 years for non-UK EU citizens. An important point as well: non-UK nationals were far less likely to receive benefits than UK nationals. Since the system is such that the working populace carries the costs of those receiving benefits, the non-UK citizens not only pay for all non-UK people receiving benefits but also a part of UK citizens receiving benefits. E.g., they make social security cheaper for everyone in the UK.
UK citizens working in the EU have the same rights to benefits as well that the UK wouldn't have to pay if they were unemployed in the UK (1.3 million UK citizens live in the EU) but I imagine that they similarly have a lower unemployment rate and less need for benefits as the local populace and as group are a net contributor.
Reply to Inis Yes, I reiterated what had to be deducted from the gross amount resulting in a net payment of 9 billion. Agree with that final figure or not?
I get it. Uk must pay £13billion membership fee, £4billion in fish, £4billion in benefits to EU citizens, and suffer a £95billion deficit in traded goods, so your country can benefit to the tune of EUR10billion?
Anything else you want?
Ah yes, the mercantilist whining about a trade deficit. This is a Basic problem: people don't know or understand international trade and how beneficial it actually is. You only have to say that a) there's a trade deficit and b) foreigners are taking the jobs, and people go straight into believing the lies that trade barriers and "protection" of your domestic industry is the way to go.
Besides, the Dutch pay per capita (that means per person) a lot more to the EU than the British do (Benkei has explained), so again a questionmark on your crying about payments to EU.
After all, before the EU payments were simply a method of transferring money to the agricultural sector: in the 1980's like 70% of the EU budget went to agriculture and even now about 41% go there.
Cameron was a long term eurosceptic who wrote a manifesto for Micheal Howard in 2005 - that related eu membership and immigration, calling for a referendum, and does so using leave campaign rhetoric word for word. There's the youtube video from 2009 of Cameron calling for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. He called again for a referendum in the 2010 manifesto - at the same time he canclled an EU ID card scheme that would have given the UK that control over immigration, while making a non-credible promise to reduce immigration. In Europe, Cameron took the UK out of the centrist federalist alliance in the EU Parliament, and joined right wing nationalists. Once you start looking it just goes on and on - he was absolutely not a Remainer.
David Cameron alone decided we would have a referendum, against the expressed will of Parliament in 2011 - who voted against holding a referendum by 485/111. Cameron announced there would be a referendum in 2013, then made it a manifesto commitment that couldn't be blocked by Parliament or amended by the Lords. Cameron pledged to reduce immigration then failed spectacularly to do so. He tried to renegotiate a long list of complaints - published in the media, that couldn't be renegotiated because they would have required treaty change. Cameron appointed himself chief spokesman for Remain, while farming out the Leave campaign to an unaccountable right wing economic policy pressure group,. Cameron carried vast amounts of baggage with him into the referendum, baggage of his own creation - and made economic threats that did nothing to counter the egregious lies and racist propaganda of the Leave campaign. Cameron told obvious lies by which he further sabotaged any residual credibility he brought to the Remain cause. Cameron lost on purpose for Remain - in a referendum he alone decided would happen.?
It's really rather obvious that Cameron was a false advocate for Remain. And the kicker is that the Leave campaign lied outrageously, incited racial hatred, stole facebook data to target people directly with propaganda - and still only won by a hair's breadth. Brexit is not the will of the people. It's a scam.
unenlightenedJanuary 25, 2019 at 13:32#2500850 likes
Karl, you're not making a great case here. Leave won by lying; but remain deliberately lost by lying.
The different constituencies of the vote are marked by educational attainment and socio-economic class. What was credible to one group was not credible to the other.
Leave told lies to the uneducated - provocative lies, like the EU is a foreign dictatorship, and responsible for mass immigration. Cameron did nothing to challenge those lies.
You and I know that's not true, because the EU is a democratic system, and the UK government failed to put accession controls in place from 2007 - as allowed under EU law, and then failed to remove jobless migrants - as allowed under EU law.
Inis doesn't know it's not true. He thinks he's giving Cameron the black eye he deserves for failing to meet his silly 'tens of thousands' immigration pledge - "or vote me out."
Karl, you're not making a great case here. Leave won by lying; but remain deliberately lost by lying.
Sounds similar to when we had the join EU debate in this country.
The "Join" crowd painted a picture of the gates of paradise opening with EU membership and the "Don't join" crowd painted a picture of utter doom, perdition with the end of our independence. Back then the old politicians with warm ties to Russia dominated the "Don't join" crowd (so things have some continuity at least here).
Neither side was anywhere near being correct, but their lies live on. The realistic prediction that "things actually won't change so much for the ordinary person and from the viewpoint of the ordinary person" would have been far better, but who would campaign with that kind of slogan?
Sounds similar to when we had the join EU debate in this country.
The "Join" crowd painted a picture of the gates of paradise opening with EU membership and the "Don't join" crowd painted a picture of utter doom, perdition with the end of our independence. Back then the old politicians with warm ties to Russia dominated the "Don't join" crowd (so things have some continuity at least here).
Neither side was anywhere near being correct, but their lies live on. The realistic prediction that "things actually won't change so much for the ordinary person and from the viewpoint of the ordinary person" would have been far better, but who would campaign with that kind of slogan?
Besides, the Dutch pay per capita (that means per person) a lot more to the EU than the British do (Benkei has explained), so again a questionmark on your crying about payments to EU.
And in return the Dutch enjoy a surplus in trade of EUR 200 billion with the EU.
I cannot equate defrauding of the politically ignorant with the idea of 'the foolhardy masses.' I have a long term fascination with politics - but don't ask me anything about football. Is that foolhardy? No. You could easily deceive me into believing the ball was in - or offside, or whatever. It's just ignorance. And the Leave campaign played upon real grievances and concerns. The lie was that those real issues are the fault of the EU, and can be resolved by brexit. Those who voted Leave, the vast majority of them knew little or nothing about politics - and they were deceived. This isn't a matter of 'the foolhardy masses' - this is a matter of political corruption.
Blameworthy ignorance. You shouldn't be so gullible as to allow yourself to be easily deceived, and if you're going to get involved in the game, then you should at least do your homework.
Many people were motivated to vote leave because of their own nationalist and anti-establishment sentiment. Some people don't listen to reason. Some people block it out. Some people believe what they want to believe.
With regards to surplus and deficit with trade partners , why is a deficit "bad" and a surplus "good"? I ask, because if one is continually selling and not buying, then what is the point of selling?
With regards to surplus and deficit with trade partners , why is a deficit "bad" and a surplus "good"? I ask, because if one is continually selling and not buying, then what is the point of selling?
Trade deficits are not necessarily a bad thing - but there isn't a brexiteer alive who's heard of Riccardo, less yet understands the doctrine of comparative advantage. I urge you to try - just for laughs, but I assure you - you'd be wasting your time.
From On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation by David Ricardo.
London: John Murray, 1821.
To produce the wine in Portugal, might require only the
labour of 80 men for one year, and to produce the cloth in the
same country, might require the labour of 90 men for the same
time. It would therefore be advantageous for her to export wine
in exchange for cloth. This exchange might even take place,
notwithstanding that the commodity imported by Portugal could be
produced there with less labour than in England. Though she could
make the cloth with the labour of 90 men, she would import it
from a country where it required the labour of 100 men to produce
it, because it would be advantageous to her rather to employ her
capital in the production of wine, for which she would obtain
more cloth from England, than she could produce by diverting a
portion of her capital from the cultivation of vines to the
manufacture of cloth.
I cannot equate defrauding of the politically ignorant with the idea of 'the foolhardy masses.' I have a long term fascination with politics - but don't ask me anything about football. Is that foolhardy? No. You could easily deceive me into believing the ball was in - or offside, or whatever. It's just ignorance. And the Leave campaign played upon real grievances and concerns. The lie was that those real issues are the fault of the EU, and can be resolved by brexit. Those who voted Leave, the vast majority of them knew little or nothing about politics - and they were deceived. This isn't a matter of 'the foolhardy masses' - this is a matter of political corruption.
— karl stone
Blameworthy ignorance. You shouldn't be so gullible as to allow yourself to be easily deceived, and if you're going to get involved in the game, then you should at least do your homework. Many people were motivated to vote leave because of their own nationalist and anti-establishment sentiment. Some people don't listen to reason. Some people block it out. Some people believe what they want to believe.
You mean "they" shouldn't be so ignorant... but I say, an unplanned, uncosted policy failure should not have been put to the people in a referendum in the first place. The desire for this referendum does not originate with the people. It originates within the Tory Party. Whether you accept that Cameron was a brexiteer or continue in ignorance of the fact, a Tory disease has been inflicted on the whole country.
And what do they care? Their money is having a tax break in Panama - while they crash the economy into brexit mountain, giving them a clean slate for 40 years of Thatcherite betrayal, and an excuse for austerity forever. That's why an obviously crooked referendum 'must be respected' - why a marginal vote is an absolute mandate, and why May is wasting time on a deal no-one supports - while the clock runs out on Article 50.
And just think about all the bargain empty houses and bankrupt businesses they'll be able to snap up at rock bottom prices.
The desire for this referendum does not originate with the people. It originates within the Tory Party.
Actually, the campaign for an EU referendum can be traced back to 2011 when the cross-party People's Pledge group was formed. They took no position on EU membership, other than it should be put to the people.
In 2011 a petition of 100,000 signatures calling for an EU referendum was handed into Downing Street.
Actually, the campaign for an EU referendum can be traced back to 2011 when the cross-party People's Pledge group was formed. They took no position on EU membership, other than it should be put to the people. In 2011 a petition of 100,000 signatures calling for an EU referendum was handed into Downing Street.
And what happened? Parliament debated it - and voted against holding a referendum by 485/111. So why did Cameron promise a referendum in 2013, and make it a manifesto commitment in 2015 that could not be blocked by Parliament, or amended by the Lords? Do you call that democracy? It's a clear abuse of democratic process.
No, I meant you, following on from your football analogy. But yes, them too. It's an analogy after all.
I love how you deny foolhardiness, then in the very next sentence talk about being easily deceived, seemingly intended as a counterexample. It's foolish to be easily deceived and it's foolhardy to act rashly as a result.
You mean "they" shouldn't be so ignorant...
— karl stone
No, I meant you, following on from your football analogy. But yes, them too.
Ah, okay - I see what you did there. No, I don't get involved in football. I don't play football, and I don't talk about it - because I don't know the first thing about it. Could you imagine me in the pub, shouting the odds at a crowd of football fans who have followed the game all their lives. That's what brexiteers are like.
Ah, okay - I see what you did there. No, I don't get involved in football. I don't play football, and I don't talk about it - because I don't know the first thing about it. Could you imagine me in the pub, shouting the odds at a crowd of football fans who have followed the game all their lives. That's what brexiteers are like.
The common Brexiteer is living proof that Neanderthals didn't go extinct all those years ago.
Ah, okay - I see what you did there. No, I don't get involved in football. I don't play football, and I don't talk about it - because I don't know the first thing about it. Could you imagine me in the pub, shouting the odds at a crowd of football fans who have followed the game all their lives. That's what brexiteers are like.
— karl stone
The common Brexiteer is living proof that Neanderthals didn't go extinct all those years ago.
You seem to be ignoring Her Majesty's plea to find common ground. That can't be achieved by calling brexiteers stupid. Ignorance is not the same as stupidity. Being misled into voting for an unplanned, uncosted policy failure by corrupt politicians is not their fault.
It becomes harder to maintain that position when they are the guy in the pub who knows nothing, telling die hard fans how football should be played - but then, like Micheal Gove told them, "we've had enough of experts." It's not their fault!
I urge you to try - just for laughs, but I assure you - you'd be wasting your time.
— karl stone
Is Riccardo suggesting that countries cooperate in order to maximise the total output?
If by 'cooperate' you mean trade, then yes. Trade is supposed to maximize total output - and make everyone better off. I brought it up, and only now I'm reminded I don't like all the implications, particularly with regard to skills and employment. But still, where capital would otherwise be left idle it can promote inward investment and create new opportunities, I guess. It's so easy to dismiss an issue like trade deficits using a concept like this, and the supposition that everyone is better off, then when asked to explain - it's a whole can of worms - that last time, were the economics professor's problem. But I do remember he would caution against getting hung up on any one idea like that were a comprehensive explanation of how economies work. Worms everywhere! Can we move on?
And what happened? Parliament debated it - and voted against holding a referendum by 485/111.
— karl stone
Cameron voted against a referendum in 2011.
So why did Cameron promise a referendum in 2013,
— karl stone
Because UKIP were at 10% in the polls.
That's not true. Cameron had been agitating for a referendum since he wrote the 2005 Conservative Party manifesto for Micheal Howard - using leave campaign rhetoric, word for word. UKIP were nowhere at that time. In a 2009 youtube video Cameron again demanded a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, and made the same demand again in his 2010 manifesto - alongside his non-credible tens of thousands immigration pledge.
Only afterward did UKIP begin making electoral gains - largely due to courting the BNP, and organizing far right groups to vote in low turnout EU elections. Parliament debated and rejected a call for a referendum in 2011, by 485/111. Yet Cameron announced there would be a referendum in 2013, and then made it a manifesto commitment in 2015 that could not be blocked by Parliament nor amended by the Lords.
It's simply untrue that Cameron was forced into a referendum he didn't want. So why do people believe it? The pertinent question is - how did Cameron end up on the wrong side of his own ridiculous immigration pledge in a referendum he alone provided for, that was all about immigration??
What fabrication? What have I fabricated? Everything I said is a checkable fact:
Cameron had been agitating for a referendum since he wrote the 2005 Conservative Party manifesto for Micheal Howard - using leave campaign rhetoric, word for word. UKIP were nowhere at that time. In a 2009 youtube video Cameron again demanded a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, and made the same demand again in his 2010 manifesto - alongside his non-credible tens of thousands immigration pledge.
Only afterward did UKIP begin making electoral gains - largely due to courting the BNP, and organizing far right groups to vote in low turnout EU elections. Parliament debated and rejected a call for a referendum in 2011, by 485/111. Yet Cameron announced there would be a referendum in 2013, and then made it a manifesto commitment in 2015 that could not be blocked by Parliament nor amended by the Lords.
It's simply untrue that Cameron was forced into a referendum he didn't want. So why do people believe it? The pertinent question is - how did Cameron end up on the wrong side of his own ridiculous immigration pledge in a referendum he alone provided for, that was all about immigration??
That's not true. Cameron had been agitating for a referendum since he wrote the 2005 Conservative Party manifesto for Micheal Howard - using leave campaign rhetoric, word for word. UKIP were nowhere at that time. In a 2009 youtube video Cameron again demanded a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, and made the same demand again in his 2010 manifesto - alongside his non-credible tens of thousands immigration pledge.
The David Cameron is a cunning political creature, though not infallible. He was just being a chameleon out of self-interest. He was working for Michael Howard, someone who is well-known to be a strong Eurosceptic. Then, given his prior role in producing this kind of politics, and given his now vindicated belief that an EU referendum would be popular enough as a pledge to contribute towards his party winning the general election, which they did under him in 2010, he was just latching on to what he judged to be a winning strategy. Likewise with his pledge on reducing immigration to the tens of thousands. The more plausible explanation is that he simply judged making such pledges to be winning strategies, not your criminal conspiracy ramblings.
David Cameron is a cunning political creature, but not infallible. He was just being a chameleon out of self-interest. He was working for Michael Howard, someone who is well-known to be a strong Eurosceptic. Then, given his prior role in producing this kind of politics, and given his now vindicated belief that an EU referendum would be a pledge which would contribute towards his party winning the general election, which they did under him in 2010, he was just latching on to what he judged to be a winning strategy. Likewise with his pledge on reducing immigration to the tens of thousands. The more plausible explanation is that he simply judged making such pledges to be winning strategies.
Cameron didn't win the 2010 election though. It was a hung Parliament. The Tories were in coalition with the pro-eu Lib Dems. Think about that in relation to Cameron's 2010 silly immigration pledge - and the fact that Theresa May was the longest serving Home Secretary in living memory.
May and Cameron immediately cancelled an EU ID card scheme that would have given the UK control over EU immigration. May sacked the head of the Borders Agency, Brodie Clark, and allowed 660,000 immigrants into the UK in 2015, and published those figures during the 2016 referendum campaign period.
Meanwhile, by championing Remain, Cameron put himself on the wrong side of his own failure on immigration - in a referendum he alone decided would happen, and forced on an unwilling Parliament!
Oh, don't be so predictable. You know what I meant. He basically did, he just needed a little help from the Lib Dems. The Tories, led by Dave, won the largest number of votes and seats, but fell 20 seats short of an overall majority. He ended up in the driving seat as Prime Minister. Nicky got the passenger seat as Deputy. The Lib Dems caved in on key pledges which subsequently obliterated them, and they have yet to recover. The Tories went on to win the next general election, again under Dave, but this time with an outright majority.
Meanwhile, by championing Remain, Cameron put himself on the wrong side of his own failure on immigration - in a referendum he alone decided would happen, and forced on an unwilling Parliament?
Blah blah blah... yes, his tactics eventually backfired. It happens. It's not uncommon in politics. No need for tinfoil hats.
The facts are the facts. But as you speak of predictability - is there any possibility at all that you would not dismiss an argument that suggested the 2016 referendum was corrupt - and agree that a legitimate democratic result cannot follow from a corrupt process?
If not the fact that Cameron was a brexiteer who campaigned dishonestly and lost on purpose for Remain, how about stolen facebook data used to target propaganda that incited racial hatred, or how about financial corruption and Russian interference?
My prediction is, that wouldn't change your mind either!
Yes, and pedantry is pedantry. If you think that I didn't know the outcome, and that I meant that the Tories won an overall majority in 2010, instead of it resulting in a hung parliament, then you're an idiot. Do I have to word everything I say as though I'm speaking to an idiot when I'm speaking with you?
But as you speak of predictability - is there any possibility at all that you would not dismiss an argument that suggested the 2016 referendum was corrupt - and agree that a legitimate democratic result cannot follow from a corrupt process?
...how about stolen facebook data used to target propaganda that incited racial hatred, or how about financial corruption and Russian interference?
How about I'm naturally wary of what conspiracy nuts say, but if I care to, I'll look into things further and make my own further assessment? You and Inis are almost as bad as each other, just in different ways. He's a shameless propagandist and you're a conspiracy nut.
Yes, and pedantry is pedantry. If you think that I didn't know the outcome, and that I meant that the Tories won an overall majority in 2010, instead of it resulting in a hung parliament, then you're an idiot. Do I have to word everything I say as though I'm speaking to an idiot when I'm speaking with you?
Not at all. I know very well you can't pack every fact into every sentence. I meant to indicate that it's a significant fact that Cameron was in coalition from 2010. It scuppered his plans, and that's why he voted against the referendum petition in 2011 - because he didn't have a majority in the HoC, and that's why Theresa May was Home Secretary for a world record six years - while failing dramatically to deliver on an absurd immigration pledge on which Cameron had staked his political career! i.e. tens of thousands "or vote me out!"
As for your other comments, ad hominem attacks are not valid arguments. Stop being so sensitive. I don't know you. I'm commenting on your arguments... your myopic crazed arguments!
Not at all. I know very well you can't pack every fact into every sentence. I meant to indicate that it's a significant fact that Cameron was in coalition from 2010. It scuppered his plans, and that's why he voted against the referendum petition in 2011 - because he didn't have a majority in the HoC, and that's why Theresa May was Home Secretary for a world record six years - while failing dramatically to deliver on an absurd immigration pledge on which Cameron had staked his political career! i.e. tens of thousands "or vote me out!"
Okay, but you should try to recognise that this doesn't support your explanation over and above mine, and you should try to recognise that a conspiracy theory is obviously not a fact, and therefore you shouldn't refer to it as factual as you have done. I'm absolutely fine with genuine facts, but the way that you're connecting the dots and exclaiming, "Ah ha!", is something else entirely.
As for your other comments, ad hominem attacks are not valid arguments. Stop being so sensitive. I don't know you. I'm commenting on your arguments... your myopic crazed arguments!
Okay, but you should try to recognise that this doesn't support your explanation over and above mine, and you should try to recognise that a conspiracy theory is obviously not a fact, and therefore you shouldn't refer to it as factual as you have done. I'm absolutely fine with genuine facts, but the way that you're connecting the dots and exclaiming, "Ah ha!", is something else entirely.
So let me ask you a question - why did Cameron pledge to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands, adding "or vote me out" while simultaneously cancelling an EU ID card scheme that would have given the UK control over immigration? Why did Cameron keep Theresa May in post for six years - without a word of criticism as she failed to deliver on that pledge?
Also, take into consideration that Cameron made the referendum a manifesto commitment that couldn't be blocked by Parliament, that he took to UK out of a centrist coalition in the EU, and joined right wing nationalists, and ultimately, put himself on the wrong side of his impossible, failed immigration pledge championing the Remain cause?
You keep calling it a conspiracy theory - but if you believed Cameron, you'd have voted Remain. He threatened WWIII - for goodness sake. Why would he do that if not to further sabotage his credibility and damage the Remain cause? Did he believe he could deliver tens of thousands? Did he believe WWIII would break out in the event of a Leave vote? Did you believe him? If not then, why now?
unenlightenedJanuary 30, 2019 at 14:18#2515780 likes
Reply to S So it turns out there is a small majority in parliament in favour of a fantasy, whereby Britain gets exactly what it wants and does not have to pay for it, and Ireland floats away and becomes someone else's problem.
Great! Meanwhile, the currency falls, the deadline draws closer, the WTO paradise is exposed for a myth, and sensible Brexiteers are moving their money, their headquarters and their residences out of the country. This is called "taking back control".
unenlightenedJanuary 30, 2019 at 16:06#2515970 likes
How low can they stoop! The Guardian is reduced to cribbing my forum posts for its headlines.
How low can they stoop! The Guardian is reduced to cribbing my forum posts for its headlines.
Here's the headline,
MPs have voted for a fantasy. It’s an indictment of our entire political class
Jonathan Freedland
but the byline is more interesting:
History will damn the architects of Brexit – and the politicians on both sides whose delusions are leading us to disaster
If they can identify them!
Cameron hid his part in stoking anti-immigrant rhetoric and pushing for a referendum from 2005 - behind fake advocacy of Remain, and May obliged him by cancelling the EU ID card scheme in 2010, sacking the long term head of the borders agency Brodie Clark, screeching from the Home Office about the Human Rights Act as it relates to immigration, anti-immigrant billboard vans driving round the streets, while doing nothing to fulfill Cameron's unbelievable tens of thousands pledge on immigration - allowing 660,000 immigrants into the UK in 2015, and publishing those figures during the 2016 referendum campaign period, in which both Cameron and May declared themselves Remainers.
So now, the Tories can blame the whole thing on EU intransigence and "the will of the people" - while their money is taking a tax break in Panama, the economy crashes and they come back relatively richer, and with an excuse for further deregulation and austerity forever after!
Those are the facts - and they are entirely absent from the UK media.
EU: The backstop is non-negotiable.
UK: So, how about we renegotiate the backstop?
EU: The backstop is non-negotiable.
UK: I get it. We'll renogotiate the backstop.
EU: The backstop is non-negotiable.
UK: Ok, I suppose the only solution left then is to renegotiate the backstop. We'll make that clear in Parliament and take it from there.
EU: The backstop is non-negotiable.
UK: Right, well let's deal with that as soon as we're finished renegotiating the backstop.
"Stressed out by Brexit? I have a mindfulness exercise for you, one guaranteed to bring calm. Instead of imagining a deep, cool lake or a beach of bone-white sand, comfort yourself by imagining the day, several years from now, when a Chilcot-style inquiry probes the epic policy disaster that was Brexit. As you take deep breaths, and with your eyes closed, picture the squirming testimony of an aged David Cameron under sustained interrogation. Look on as Boris Johnson is at last called to account for the serial fictions of the 2016 campaign. Or perhaps contemplate the moment the panel delivers its damning, final report, concluding that this was a collective, systemic failure of the entire British political class."
The idea that Ireland would agree to something that transgresses the good Friday agreement is fanciful at best. And Ireland has a veto. And the EU rather than make them use it and alienate one of the most willing members of its club will stand by and watch Britain flush itself down the toilet if that's what Britain would rather do than drop the red lines that got them into their present pickle.
Reply to Baden I was optimistic that Parliament would veto a no deal Brexit and revoke Article 50 when it became clear that a deal won't be made. But then yesterday they voted against giving themselves the authority to do that. Crazy.
Although hopefully they change their minds before it's too late.
If I hadn't a bank account with a significant amount of sterling in it, I'd probably be more sanguine about the whole thing. Anyway, I'm also less optimistic than yesterday but still betting on non-craziness to take hold in time.
I was optimistic that Parliament would veto a no deal Brexit and revoke Article 50 when it became clear that a deal won't be made. But then yesterday they voted against giving themselves the authority to do that. Crazy.
How can parliament veto primary legislation, without an Act of Parliament?
Parliament cannot revoke Article 50, it is part of the EU treaty. The notice period could be extended with unanimous agreement of the EU Council, by the government.
... where a Member State has notified the European Council, in accordance with that article, of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, that article allows that Member State ... to revoke that notification unilaterally, in an unequivocal and unconditional manner ...
May already blinked and gave in on the backstop. There are no new negotiations only a charade by the British PM to please the crazy-wing of her party while highlighting their craziness as a precursor to her giving in and accepting the soft Brexit she's always wanted.
May is playing chicken with the Irish border. From a game theroy point of view I think the EU should blink first and gain reputation.
If she is, she is misreading the situation. The EU cannot afford a border hole in the Customs Union. It's an agreement to no border, or no agreement and a border.
Reply to Baden What's more, a majority of northern Irish politicians and businesses are in favour of the back stop. When do these matters become devolved matters that the local politicians get a say?
What do the British MPs and the government want exactly?
Same thing that the Scottish wanted from the UK: nice independence, but all things good for business to stay as it was in the union. It's called cherry picking.
The Northern Ireland assembly is currently suspended, but even if it hadn't been, it's a Westminster issue. Complicating matters, Sinn Fein, who are the major opposition to the DUP, boycott Westminster and so don't participate in any votes that could influence Brexit.
Same thing that the Scottish wanted from the UK: nice independence, but all things good for business to stay as it was in the union. It's called cherry picking.
Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I meant more specifically with regard to the "alternative arrangements" to the backstop, what do they want?
They're looking for a time-limit and/or a legal guarantee they can unilaterally leave it. Both of which would make it pointless. It's like an insurance company asking if they can not pay you if you have an accident.
Reply to Baden Leave what exactly? I'm getting a Balfour déjà-vu. The UK agreed to the following:
The United Kingdom remains committed to protecting North-South cooperation and to its guarantee of avoiding a hard border. Any future arrangements must be compatible with these overarching requirements. The United Kingdom's intention is to achieve these objectives through the overall EU-UK relationship. Should this not be possible, the United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland. In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.
Which of course makes a nonsense of the whole plan. As in: We promise not to leave the Customs Union if it means instituting a hard border unless you don't agree with us on our proposed solution, in which case we'll go ahead and do what we like.
I actually think the EU has been very considerate of UK interests so far in particular where it concerns the financial services industry. EU entities can continue to meet their clearing obligations by clearing at LCH. If it had been me, I would've said that's fine with regard to your historic portfolio but for any new financial instruments it needs to be cleared at a clearing house in the EU.
Exactly. But again it's managed capitulation from May. She must cave but the crazy wing of her party won't let her until the walls are falling in around them.
I meant pass an Act of Parliament to revoke Article 50 if a deal is not approved.
Sure, it would require an Act to revoke A50 notice. (You can't revoke A50 BTW, it's a treaty). I think this is impossible for a couple of reasons. Firstly it would never pass, and secondly there simply is not enough time.
Under UK Law, there is already a deal approved. UK pays nothing to EU and simply leaves on 29th March. Under EU treaty, A24 would then apply, which means UK/EU trade, travel etc. would continue under current arrangements for 2 years.
... where a Member State has notified the European Council, in accordance with that article, of its intention to withdraw from the European Union, that article allows that Member State ... to revoke that notification unilaterally, in an unequivocal and unconditional manner ...
You are confusing A50, which is a treaty, and thus cannot be revoked, with the Notice to leave, which can be revoked, if there is an Act of Parliament allowing the government to do so, which there isn't.
Also, note that the Notice cannot be revoked in order to hold another referendum.
I doubt anyone here wants to have to explain to you what the words "no-deal Brexit mean". So, I suggest you Google it. In the meantime, this is what the IMF actually has to say.
"The UK is set to exit the EU in March 2019. It is now in the process of negotiating its future relationship with the EU. Growth has moderated since the 2016 referendum, moving the UK from the top to near the bottom of the Group of Seven growth tables. "
"...reverting to WTO trade rules, even in an orderly manner, would lead to long-run output losses for the UK of around 5 to 8 percent of GDP compared to a no-Brexit scenario."
"A worst-case scenario would be a disorderly exit without a transition period. Such an outcome would lead to a sharp fall in confidence and reversal of capital flows, which would affect asset prices and the value of sterling."
Sure, if growth slows down in the EU, everyone should just leave it. Actually, everyone should just leave their country when growth slows down and come back during the next boom. The IMF projects that that will definitely work.
This simply isn't true. IMF projects UK will be equally fastest European G7 growing economy.
How many EU countries are there? How many are in the G7? Spoiler, 28 and 3. That IMF paper also shows the UK will underperform compared to the EU average. In other news, the EC forecasts UK GDP growth at 1.2% tying it with Italy for last place. Both forecasts assume a soft Brexit by the way.
And that's despite a depreciated currency...
Meanwhile, spreads and volatility in UK equities have increased as well, reflecting the risks market participants perceive. Rating agencies have downgraded UK debt as well.
From an economic point of view Brexit sucks for every party involved.
That's why 3.7 million EU Citizens live in UK, that and the £4billion in benefits they take.
That's why net migration from EU is still 100,000 p.a. despite Brexit.
Based on what information because the "data on migrants and benefits is incomplete, fragmented and not routinely available"? When people voted on Brexit no information was available on the costs of benefits paid by the UK government to EU citizens. The estimates I found in the House of Commons Library were from March 2017 on data in 2013/2014 at results in 1.7 billion GBP over 2 years for non-UK EU citizens. An important point as well: non-UK nationals were far less likely to receive benefits than UK nationals. Since the system is such that the working populace carries the costs of those receiving benefits, the non-UK citizens not only paid for all non-UK people receiving benefits but also a part of UK citizens receiving benefits. E.g., they make social security cheaper for everyone in the UK.
UK citizens working in the EU have the same rights to benefits as well that the UK wouldn't have to pay if they were unemployed in the UK (1.3 million UK citizens live in the EU) but I imagine that they similarly have a lower unemployment rate and less need for benefits as the local populace and as group are a net contributor.
That's why net migration from EU is still 100,000 p.a. despite Brexit.
Really???
Here's your latest official statistic (Nov 2018) on this issue:
• There were 2.25 million EU nationals working in the UK, 132,000 fewer than for a year earlier (the largest annual fall since comparable records began in 1997).
I imagine that they similarly have a lower unemployment rate and less need for benefits as the local populace and as group are a net contributor.
Of course. EU migrant workers are a different breed from Third World migrants, that's the ugly truth.
Interestingly, the British statistical office did give earlier employment figures (for 16-64 year olds) about EU nationals, UK nationals on other nationals living in the UK.
The stats were (last May):
81.9% EU nationals employed
75,6% UK nationals employed
63% non-EU nationals employed.
Now the British statisticians divide the group just to UK and non-UK residence, which then shows that non-UK residence have a slightly lower employment level. More politically correct, than the statistic that other EU nationals are better employed in the UK than the aboriginals.
Reply to ssu He's a pathological misinformer and cherry picker. Like his numbers for the trade deficit, which was for goods only because, of course, the UK has no services industry!
Meanwhile, Germany is in technical recession, Italy is in recession, and France is in flames.
More lies. Germany is expected to do best of the three you mentioned with 1.7%. France is expected to outperform Italy (1.6%), the UK will now no longer outperform Italy (1.2%) (still assuming soft Brexit), Italy is still growing (1.3%). So technically you don't know what you're talking about.
The interesting thing is that when you get over 100 000 leaving the country in one year, even if that isn't a huge number to the whole population, that does automatically have an effect on the GDP growth, especially when one earlier had an influx of EU migrant workers.
Of course, immigrant workers are a sign of a strong economy. Them leaving is similarly a sign of bad times.
More lies. Germany is expected to do best of the three you mentioned with 1.7%. France is expected to outperform Italy (1.6%), the UK will now no longer outperform Italy (1.2%) (still assuming soft Brexit), Italy is still growing (1.3%). So technically you don't know what you're talking about.
The topic is Brexit not anti-Macron protests in Paris or a downturn in the Eurozone economy (economic growth occurs in cycles, you know that right?). So, what is the relevance of this?
The topic is Brexit not anti-Macron protests in Paris or a downturn in the Eurozone economy (economic growth occurs in cycles, you know that right?). So, what is the relevance of this?
Well, the EU turning into a fascist police-state, with an army, expansionist aims, and antagonism of Russia, is relevant. The fact that it has encouraged mas migration, yet maintains mass youth unemployment in the South does matter. The fact that not one person in the whole of Europe ever voted for these policies matters.
"Phil Hogan (born 4 July 1960) is an Irish politician who currently serves as European Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development since November 2014. "
"Phil Hogan (born 4 July 1960) is an Irish politician who currently serves as European Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development since November 2014. "
Anyway @Inis if you're finished doing your very incompetent Russian troll anti-EU thing, please run along, you have convinced no-one of anything except your own foolishness. And it's getting boring.
Anyway Inis if you're finished doing your very incompetent Russian troll anti-EU thing, please run along, you have convinced no-one of anything except your own foolishness. And it's getting boring.
According to the Lisbon Treaty, you have no representation on the EU Commission. This is a verifiable fact.
So you asked me who Ireland's representative on the EU commission was knowing I'd answer Phil Hogan because he is the Irish commissioner, so that you could then contradict me on the basis that Phil Hogan represents the interests of all the EU not just Ireland. Fascinating. Now beyond trolling, do you have an actual point to make?
Reply to Baden The EU does a bad job of explaining how it functions so your mistake is understandable. Meanwhile, what most people will be amazed to know is that the EU is fundamentally more democratic than the UK.
Here's a nice overview even if I don't agree with every point : https://eu-rope.ideasoneurope.eu/2018/10/21/which-is-more-democratic-uk-or-eu/
Reply to Inis Again a lot of misrepresentation. Germany is not in a technical recession but close to it, which contradicts tour earlier statement. Italy had a technical recession where you claimed an actual recession. Etc. Etc.
The EU does a bad job of explaining how it functions so your mistake is understandable. Meanwhile, what most people will be amazed to know is that the EU is fundamentally more democratic than the UK.
The basic difficult here is to understand that the EU, however it wants to be a federation, is still what you would call a confederation. In fact if someone argues that the EU has a lack of democracy because the EU Parliament doesn't have much say, I beg to differ. Strengthening the EU Parliament would just lead to taking power away from the parliaments of the member countries. I myself am far more happy with EU being an assortment of independent states rather than something else.
The basic difficult here is to understand that the EU, however it wants to be a federation, is still what you would call a confederation. In fact if someone argues that the EU has a lack of democracy because the EU Parliament doesn't have much say, I beg to differ. Strengthening the EU Parliament would just lead to taking power away from the parliaments of the member countries. I myself am far more happy with EU being an assortment of independent states rather than something else.
There's definitely a benefit to this sort of decentralisation. For one, if you want to lobby for something, you need to lobby in different countries, making the EU less suspectible to inappropriate lobbying efforts as we see in the USA (obviously, it still happens). I also prefer there not to be a single EU army for similar reasons that I don't think a powerful, centrally governed military-industrial complex is useful.
unenlightenedFebruary 01, 2019 at 13:11#2521290 likes
ChangelingFebruary 01, 2019 at 16:21#2522050 likes
Reply to unenlightened A good title to bait hard brexiteers, but I think friends of mine who are of that persuasion will still probably fail to realise they are “rats in the oligarchs’ maze"
Also, when it mentions oligarchs, who is it specifically referring to?
unenlightenedFebruary 01, 2019 at 16:40#2522100 likes
I think friends of mine who are of that persuasion will still probably fail to realise they are “rats in the oligarchs’ maze"
I fear one of the lessons of the 2 world wars is that populism has a momentum that can only be dissipated by a monumental level of horror, and not always then. Folks are as we speak crawling around the ruins clutching their dying babies in one hand and their weapons in the other and reciting 'God is great'.
There's definitely a benefit to this sort of decentralisation. For one, if you want to lobby for something, you need to lobby in different countries, making the EU less suspectible to inappropriate lobbying efforts as we see in the USA (obviously, it still happens).
There's strength in that different countries can handle things differently and everybody isn't pushed into the same mold. Historically large centralized states have not created an innovative environment, but have just given rise to bureaucracy and in the end stagnation.
I also prefer there not to be a single EU army for similar reasons that I don't think a powerful, centrally governed military-industrial complex is useful.
This is one of the most stupid ideas out there, which a) won't work, b) won't get the benefits visioned about it and c) there is already a NATO that does work... President Trumpov won't have the US resign from it (so NATO is here to stay).
We've seen on and on how ludicrous it comes when a Typhoon fighter is shipped around Europe to be made and how difficult it is for different countries to agree on what specifications their weapons have to have. In reality it doesn't improve much the European military industrial complex.
And the most simple nail to the coffin of a "single EU army" is that it will be nothing else but a hodgepodge assortment of units from various countries. That's the only thing some politicians want as NATO naturally goes the way the US wants.
There is absolutely no intention to truly create an interstate armed forces that would replace the national armed forces. Nobody truly has an idea that lets get rid of the national departments of defence have just one interstate department of defence and one single armed forces. It's as whacky as an idea that all police forces of EU member states would be merged into one organization lead from Brussels. Who would command it? How would it be financed?
karl stoneFebruary 03, 2019 at 10:15#2526230 likes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu7EYbMFOY8
The very first words out of Nigel Farage's mouth are a lie. David Cameron had wanted a referendum since he wrote the 2005 Tory manifesto for Micheal Howard. He again pushed for a referendum in the 2010 Tory manifesto, and finally made it a manifesto commitment in 2015 - that could not be blocked by Parliament or amended by the Lords.
UKIP were nowhere in 2005. They didn't make significant electoral gains until the 2013 EU elections, and 2014 Local government elections. That was after Cameron's 2010, absurd tens of thousands immigration pledge, and after Cameron had promised a referendum in January 2013. At the height of their powers, UKIP had one MP. They were never a threat to Cameron.
Cameron raised expectations on immigration with his tens of thousands pledge - adding, "or vote me out" - while Theresa May as Home Secretary spectacularly failed to deliver. Nonetheless, May remained in post as Home Secretary for six years - longest tenure in living memory; while Cameron provided for the referendum he had wanted for a long time. (See the youtube video on Cameron, Lisbon Treaty, 2009, below.) May allowed 660,000 migrants into Britain in 2015, and published those figures during the referendum campaign, and Cameron put himself on the wrong side of that manufactured failure as champion of Remain.
Next step in the Brexit-saga: the Malthouse compromise.
The main thing for Ireland is that they'll have a border but it won't feel like one because they'll have a technical implementation to do the border control that people can move up and down between Northern-Ireland and Ireland without any delay.
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't that mean there is a border? So what happens if the technical implementation fails or doesn't deliver? Who's going to pay for it? What if it's too expensive? etc. etc.
This is just a rehash of rejected ideas that Ireland and the EU consider unworkable. There was already a real compromise, which was the backstop, and that hasn't been reopened for negotiation. This 'compromise' is an attempt at keeping the warring factions of the Tory party together. The EU is likely to view it as irrelevant internal politics.
If these Brexiteers think it's like "not having a border" it should be fine to implement it between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK when the backstop comes into effect.
unenlightenedFebruary 04, 2019 at 14:31#2528780 likes
Maybe I'm a bit dim, but it seems to me that not having a border is like not having a fence round a field, it allows folks and stuff to pass in and out freely. And Brexiteers don't want that. So they want a border. So they want to end the Good Friday agreement.
The Irish border problem can, and in the end probably will, be solved by the UK staying in the EU Customs Union. I've yet to hear a good reason for not doing so. All that twaddle about being able to do our own trade deals is a red herring. Like most of the 'freedoms' we will gain by Brexit it's illusory.
karl stoneFebruary 05, 2019 at 18:54#2531600 likes
Just read today, the plan in a no deal scenario is to wave traffic through customs unchecked.
Ireland's not going to get into a kerfuffle with the EU. And it won't have to, seeing as a no-deal would pretty much ensure the Tories lose the next election. Self-preservation will rule and the UK will cave.
karl stoneFebruary 05, 2019 at 20:07#2531680 likes
I don't know what you're saying here - or how this is a response to my post. The UK is planning to wave lorries, and presumably illegal immigrants through customs at the Dover/Calais crossing - as a consequence of a referendum sold on the idea of taking back control of our borders, and reducing immigration. The whole thing is a lie.
The Irish border is another issue entirely - one there's nothing much to say on, because currently Theresa May is going back to Brussels, again... supposedly to negotiate on an issue, that from the EU's point of view, is very firmly decided. It's utterly bizarre. Brexit does not work for anyone but disaster capitalists. It needs to stop.
Brexit does not work for anyone but disaster capitalists. It needs to stop.
I agree. Unfortunately, about 45% of the UK public don't. (I'm allowing 5-10% more for law-of-the-jungle capitalists). The problem is to refute the simplistic 'take back control' justifications for Brexit. Those of us with sense know they're illusory, but many others are swayed by historical notions of Brittania ruling the waves, and anything that appeals to that jingoism gets their vote. The Leave campaign long ago figured this out and exploited it for all it's worth. Pity Remainers didn't, and Cameron fought an inept referendum campaign instead, refusing to engage with the histrionic rubbish talked about immigration and snatching defeat from the jaws of victory...
Our best hope is that as MPs are more sensible than the voters, they will ignore pressure to parrot their constituents' simplistic ideas and vote out May's plan. Then the Commons can vote for a more moderate Brexit, at least forcing a delay - or a general election.
If Ireland refuses, too bad for them, they are out.
This fantasy scenario is based on what? Ireland has been in lockstep with the EU from day one and will continue to be. Over 90% of the Irish want to remain in the EU and the relationship is rock solid. So this idea that it would ever get to the point where Ireland would break from the EU and basically join the UK by having a soft border with them instead of the EU shows a serious lack of understanding of the relationship between Ireland and the UK, and Ireland and the EU (the latter two of which will quietly go behind doors and hammer out an agreement in the worst case no-deal scenario).
But yes, the UK are already signalling there is nowhere for them to go on this and they'll back down.
Wow. You don't understand that border traffic is in both directions?
More like which direction you're coming from. I'm still not sure. Saying something like "Brussels will not negotiate further. UK will be brought to heal or be cast out." plays right into the idea of the EU as a dictatorial foreign government that underlies brexiteer opinion. You're not, by any chance a Leave voter who's changed their mind, are you?
Brussels will not negotiate further. UK will be brought to heal or be cast out. Ireland better comply or it's curtains. See links I provided to mood of EU Parliament above.
I agree that Brussels is unlikely to make further changes to the backstop. But for me, the implication is that brexit doesn't work - it's a failed policy proposal that should never have been offered to the British public in a referendum in the first place. Kicking Ireland out of the EU, likely or otherwise - presupposes brexit goes ahead. I don't think it can, or should, or will.
There is only one way the UK can avoid paying the £39 billion penalty, revoke Article 50.
Ultimately, Theresa May has the ability to revoke Article 50 at any time - and that makes her alone responsible. There's all the reason in the world to revoke A50 - from the corrupt referendum, to the situation in Ireland, to the lack of preparedness on so many fronts, to the catastrophic economic consequences of a no-deal brexit. May has a choice, and if she walks this country off a cliff - it will be on purpose.
May has a choice, and if she walks this country off a cliff - it will be on purpose.
— karl stone
Immaterial if you can blame someone else.
The old adage, "we are only ever three meals from revolution" is always worth keeping in mind. May can revoke Article 50, and she should. If she doesn't, and people are losing their jobs and businesses, their homes are being repossessed, and so on - blaming it on the EU and the will of the people isn't going to hold up to scrutiny - particularly when "the will of the people" was so obviously manufactured in 2016, and has changed dramatically since.
Cameron and May were brexiteers - who sabotaged Remain with impossible pledges, and a vast deliberate failure on immigration, while providing for a referendum that was all about immigration. They played a central and duplicitous part in manufacturing consent for an unplanned, uncosted, unplan - that two years later, still doesn't work. She alone has the power to stop brexit by revoking Article 50. If she doesn't - it's entirely on her shoulders.
Reply to karl stone yes, you keep repeating how it was manufactured. An opinion most Brits don't share with you so really an irrelevancy where it comes to the overall perception of May and the EU. I'm not saying she will succeed in pushing the perception to one where other people than May will be blamed but it seems the strategy of the British political parties at this time to be concerned with who to blame more then to cooperate and reach a sensible agreement.
I think there's 0 chance the UK will revoke the article 50 notice as there's no majority support for it in Parliament. There's no democratic legitimacy for the government to revoke it without that support and as such would be political suicide for the already estranged, English political elite if they did do it. The result of the referendum cannot be ignored like that.
I think there's 0 chance the UK will revoke the article 50 notice as there's no majority support for it in Parliament. There's no democratic legitimacy for the government to revoke it without that support and as such would be political suicide for the already estranged, English political elite if they did do it. The result of the referendum cannot be ignored like that.
Since the parties are shying away from even a second referendum for fear of being branded enemies of the people in the next election, I'd say that analysis is right on.
Really shows the folly of holding a referendum with no provision on how the decision is going to be implemented or how binding it is for how long.
Can the British vote to rejoin the EU immediately after Brexit? On the face of it, this would not be contrary to the earlier vote, but that won't stop people from claiming it's antidemocratic.
karl stoneFebruary 06, 2019 at 12:11#2533240 likes
Sadly, she does not, and after the Supreme Court's ruling on the Miller case, parliamentary approval may be required to ask for an extension. Revocation of Article 50 would require repeal of the Withdrawal Act. To think that the Miller case seemed like a good idea at the time.
What May needs to do is have that vote, and plead for an extension to A50. In the meantime put in place legislation to repeal the Withdrawal Act, then she can revoke A50. Then she better call a general election.
She could always use Royal Prerogative!
karl stoneFebruary 06, 2019 at 12:30#2533310 likes
yes, you keep repeating how it was manufactured. An opinion most Brits don't share with you so really an irrelevancy where it comes to the overall perception of May and the EU.
I can't speak for most people. I can only speak to the facts. It's amazing you can tell what most people think. There's a lot of people claiming to speak for a lot of people, and the the only people not getting a say are the people themselves. They were lied to, incited, cajoled, seduced, deceived, manipulated and harried into voting Leave in 2016 - and only did so by the narrowest of margins. There's no genuine democratic consent for brexit.
I'm not saying she will succeed in pushing the perception to one where other people than May will be blamed but it seems the strategy of the British political parties at this time to be concerned with who to blame more then to cooperate and reach a sensible agreement.
It seems to me they're trying to walk off the no deal cliff, while pretending it's someone else's fault. The will of the people, the EU, Remoaners - they'll blame anyone but themselves for what they are doing - because they know damn well the consequences will be catastrophic for a great many people.
think there's 0 chance the UK will revoke the article 50 notice as there's no majority support for it in Parliament. There's no democratic legitimacy for the government to revoke it without that support and as such would be political suicide for the already estranged, English political elite if they did do it. The result of the referendum cannot be ignored like that.
I don't agree, but we'll see. There's no good way forward from here. Someone is going to end up very much put out, and bear mind that 3/4 of people didn't vote Leave. This bitterness will drag on and on - if Article 50 isn't revoked, the economy crashes and people lose jobs, homes, businesses - because 26% of the population got conned by corrupt billionaire tax dodgers.
karl stoneFebruary 06, 2019 at 13:31#2533470 likes
She could always use Royal Prerogative!
— karl stone
She can't. It was established in the Miller case that prerogative powers do not extend to changing domestic law or affecting domestic rights.
Yes, I think you might be right. Although strictly speaking:
"Revocation of Article 50 would require repeal of the Withdrawal Act."
...it's the Notification of Withdrawal Act (2017). The Withdrawal Act is something else, and follows from the Withdrawal Agreement in a given set of circumstances.
According to Sap it's just a negotiating tactic and they'll relent eventually.
It is a negotiating tactic, but whether or not they'll relent is much less certain. Now more than ever, in this world of Brexit and Trump, it isn't safe to assume that politics will be in tune with what's sensible. But I'm more confident that there will be relenting from someone somewhere in order to avoid a no deal Brexit.
Again, we have to just wait and see.
karl stoneFebruary 06, 2019 at 14:06#2533570 likes
...it's the Notification of Withdrawal Act (2017). The Withdrawal Act is something else, and follows from the Withdrawal Agreement in a given set of circumstances.
— karl stone
Nope, it's the Withdrawal Act. The Notification Act is spent.
Nope. It's the Notification of Withdrawal Act (2017) that prevents May from unilaterally revoking Article 50. It's the Notification of Withdrawal Act (2017) that followed from the Gina Miller case.
The European Union Withdrawal Act (2018) is something else entirely, and only comes into force after successful ratification of the Withdrawal Agreement. (i.e. the deal....that isn't in fact a deal.)
karl stoneFebruary 06, 2019 at 14:37#2533680 likes
Reply to Evola I don't care. I'm not willing to go into the granular detail of the matter. I'd have to examine the EU court's decision, that says in general terms - the UK can revoke Article 50, and compare that to the powers given under the Notification of Withdrawal Act 2017, and that's a lot of work - only to get noped!
I don't care. I'm not willing to go into the granular detail of the matter. I'd have to examine the EU court's decision, that says in general terms - the UK can revoke Article 50, and compare that to the powers given under the Notification of Withdrawal Act 2017, and that's a lot of work - only to get noped!
Yes, don't let facts get in your way of feeling righteous about how stupid all the politicians and Brexiters are.
unenlightenedFebruary 06, 2019 at 18:01#2533910 likes
This is like the summer before WW1. Anybody with any sense can see where we're heading, but no one with any sense can see a way out. Cries of 'they can't let this happen' proved false then, and are false now.
Yes, don't let facts get in your way of feeling righteous about how stupid all the politicians and Brexiters are.
The point at issue is a minor one, hidden in the comparison of two lengthy legal documents - and it's just not worth the effort. I haven't called anyone stupid. But don't let that fact get in the way of your inferiority complex.
The point at issue is a minor one, hidden in the comparison of two lengthy legal documents - and it's just not worth the effort. I haven't called anyone stupid. But don't let that fact get in the way of your inferiority complex.
Or perhaps you can not be so opiniated about matters you don't know the details of.
karl stoneFebruary 06, 2019 at 19:08#2534030 likes
Or perhaps you can not be so opiniated about matters you don't know the details of.
I don't think that's likely. I'll gladly run the risk of being wrong on such a minor point of fact. It's almost inescapable. Can you tell me off the top of your head how the EU court's decision, that Article 50 can be revoked, plays out with regard to the specific powers afforded Theresa May in the Notification of Withdrawal Bill - not to be confused with the Withdrawal Bill, or the Withdrawal Agreement? Would you spend two days researching it, just to make some minor point on an obscure forum? No? Well, neither would I.
Perhaps the no-deal-Brexit is something equivalent to the Y2K scare?
Perhaps. Do you live in the UK? My experience is that there are a lot of people living on the edge already. I dare say we can survive the death of a few hundred thousand, and that's nothing to the millions of WW1. But the similarity is in the predictable yet somehow unavoidable nature of the thing, the mindset rather than the extent.
Even if I don't live in the UK, I do presume that the British media, as just like any media for that matter, will portray the whole event bigger than life to get people simply to follow the media. And unfortunately some older people will likely believe that food will become scarce, riots will take place and the whole thing will be something equivalent to the wartime Blitz.
I don't think that's likely. I'll gladly run the risk of being wrong on such a minor point of fact. It's almost inescapable. Can you tell me off the top of your head how the EU court's decision, that Article 50 can be revoked, plays out with regard to the specific powers afforded Theresa May in the Notification of Withdrawal Bill - not to be confused with the Withdrawal Bill, or the Withdrawal Agreement? Would you spend two days researching it, just to make some minor point on an obscure forum? No? Well, neither would I.
Or you can try not taking a position on a minor point you're running a risk of being wrong on and instead try to find out the answer by asking a question. Just taking a position whichever one strikes your fancy in the moment just makes you sound like a loudmouth that thinks his opinion is relevant on every (minor) topic. Just a tip, eh!
Perhaps the no-deal-Brexit is something equivalent to the Y2K scare? Not something to get hysterical about.
These myopic references to the "Y2K scare" are a pet peeve of mine. If people didn't get hysterical about it and didn't spend hundreds of billions of dollars and untold hours working overtime on fixing the problem, the story would have had a different ending. But since the threat was successfully averted, a lot of people somehow came to the conclusion that it was nothing to worry about. And now it's a cautionary story about how when experts tell you about an imminent threat, you can just tell them to go where the sun don't shine.
karl stoneFebruary 06, 2019 at 22:57#2534810 likes
Or you can try not taking a position on a minor point you're running a risk of being wrong on and instead try to find out the answer by asking a question. Just taking a position whichever one strikes your fancy in the moment just makes you sound like a loudmouth that thinks his opinion is relevant on every (minor) topic. Just a tip, eh!
Thanks ever so much for the tip - only to bring you up to speed, I'm not wrong. I'm in dispute with someone who thinks I'm wrong, but I'm not. ...probably. It would take vast amounts of research to settle the matter. I'm not doing that. You all caught up? Good.
You don't know and it would behove you to act accordingly. If you don't know for certain and argue the way you did then you're not doing philosophy but you're just bluffing.
You don't know and it would behove you to act accordingly. If you don't know for certain and argue the way you did then you're not doing philosophy but you're just bluffing.
It's behoove. And as you raise the idea, does it behoove you to wade into the middle of someone else's disagreement? What's it got to do with you? Are you saying you know how the EU court's decision that Article 50 can be revoked, interacts with the powers provided by the Notification of Withdrawal Bill? If you don't know, for certain, then by your own standards - does it not behoove you to mind your own business?
As a forum participant it behoves you to act in good fate which you're not when you're bluffing. I call it out. And you can pretend it was just a discussion between you and another person but it wasn't as you posted it in a forum which is a free for all for anybody to react to anything.
Edit: anyway, I've made my point. You can expect another reaction to your next unsubstantiated claim posited as fact.
karl stoneFebruary 07, 2019 at 06:55#2535580 likes
As a forum participant it behoves you to act in good fate which you're not when you're bluffing. I call it out. And you can pretend it was just a discussion between you and another person but it wasn't as you posted it in a forum which is a free for all for anybody to react to anything.
It's good faith. And as you raise the idea, do you think wading into someone else's disagreement without a clue what it's about, like a troll - trying to get a rise, is acting in good faith? If it's not acting in good faith, and if you don't know, for certain - what the answer to the disagreement is, by both your own standards, should you not shut up now?
karl stoneFebruary 07, 2019 at 07:11#2535600 likes
Backing Brexit will cost Labour more votes than Iraq war, leaked poll warns
Written by: Matt Foster Posted On: 7th February 2019
Backing Brexit would be more damaging to Labour's electoral fortunes than the Iraq war, a stark poll handed to Jeremy Corbyn's top team has warned.
ITV News and the Guardian report that the confidential document was sent to pro-Corbyn pressure group Momentum by the TSSA union, and has been circulating among Shadow Cabinet ministers.
It warns Labour that backing Brexit will cost the party 45 seats at a snap election, compared with 11 for opposing Britain's departure. "There can be no disguising the sense of disappointment and disillusionment with Labour if it fails to oppose Brexit and there is every indication that it will be far more damaging to the party’s electoral fortunes than the Iraq war," it says.
“Labour would especially lose the support of people below the age of 35, which could make this issue comparable to the impact the tuition fees and involvement in the coalition had on Lib Dem support.”
The party would also risk losing five of its seven MPs in Remain-supporting Scotland if it supports Brexit, the study says.
Amid calls for Mr Corbyn to back a second referendum, the poll claims that three-quarters of Labour voters would vote to 'Remain' if one were called.
It also suggests any new centrist party vowing to oppose Brexit could hoover up Labour voters, with 17% of Jeremy Corbyn's 2017 supporters saying they would be "very likely" to back a new party that came out against Britain's EU exit.
It is. See? Not so hard to admit you're wrong is it?
And as you raise the idea, do you think wading into someone else's disagreement without a clue what it's about, like a troll - trying to get a rise, is acting in good faith? If it's not acting in good faith, and if you don't know, for certain - what the answer to the disagreement is, by both your own standards, should you not shut up now?
Yes, it's precisely because this is a forum it is in good faith to take issue with someone pretending to know the answer when in fact they don't. That doesn't require me to know the answer to the discussion but here it is any way: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2017-2019/0306/cbill_2017-20190306_en_2.htm#l1g3
You're welcome.
karl stoneFebruary 07, 2019 at 09:22#2535690 likes
It is. See? Not so hard to admit you're wrong is it?
You tell me. What are you admitting you're wrong about? Is it just just the 'good fate' thing? Because to my mind, that's the least of the things you're wrong about. I think you should apologize for your behavior, and stop trolling people - don't you?
Yes, it's precisely because this is a forum it is in good faith to take issue with someone pretending to know the answer when in fact they don't. That doesn't require me to know the answer to the discussion but here it is any way: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2017-2019/0306/cbill_2017-20190306_en_2.htm#l1g3
You're welcome.
To begin with, your link doesn't answer the question. The question concerns the EU court's decision that Article 50 can be revoked, by whom - given the powers conferred by the Notification of Withdrawal Act. Your link has many of the same words in it - but is a Bill, concerned with a possible referendum, that provides, in the event of a Remain vote, for automatic repeal of all the Withdrawal Acts.
You've shed absolutely zero light on the subject, behaved like a complete idiot, gone out of your way to offend me repeatedly, and you presume thanks are due! You're not welcome. Not in the least. Stop trolling.
If the duty of the Prime Minister under either section 1(1) or section 2(3) is
25e ngaged the following Acts are repealed-
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017;
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018;
Haulage Permit and Trailer Registration Act 2018;
Taxation (Cross-Border Trade) Act 2018;
30Nuclear Safeguards Act 2018;
Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018.
You've shed absolutely zero light on the subject, behaved like a complete idiot, gone out of your way to offend me repeatedly, and you presume thanks are due! You're not welcome. Not in the least. Stop trolling.
It sets out which acts need to be repealed, clarifying you were both wrong. Parliament gets to vote. It's not that difficult.
By the way, well done on playing victim.
karl stoneFebruary 07, 2019 at 10:27#2535760 likes
It sets out which acts need to be repealed, clarifying you were both wrong. Parliament gets to vote. It's not that difficult. By the way, well done on playing victim.
Your link is a Bill - not an Act. It's not law. It's a proposal - the validity of which has not been examined by Parliament. A bill can say anything. Bills are often amended because they're not structured legally. Further, it proposes a course of action in the event of a referendum. That's not the question.
In the simplest possible terms the question is: Could Theresa May revoke Article 50 if she wanted to?
I say she could. Although not explicitly provided for, because the EU Court's decision only came after A50 had been invoked, I believe it follows from the grant of powers to invoke Article 50 - that there's an implied power to revoke Article 50 - given the EU Court's decision.
It's a theoretical question. I think I'm right, and it's quite likely I am.
I say she could. Although not explicitly provided for, because the EU Court's decision only came after A50 had been invoked, I believe it follows from the grant of powers to invoke Article 50 - that there's an implied power to revoke Article 50 - given the EU Court's decision.
It's a theoretical question. I think I'm right, and it's quite likely I am right.
Oh great, now you're being purposefully obtuse. The Bill sets out which Acts need to be repealed to give effect to revoking the Article 50 Notice. Hence, both you and Evola were wrong to mention only one Act when there are several that need to be repealed, among them both the Acts you both mentioned.
Parliamentary vote is necessary. It's called parliamentary sovereignty.
[quote=SCUK]... ministers cannot frustrate the purpose of a statute or a statutory provision, for example by emptying it of content or preventing its effectual operation. ... rather than the Secretary of State being able to rely on the absence in the 1972 Act of any exclusion of the prerogative power to withdraw from the EU Treaties, the proper analysis is that, unless that Act positively created such a power in relation to those Treaties, it does not exist. [/quote]
Unless all those Acts mentioned in the Bill positively created the power for the government to repeal them, there is no royal prerogative to do so. Since those Acts do not positively create such power, May cannot revoke the article 50 notice.
karl stoneFebruary 07, 2019 at 10:57#2535810 likes
karl stoneFebruary 07, 2019 at 18:58#2537000 likes
In a speech in Brussels yesterday, EU Council President Donald Tusk described brexit as:
"Following (from) the decision and the will of the UK authorities."
It's the third such intervention I'm aware of, in which he's speaking over the shoulders of our government to the British people. Another was saying recently, both in a speech and on twitter:
"There's a special place in hell for no deal brexiteers."
And the other, was relayed on BBC Two's "Inside Europe: Ten Years of Turmoil" - when Tusk said:
"I told David Cameron, there's no appetite for revolution in Europe. He told me he felt really safe, because he thought at the same time that there's no risk of a referendum, because his coalition partner, the Liberals, would block this idea."
What Mr Tusk is making clear with these comments, is that the UK government, particularly Cameron and May, were complicit in the corrupt 2016 referendum. I have been saying this for some time now - and it's really very clear when one examines the facts.
Cameron took the UK out a centrist alliance in the EU, and joined right wing anti federalists, cancelled an EU ID card scheme in 2010 - while promising tens of thousands - or vote me out, then dictated a referendum by making it a manifesto commitment, that could not be blocked.
Cameron was a brexiteer, who sabotaged his credibility with false promises and a huge, deliberate failure on immigration, and with a renegotiation that educated the public, but was predestined to fail - before appointing himself chief spokesman for Remain, and losing on purpose.?
Cameron was a brexiteer, who sabotaged his credibility with false promises and a huge, deliberate failure on immigration, and with a renegotiation that educated the public, but was predestined to fail - before appointing himself chief spokesman for Remain, and losing on purpose.
I would have thought those on this site were above absurd conspiracy theories.
karl stoneFebruary 07, 2019 at 20:04#2537170 likes
I would have thought those on this site were above absurd conspiracy theories.
I'd have thought those in government were above absurd conspiracies - but we are where we are!
karl stoneFebruary 08, 2019 at 08:45#2538460 likes
Dear Karl Stone,
The Government has responded to the petition you signed – “Grant a People's Vote if Parliament rejects the EU Withdrawal Agreement”.
Government responded:
The Government is clear we will not have a second referendum. We continue to approach cross-party meetings in a constructive spirit, with a commitment to deliver the referendum result.
The Government is clear that we will not have a second referendum, it’s mandate is to implement the result of the previous referendum. Following the outcome of the Meaningful Vote, the Government will approach cross-party meetings in a constructive spirit and with a commitment to deliver on the instruction given to us by the British people in 2016. We are focused on delivering an outcome which betters the lives of British people - whether they voted to Leave or to Remain.
Almost three quarters of the electorate participated, with 17.4 million voting to leave the European Union. This is the highest number of votes cast for anything in UK electoral history, and the biggest democratic mandate for a course of action ever directed at any UK Government.
Parliament then overwhelmingly confirmed the result of the referendum by voting with clear and convincing majorities in both of its Houses for the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act.
In last year’s General Election, over 80% of people voted for parties committing to respect the result of the referendum. It was the stated policy of both major parties that the decision of the people would be respected. The Government is clear that it is its duty to implement the will of the British people, and the democratic process which delivered the referendum result.
The British people must be able to trust in its Government both to effect their will, and to deliver the best outcome for them. As the Prime Minister has said: “This is about more than the decision to leave the EU; it is about whether the public can trust their politicians to put in place the decision they took.” In upholding that directive to withdraw from the European Union, the Government is delivering on that promise.
The deal we have negotiated takes back control of our borders, laws and money. It protects jobs, security and the integrity of the United Kingdom. It protects the rights of more than three million EU citizens living in the UK and around one million UK nationals living in the EU and provides a fair financial settlement for UK taxpayers estimated to be between £35-39bn, resolving our obligations.
We will not hold a second referendum, and second-guess the clear instruction given to us by the British people, but instead we will continue to focus on holding meetings with colleagues across the House, looking to identify what is required to secure the support of Parliament and ensure that we leave in an orderly way on the 29 March 2019.
Department for Exiting the European Union
This petition has over 100,000 signatures. The Petitions Committee will consider it for a debate. They can also gather further evidence and press the government for action.
The Committee is made up of 11 MPs, from political parties in government and in opposition. It is entirely independent of the Government. Find out more about the Committee: https://petition.parliament.uk/help#petitions-committee
Thanks,
The Petitions team
UK Government and Parliament
unenlightenedFebruary 08, 2019 at 13:05#2538970 likes
karl stoneFebruary 08, 2019 at 18:34#2540050 likes
John Proctor; MEP - in the ECR, the far right European political party founded after the 2009 European elections at the behest of the then, Conservative Party leader - David Cameron.
The same David Cameron who cancelled an EU ID card scheme in 2010, while pledging to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands - "or vote me out" - who announced there would be a referendum in 2013, and made it a manifesto commitment in 2015 - that couldn't be blocked by Parliament or amended by the Lords.
The same David Cameron who launched highly publicized "renegotiation" weeks before the vote - that was doomed to fail because his demands required treaty change, and who - upon arriving back in Britain, with his failure still fresh in the air, appointed himself chief spokesman for Remain.
The same David Cameron who kept Theresa May in position as Home Secretary for six years, while she screeched about the Human Rights Act, sacked the long term head of the Borders Agency, Brodie Clark, let 660,000 migrants into the UK in 2015, and published those figures during the 2016 referendum.
The same David Cameron who appointed his aide Craig Oliver to oversee the Remain campaign, and recommended Oliver for a knighthood on leaving office, having made a pig's fucking ear of the case for Remain!
This is the highest number of votes cast for anything in UK electoral history, and the biggest democratic mandate for a course of action ever directed at any UK Government.
I guess the UK government does not know how representative democracy functions?
This is the highest number of votes cast for anything in UK electoral history, and the biggest democratic mandate for a course of action ever directed at any UK Government.
Just to be clear, those are the government's words, not mine. I would point out the assumption that people voted for reasons related solely to the proposition on the ballot paper, is patently false. The Leave campaign lied egregiously, and incited discontent on many fronts, and then funneled all that discontent into a vote to leave the EU, in the most crooked ever episode in British political history.
I guess the UK government does not know how representative democracy functions?
I'd have to disagree. To manipulate democratic processes in this way requires an exquisite understanding of how things work. For example, consider Cameron making the referendum a manifesto commitment, that could not be blocked by Parliament or amended by the Lords.
We will not hold a second referendum, and second-guess the clear instruction given to us by the British people,
— Government response to the petition – “Grant a People's Vote if Parliament rejects the EU Withdrawal Agreement”. (see above)
It begs the question, if the instruction was so clear, why doesn't anyone seem to know how this is supposed to work.
Have no illusions, they know brexit doesn't work. A catastrophic no deal brexit was the plan all along. Remember, this is the party that opted out of the Social Chapter of the Maastricht Treaty to create a low wage/low regulation jobs market attractive to immigration, that sold off council housing and refused to build more, that sold off all the utilities at knock down prices to their pals in the city, that subsidized low wages and high rents with tax payer's money - starving local councils and public services of funding, and refused to remove jobless migrants as allowed under EU law.
This is the Party that blamed Labour for the 2008 financial crash - that was actually caused by banking deregulation under Thatcher, and imposed 10 years of unnecessary and counter productive austerity. This is the Party that provided for the referendum, that had one foot in each campaign, and is pursuing a no deal brexit for the excuse it will provide to do the same thing all over again, only worse.
unenlightenedFebruary 09, 2019 at 11:51#2541790 likes
Something to look forward to amongst the fear-mongering gloom.
The alpha thing, like iron and spinach turned out not to be true. Unfortunately both became popular and well cited enough to enter popular culture.
Interesting hypothesis, but I think it's flawed, in that - there's a natural individual interest in academia and science in upsetting the applecart of accepted wisdom; and here we enter a hall of conceptual mirrors, because it's something this paper does - while under-estimating the tendency in others. And now, it's something I'm doing to this paper. Vertigo!
I think the crux of the matter is that, few are talented enough to upset the applecart, and the less talented majority are not merely put out when it happens, but unqualified to judge.
I'm watching this Ted talk on the origins of language - and wondering why memetic theory, does not explain the apparent disparity between the views of archaeologists and anthropologists on the one hand, and biologists on the other - (12:20) that there was a sudden event at the dawn of human intellect - biologists reject on the basis of rate of genetic change and no obvious increase in cranial capacity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd5cklw6d6Q
To my mind, a sort of conceptual evolution seems an obvious candidate to explain behavioural change evidenced in human artifacts, that has no obvious biological corollary.
Interesting hypothesis, but I think it's flawed, in that - there's a natural individual interest in academia and science in upsetting the applecart of accepted wisdom; and here we enter a hall of conceptual mirrors, because it's something this paper does - while under-estimating the tendency in others. And now, it's something I'm doing to this paper. Vertigo!
The study that hypothesised alpha wolves based on wolf behaviour only used captive wolves. Wild wolves don't actually have the same social stratification. Even the person that came up with it has since rejected it.
karl stoneFebruary 10, 2019 at 00:04#2544310 likes
The study that hypothesised alpha wolves based on wolf behaviour only used captive wolves. Wild wolves don't actually have the same social stratification. Even the person that came up with it has since rejected it.
There's a social scientist called Levi Strauss. He's a structuralist - and while he talks about ape and human societies, he similarly describes vertical and horizontal kinship structures - as opposed to mere dominance hierarchies. Jordan Peterson fans - take note!
There's a social scientist called Levi Strauss. He's a structuralist - and while he talks about ape and human societies, he similarly describes vertical and horizontal kinship structures - as opposed to mere dominance hierarchies. Jordan Peterson fans - take note!
I didn't say what I said to undermine all notions of hierarchical organisation, I said it to undermine ones involving, even analogically, an outdated idea about wolves.
karl stoneFebruary 10, 2019 at 00:08#2544330 likes
There's a social scientist called Levi Strauss. He's a structuralist - and while he talks about ape and human societies, he similarly describes vertical and horizontal kinship structures - as opposed to mere dominance hierarchies. Jordan Peterson fans - take note!
— karl stone
I didn't say what I said to undermine all notions of hierarchical organisation, I said it to undermine ones involving, even analogically, an outdated idea about wolves.
Okay. Wolves - take note!
karl stoneFebruary 10, 2019 at 08:02#2544780 likes
Brexit has given me a new appreciation of what Marx meant by class consciousness. Not working class consciousness - obviously, not even the Labour Party has that! But class consciousness nonetheless!
Noted. Besides, the idea of the alpha was just another criminal conspiracy started by David Cameron. Or was it the lizard people? I forget.
karl stoneFebruary 11, 2019 at 11:14#2547280 likes
The evidence showing Cameron was a brexiteer is overwhelming; and I can only assume there's a Public Interest Immunity Certificate in place to gag the media on this subject, because PIIC's not only cover the subject in question, but the very existence of the PIIC itself.
karl stoneFebruary 11, 2019 at 11:20#2547290 likes
Just seen this tweet:
Petition: 'Scroungers' Cameron should not be receiving a final salary pension after costing this country untold billions with a corrupt referendum for a failed policy. He must not be allowed to draw upon the public purse for the rest of his life.
Reply to karl stone Hmm. I'm still not quite convinced. Can you please copy, paste, and resubmit some more of your lengthy, rambling conspiracy theories a few hundred more times, Inis 2.0?
karl stoneFebruary 11, 2019 at 23:10#2549010 likes
Wait, I know! Why don't we just programme a spambot to do this for us?
I do admire your ability to address a really serious issue like brexit; something I maintain will permanently disable our ability to address global scale threats like climate change by promoting a deregulated race to the bottom, that could re-ignite the fires of sectarian violence in Ireland, cause Scotland to declare independence, permanently alienate our nearest and largest trading partners - a policy that was forced on the country by the corruption of democratic process, and manipulation of the electorate's perceptions with a concerted campaign of lies and incitement to xenophobia bordering on racism, and do so without ever getting serious? How do you dance on the edge of the abyss like that? How do you just not care?
Reply to karl stone You're funny. I've done the serious part in relation to Brexit. What you were replying to was about your spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, baked beans, spam, and spam.
karl stoneFebruary 11, 2019 at 23:23#2549070 likes
You're funny. I've done the serious part in relation to Brexit. What you were replying to was about your spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, baked beans, spam, and spam.
Perhaps there are chat forums you could use instead of trolling a philosophy forum with your inappropriately inane line of, what I presume aspires to wit?
Perhaps there are chat forums you could use instead of trolling a philosophy forum with your inappropriately inane line of what I presume aspires to wit?
I see. So it's appropriate for you to spam a philosophy forum, but it's inappropriate of me to criticise your spamming of a philosophy forum, on that same philosophy forum, in a comical manner susceptible to accusations of trolling?
karl stoneFebruary 11, 2019 at 23:37#2549120 likes
Let's find out. I've reported your posts as off topic. This topic doesn't need witless trolling. It's too serious. Please stop it.
Well it's now clear that nobody in the UK has an idea what alternative arrangements should be, which explains the vague terminology to begin with. What I seriously don't get is what motivates some to prefer no deal over the existing deal. What exactly is so bad about it that all the bad stuff of no deal is preferable? Or are there benefits to no deal like disaster capitalism and those who benefit have this much influence?
unenlightenedFebruary 14, 2019 at 09:03#2557550 likes
Reply to Benkei We are standing at a cliff edge threatening to jump off. We are blaming the cruel world. Don't imagine there is much power in reason to influence us; we need the Samaritans, not some turbulent priest telling us we're going to hell.
We are standing at a cliff edge threatening to jump off. We are blaming the cruel world. Don't imagine there is much power in reason to influence us; we need the Samaritans, not some turbulent priest telling us we're going to hell.
You're not going to hell. What bad could happen to you?
unenlightenedFebruary 16, 2019 at 19:06#2566940 likes
I dare say we will survive, but the UK is losing influence, losing money, losing jobs, losing trade. We already have gone back to folks dying of malnutrition, rising inequality, rising homelessness, a loss of human rights and political accountability, increasing crime and quite a deal of despair and desperation. Plenty more bad stuff could happen.
I dare say we will survive, but the UK is losing influence, losing money, losing jobs, losing trade. We already have gone back to folks dying of malnutrition, rising inequality, rising homelessness, a loss of human rights and political accountability, increasing crime and quite a deal of despair and desperation. Plenty more bad stuff could happen.
Are you serious?
You know, I've thought about starting a thread on this British (or should I say English) gloominess and persistent self-flagellation, that only seldom is interrupted by some brief upbeat monent. Yes, one could argue that it's the loss of the Empire, but it has to be something more. Now some might find this quite rude and I surely don't want to be insulting, but there is a difference in attitude especially when comparing Britain to France. Even if France humiliatingly lost to the Third Reich, was occupied and also lost it's colonies too (which there were fewer) the attitude of the French is still different.
For me the perfect example of this, which might sound very odd at first, is the British Space program. In the 1970's the British government came to the conclusion that having a British Space program was far too costly (even if it had a shoe-string budget compared to the Superpowers), the program didn't have a purpose and somehow it would be a far better idea buying the ICBM rockets from the US. So, in the very British manner, the (few) people of the British Space program got the news that the program was terminated while in Australia when they were preparing finally to launch a rocket with a satellite. Not knowing what to do with a completed rocket and satellite, they then unceremoniously launched the rocket (that btw differed a lot from other rockets as it had been made by unique British technology). The rocket performed well and put the satellite into orbit. The satellite performed also well and kept flying around the World for the time planned for a government that didn't need it. And this happened just on the cusp of the era of commercial satellite launches, which has turned out to be quite lucrative to the French with their Arianne rocket-family. I don't know how many Britons nowdays even know that their country did have a space program with British built rockets.
Then there's the aviation industry, which created the jet engine with Frank Whittle, which today only manufactures parts of aircraft. By the way Whittles career reinforces this sad story of British government not using the talented people that worked for it. With more investment earlier the Battle of Britain could have been fought with Meteor jet aircraft. Or the car industry, which apart from few tiny sport car manufacturers is owned by foreigners. Now compare all this to France and the French counterparts in industry (Groupe PSA, Dassault group). Note the difference? Why is this?
I've really thought about what would be the reason of this, and the only answer that I come to is that people serving in the British government and British politicians simply don't believe in their country. Things are problems for the British industry, not opportunities to be seized. Their (the governments) role is to protect British industries from foreign competition, not for British industries to gain success. This dismal narrow mindedness of the politicians and government officials is the basic problem. Even if Thatcher had a bit of Churchill in her (which other British politician would have dared to send the Royal Navy to fight for some far off islands with more sheep than people?), she surely wasn't anything like general Petain.
unenlightenedFebruary 16, 2019 at 21:59#2567450 likes
I've thought about starting a thread on this British (or should I say English) gloominess and persistent self-flagellation, that only seldom is interrupted by some brief upbeat monent.
Could be interesting. I lived in France for a few years.One of the historic differences is the revolution. It may seem extravagant, but the class divisions in England especially play an important role. Most of the government went to the same school, and the same university. That's only slightly an exaggeration.
Could be interesting. I lived in France for a few years.One of the historic differences is the revolution. It may seem extravagant, but the class divisions in England especially play an important role. Most of the government went to the same school, and the same university. That's only slightly an exaggeration.
You even have a different language among the classes. Above all, the British are very class conscious in a totally different way than others.
And I should note here that I referred to the French politicians and officials, not the ordinary French people. The French do a long history of revolting against their officials, while with the English, your civil war was ages ago. And that in my view was more of a struggle between the King and the aristocracy.
unenlightenedFebruary 19, 2019 at 19:37#2577360 likes
Comment of the day. Some government spokesman burbles on in a brexit 'statement'. Reporter comments, "Well if you understood that, you probably weren't listening carefully enough."
Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear.
unenlightenedFebruary 19, 2019 at 21:19#2577470 likes
Reply to Benkei Yeah. Gallows humour. This is what happens when supposed leaders and opinion makers are guided by focus groups and opinion polls - endless chasing fantasies on the road to disaster. People are actually saying things like 'we survived the war...'
SophistiCatFebruary 19, 2019 at 21:32#2577510 likes
I lived in France for a few years.One of the historic differences is the revolution. It may seem extravagant, but the class divisions in England especially play an important role. Most of the government went to the same school, and the same university. That's only slightly an exaggeration.
I am not sure that the differences in class consciousness that you perceived have much to do with the French revolution. Here is Proust writing at the turn of the (last) century:
Marcel Proust, Swann's Way:... middle-class people in those days took what was almost a Hindu view of society, which they held to consist of sharply defined castes, so that everyone at his birth found himself called to that station in life which his parents already occupied, and from which nothing, save the accident of an exceptional career or of a “good” marriage, could extract you and translate you to a superior caste. M. Swann the elder had been a stockbroker; and so “young Swann” found himself immured for life in a caste whose members’ fortunes, as in a category of tax-payers, varied between such and such limits of income. One knew the people with whom his father had associated, and so one knew his own associates, the people with whom he was “in a position” to mix.
Pattern-chaserFebruary 22, 2019 at 11:10#2583570 likes
I've really thought about what would be the reason of this, and the only answer that I come to is that people serving in the British government and British politicians simply don't believe in their country.
In today's world, existence is a communal, global, thing. Our country, in isolation, is less than half the story. Perhaps the politicians know this? :chin:
No deal according to the UK Parliament. A few retards are yelling "transition without a backstop", because, of course, the Good Friday agreements aren't important at all.
A few retards are yelling "transition without a backstop"
It's Ok, no-one is listening. Most likely outcome now is a delay followed by UK capitulating further to customs union arrangement or final say referendum.
Reply to Baden As one of the BBC commentators said, three years after the Brexit vote Parliament is still unable to decide what it should do with the vote.
Brexit, IMHO, was a bad idea to begin with, and it isn't improving with time.
The question should be, will the EU agree to a delay? What if they say 'Hey, Britain, you're the ones who decided to leave, and we've given you all the ground you're going to get. What difference is another 2-3 months going to make? You'll still be in the same position. Either you withdraw Article 50, or the axe falls on 29th March.'
To continue our previous conversation on this Brexit thread, do you feel a second referendum is still unlikely and in any case a bad option? I'm curious if your thinking has changed.
It’s interesting to see that this is a global issue. The UK may not have the biggest economy in the world but what effects it effects everyone ... this is the fear. We could have another global financial crisis.
I am just curious as to whether this looking crisis will benefit global stability in the long run or hamstring the poorer fast growing countries?
Reply to boethius The previous discussion revolved around a referendum before March 29. Any extension of the deadline will require that the UK has a concrete reason for it or the EU would not agree to it. One of those reasons can be a referendum or a new general election. Assuming Parliament will vote against a no deal brexit today, it's one of three remaining options on the table (the third being scrapping the whole process). So a referendum is a lot more likely at this point.
A referendum would be easier I think but at the same time the current sitting members of Parliament have lost a lot of legitimacy by not resolving Brexit so a general election would be better. I haven't read any recent statements on these issues to have a sense what's more likely at the moment.
Any referendum should be remain or the brexit deal. A three way option (deal - no deal - remain) would skew the results in favour of an exit; basically a loaded question.
The next interesting question is going to be whether May will be able to continue directing the process, or whether control will be taken by another faction. A three month extension would be another step towards a binary between May's deal or no deal, making both of these scenarios more likely. Anyone wishing a referendum must make a move.
Reply to Bitter Crank The sad thing with Brexit is that, as with Trump in the US, a massively skewed opinion on this forum is not representative of opinions among the general public. UK citizens are still closely divided over the issue, and polarization is such as hasn't been seen on any issue in recent times - perhaps the closest comparison would be Jacobite conflicts three hundred years ago, except that divisions then were more in line with preexisting regional and religious divisions, whereas now the Brexit controversy is tearing apart colleagues, friends and families.
The previous discussion revolved around a referendum before March 29. Any extension of the deadline will require that the UK has a concrete reason for it or the EU would not agree to it.
Yes, the referendum option most likely hinged on an extension, which I found likely the EU would give for the purposes of a referendum. I thought a referendum was more likely, whereas from what I understood you thought a deal would be more likely. Of course all positions were fairly speculative at the time.
It seems a deal is off the table now, so it's either no-deal or a referendum ... or some cockamamie situation where parliament has no position, there's no general election, they're forced to unilaterally cancel Brexit somehow in the name of continuing Brexit.
In other words, there seems to me now no alternative to a second referendum (which of course implies extension). Do you agree with this, or do you think there's another option?
In other words, there seems to me now no alternative to a second referendum (which of course implies extension). Do you agree with this, or do you think there's another option?
So far, there have been no signs of sufficient parliamentary support for a referendum. This may change if it looks like supporting a referendum is the only way to avoid a no deal situation. I am not holding my breath though, the second referendum is very dangerous to the individual careers of politicians.
I thought a referendum was more likely, whereas from what I understood you thought a deal would be more likely. Of course all positions were fairly speculative at the time.
That's correct, I thought a referendum would've been impossible in the given time frame before March 29.
In other words, there seems to me now no alternative to a second referendum (which of course implies extension). Do you agree with this, or do you think there's another option?
I think the second and better option would be to have a general election. The current MPs should be shipped to Madagascar for being unable to keep the common good on their radars and working towards a solution that has broad support and would've been in the best interest of UK citizens within the boundaries necessarily resulting from any negotiation.
unenlightenedMarch 13, 2019 at 12:22#2641850 likes
The game has played out so that there is not time with a short extension to hold a referendum, and barely time to hold an election. I suspect there are no circumstances under which a long delay requiring UK European elections would be granted. So I think the choice has now come down to no deal brexit or revocation of article 50 withdrawal by parliament. And Politicians will be too frit for the latter.
So far, there have been no signs of sufficient parliamentary support for a referendum. This may change if it looks like supporting a referendum is the only way to avoid a no deal situation. I am not holding my breath though, the second referendum is very dangerous to the individual careers of politicians.
Yes, I completely agree with this sentiment. The danger to careers is grave indeed; however, disorderly Brexit would be dangerous for the conservative party as a whole and at some point the interests of the country do override careerism.
At the end of the day (in my view) a second referendum is the only way to have some sort of closure to the situation (now that a soft-Brexit deal is dead).
That's correct, I thought a referendum would've been impossible in the given time frame before March 29.
Though the official time-frames seem unfeasible, the EU is at the end of the day a democratic institution and there's no realistic way for bureaucrats (or the leaders of the other countries) to not acquiesce to giving more time for a referendum if Britain requests it.
I think the second and better option would be to have a general election.
Though I agree a general election would be a good idea, it would likely be a disaster for the Tories so they will do everything to avoid it (and thus make concession to the DUP necessary). I feel strategically, the only reasonable option is to about face and call a second referendum now that the deal is defeated in parliament and there can be a binary "hard Brexit or reverse Brexit" vote. This would provide closure to the situation as well as time for the Tories to reorganize post-massive-ridicule.
... Of course the whole point of the first referendum was to resolve internal Tory differences, and that didn't work out so well for them. However, the basic logic that a referendum can provide fairly long term closure to an issue remains sound. Not that reversing Brexit with a referendum wouldn't cause high levels of consternation and lingering bitterness and division, just seems the least bad option of only bad options at this point.
[Reply to boethius Well Parliament just voted against no deal and they voted against what the EU says is the best deal possible. How much sense does it make to put the same question to the people in a referendum? And what if it's a piddling majority again?
Third time is the charm apparently as May is going to submit the same deal yet again! I doubt a 100 MPs will be cowed into voting for it after the discussions yesterday. She's obviously out of ideas that she's trying it again.
Well Parliament just voted against no deal and they voted against what the EU says is the best deal possible. How much sense does it make to put the same question to the people in a referendum? And what if it's a piddling majority again?
Yes, the other option is to resolve the issue in parliament.
However, the vote was for a "no-deal Brexit" in the context of Brexit still supposedly happening. It's not yet a vote to cancel Brexit.
I agree that parliament can just cancel Brexit, but that's simply not good democratic principles for parliament to override a referendum that they said they wouldn't override. A referendum to overturn a referendum resolves that issue.
In my opinion, the Tory leadership likely knew there was no way the deal would pass the first or second time (though they needed to advance like they didn't know that, to successfully complete a negotiation with the EU, to both say they tried and for the EU to say it's the best deal available), and so, knowing it wouldn't pass because presumably they know the position of their own members, the strategy was to wind down the clock to be able to push through a resolution of the situation without a general election. Once the solution emerges, either parliament or calling a referendum, the Tories will be all "sorwy, no time for a general election, we're really, truly sorwy". After the situation is resolved, the Tories can then try to outlast the embittering stench of the whole thing and focus the nation on other issues for the next general election. Whereas a general election in the midst of the consequences of your party's total incompetence is bad timing. Also the reason calling a snap election before starting the negotiation, before the impossibility of the task was clear, also helps avoid an election during the deed.
Reply to Wayfarer
Perhaps the British Parliament chooses this very postmodern choice and simply insists that it hasn't decided on the issue when May brings it the third time to vote.
If the EU thinks this is simply a no-deal Brexit, perhaps the British will say otherwise.
Wait, they voted against a "no-deal Brexit" right?
Yes, I meant to say voted for no "no-deal-Brexit".
Yes, I don't see any other interpretation available. The idea that May didn't see losing by the largest margin ever, doesn't stand muster. Their strategy has worked surprisingly well so far, but there still has to be some definitive action at some point, so it will be interesting how they do that and what the fallout will be. Will the whole Brexit thing just be a bad memory that everyone wants to forget? Or will the Brexiters come roaring back? Of course, presuming Brexit is now dead, which I think it is.
Will the whole Brexit thing just be a bad memory that everyone wants to forget?
That really would be the thing. If now, some 15 days before Brexit should happen somehow the UK would say "Nah. Forget it. I won't leave" it would be... I don't know what it would be. What has then the UK government done for a long time? Months of agony for nothing?
I would though want to see the faces of Brexiteers then.
Reply to boethius Now that Parliament has voted in favour of an extension, Brexiteers are faced with the choice of May's deal or a possibly long extension in which a lot can happen. Looked at that way, Tusk did May a favour by offering an extension making that risk more real.
Pattern-chaserMarch 19, 2019 at 12:54#2663480 likes
If our elected representatives cannot find a way to implement the result of the first referendum - and it seems so far that they can't - is there any alternative to a second referendum? Must Parliament not return to the people and say "we tried to implement your wishes, but we have failed to find agreement. All the available options we can find are these: XXX YYY ZZZ. As we cannot choose between them, we return to the people for your decision."
The newspaper Helsingin Sanomat pondered about the problem of the next elections to the European Parliament. What if the UK is still a member? What happens to the seats that now have been already have been planned to be divided to others when the UK leaves? And just how willing will the British be to participate in EU elections when the country is leaving the EU?
Pattern-chaserMarch 19, 2019 at 13:10#2663540 likes
Reply to ssu All good points. It would seem that British participation in the forthcoming elections makes as much sense as allowing 90-year-olds to vote on Brexit, when they will never live to experience the result of their actions. [Many have already died since the referendum.] So I agree with you, that Brutish [Freudian slip?] participation in the EU elections looks like a Bad Thing for all concerned.
If our elected representatives cannot find a way to implement the result of the first referendum - and it seems so far that they can't - is there any alternative to a second referendum? Must Parliament not return to the people and say "we tried to implement your wishes, but we have failed to find agreement. All the available options we can find are these: XXX YYY ZZZ. As we cannot choose between them, we return to the people for your decision."
What (democratic) alternative is there?
Yes, this is more-or-less the position I've been debating with, mostly @Benkei. A more or less standard governing principle is that things can only be overturned by an equally authoritative process. A duke cannot overturn the ruling of a king etc. A lower court cannot overturn a higher court. In this framework, then we'd normally conclude only a referendum could overturn the results of a referendum. If government represents the will of the people, then their can be no higher authoritative deliberation process than a vote that directly represents that will. One can argue it's the will of the people to not be consulted directly in referenda (including a will to not have a referendum about having referendums), but once a referendum is held it's difficult to argue less direct expressions of the people's will, such as representatives, can overturn that vote.
So, this is why I think this logic can ultimately not be escaped and without a second referendum there can be no closure (in a no-Brexit scenario, which seems very likely due to the parliament votes against and for reasons discussed below), and why I think it's ultimately likely (that the EU will give whatever time is needed to have another referendum, so the "running out of time" issue is not a fundamental obstacle.
The problem is that referendum aren't a real thing in the UK (unwritten) constitution, so technically it was an advisory referendum to just poll the sentiments of the people .... but, the conservative government promised they'd treat it as final (presumably thinking Brexit would lose and they could declare the issue final).
So the situation is unprecedented and has no firm legal basis; what does the verbal promise of the last prime-minister to treat the results of an advisory referendum as more than what it is legally mean? No one knows. The situation is also unprecedented because a government who's official policy was to stay in the EU called am unnecessary referendum on a thing that if passed they had no plan to achieve. Normally referendum are called when the party that promotes the policy is in office and has either an actual plan to carry the policy through or the will to deal with the chaotic fallout (for instance, the Quebec referendum happened when the separatist party of Quebec was in government in Quebec, so there was no doubt what would happen if the separatist party won a referendum on separation). In the case of Brexit, the conservative party believed in the democratic right of a referendum and promised one to appeal to voters on the far right anti-EU (stem vote-bleed to UKIP) as well as settle any internal debate within their own party.
The result of this is total ambiguity of what the referendum meant legally, but as importantly a political situation for the governing conservatives that has no solution. Their brand isn't "screw the EU, economy be damned", but rather "fiscal responsibility" (of course, their fiscal policies of privatization and lowering social investments of all kinds, in particular immigration integration while being tough of immigrants but also letting in as many as possible to drive down wages, and support of the oil industry, arms manufacturers and banks at all costs, leads directly to the economic dislocations that inspired people to vote Brexit, but usually over a longer period of time that goes unnoticed by an uneducated population which is achieved through low social investments, closing the circle of ignorance that the conservatives need to prosper). Suffice to say, making a swift work of impoverishing people is noticeably off-brand. An analogy would be that you're a sadistic bus driver trying to drive some clueless voyagers of a cliff; but on the way you run into a tree and people lose confidence in your bus riding skills and start to question the whole project of going to cloud-world (like, cloud-world sounds great, especially if you just need to just enjoy the ride to get there without doing anything but trust the leaders ... or maybe cloud world is a mirage and the leaders are just pocketing your fair and bringing you to drown in a flood of poverty): point is, rock your own boat and you maybe out of a job and you don't get to destroy society, it's bad for business. So an actual Brexit isn't an acceptable solution (for the conservatives interested in keeping a job); "soft-Brexit" that carries all the costs of staying in the EU but less benefit and no say in its governance no sane politician would vote for (it's like a restaurant running low on supplies that decides to deliver rotten food to their impatient clients; the joy of being served is short-lived); and reversing Brexit would re-ignite (with much added fuel) the internal debates and vote-bleed to UKIP and demonstrate total incompetence in every way imaginable.
As I mentioned in my last post, the only viable strategy is to run-down the clock and then have a referendum (the least bad option, as at least you can hide behind "the will of the people"), then manufacture other crisii before the next general election, probably war and violence and fear.
Well, the EU just screwed everyone by putting demands on the short delay. Brexiteers do not fear the option of a no-deal Brexit so it does exactly 0 to improve the chances of a deal Brexit. Then May started blaming MPs which does exactly 0 to improve her chances of them supporting her, however right her assessment is.
If the goal is to avoid a no deal brexit. The EU should offer a 2 year extension, no strings attached but that the UK continues to meet all its obligations towards the EU during that period. That offer is mutually beneficial and can be done based on the friendship that exists and is Brexiteers' worst fear because a lot can happen in 2 years.
The EU should offer a 2 year extension, no strings attached
Oh God. This nuisance just pushed forward for 2 years and then started again.
Yes, that would be so typical EU.
Let's get it over with it. Let's have a no-deal Brexit. It's not a big deal.
And while we are at it, lets demand visas from British coming here and similar immigration procedures from those British citizens living in the EU as we demand from others non-EU citizens, like Afghans, Syrians and Somalis or Americans living here. This actually would help the Brexiteers to get the backbone to enforce their objective in a similar fashion to deport all the EU migrant worker scum, all those Poles and Lithuanians, that the for-Brexit people didn't want in their country anyway. When the EU would do it first, they would have a clean conscience of having been forced to do the same.
unenlightenedMarch 21, 2019 at 16:34#2672720 likes
Reply to Benkei I think the EU has more or less reached the 'fuck off and die' position, where a no deal brexit is preferable to having to deal with this miserable madness for another 2 years. They surely don't want dozens of Farages elected by the UK to screw up their governance for the next 5 years. But perhaps Europe is more selfless and kind than I give them credit for? In some ways, a no deal chaotic brexit would suit the EU mandarins quite well, pour encourager les autres.
unenlightenedMarch 27, 2019 at 19:13#2695180 likes
Carrot and stick May style. 'Back my deal and I'll resign - defeat it, and I'll stay forever.'
Reply to Michael I just read it in the morning news. Absolutely bonkers. Parties are not willing to compromise, they're not in dialogue and nothing has changed in that respect in 2 years. Fucking amateurs.
I fear that, the way things are going, this idiocy is going to create such contempt for Parliament that it will seriously weaken democracy. An issue that only a few cranky tories really cared about has been blown up to the point where it seems likely to destroy the UK entirely, It is weird, isn't it?
unenlightenedMarch 28, 2019 at 13:19#2698670 likes
It is the Nazi-Soviet pact of the Brexit debate: a deal so cynical it contains its own gravitational field. May is prepared to offer her resignation in exchange for the deal, on the basis that if it passes she probably won't have to see it through. The Brexit headbangers are prepared to support the deal in exchange for her resignation, on the basis that they will tear up the deal once she is gone. They are shaking hands with knives held behind their back.
And yet here we all are, locked into their swirling psychological horror story, trapped in this dreadful room with them, our national fate dependant on what these cynical, self-interested, mendacious, emotionally incontinent, ideologically deranged buffoons happen to decide at any given moment. Not one person in this rabble believes a single thing they are saying. It is a godawful mixture of religious zeal, personal ambition and tribal lunacy.
Yes. And sublime hypocrisy that the rejection of a second referendum (in favour of repeated attempts to get this through) is based on the idea that you shouldn't get to keep asking the same question until you get the answer you want.
Although this new decoupling of the withdrawal agreement and the political declaration is apparently not the MV originally intended and it's a dog's dinner.
Yes. And sublime hypocrisy that the rejection of a second referendum (in favour of repeated attempts to get this through) is based on the idea that you shouldn't get to keep asking the same question until you get the answer you want.
Thanks for pointing this out, it's the icing on the Brexit crumpet.
I have to admit that a second referendum, which I have been arguing as more probable (though far from guaranteed), seems less likely now, and that May's strategy of "my deal" or chaos may work out for the conservative party. But, it will be interesting if the deal fails to pass again. Likewise it will be interesting if it passes, what leaving out the political declaration part will mean down the road; will it lead to some sort of eternal brimbo, a brexitory of lost souls?
Reply to boethius So Theresa tries to clinch the MV3-deal by offering BoJo and Moggle potential power by resigning, if either wins the Tory vote for class president. That might work. But you can ask whether the split is all that meaningful. The withdrawal agreement explicitly states:
[i]The Union and the United Kingdom shall use their best endeavours, in good faith and in full respect
of their respective legal orders, to take the necessary steps to negotiate expeditiously the agreements
governing their future relationship referred to in the political declaration of 25/11/ 2018 and to
conduct the relevant procedures for the ratification or conclusion of those agreements, with a view
to ensuring that those agreements apply, to the extent possible, as from the end of the transition
period.[/i]
The exact agreements implementing the future relationship still need to stay within the boundaries of the political declaration. So a vote for the withdrawal agreement is a vote for the political declaration as well; especially when read in light of the considerations prefacing the withdrawal agreement.
Reply to unenlightened You have about 9 hours and 12 days left to move to Europe. You're still welcome.
unenlightenedMarch 29, 2019 at 14:11#2703080 likes
Reply to Benkei Thanks! I guess the way we're making your governance look modern, competent, and vaguely rational, you can afford to be generous. :wink:
Does the human rights act include the right to Marmite?
Those are the two largest supermarket chains in the Netherlands and they both sell it. Whether it will remain in stock is another question but the product is owned by Unilever, which has a co-headquarter in Rotterdam so they'll probably move production somewhere that has a trade deal with the EU to avoid tariffs. That will be the case until such time the UK gets with the program and agrees to some sort of deal after first crashing out without one.
Reply to Baden BoJo is the least of the UK's problems. He'll change his political opinions like his clothes, according to the fashion. It's that pretentious and pedantic Moggle who lies at every turn about how business will be better off. They won't be because they will immediately be confronted with tariffs when exporting to the EU and increased bureacracy to trade with the EU. And there will be issues with obtaining base materials for production of UK goods. It's going to suck for UK exporters and manufacturers.
And the real barometer for UK's long term economic performance will be what happens to foreign direct investment, which has enabled the UK to run a year-on-year trade deficit without it affecting wealth in the UK. If the FDI goes down significantly, it will be the main driver for less wealth in the UK in the long run. Whether that will happen is anyone's guess and depends in large part to what extent FDI is the result of investors seeing the UK as a convenient and efficient gateway into Europe or not. If that share is significant, then FDI will drop, if it isn't the UK will be fine in 10 years time despite short term losses.
unenlightenedMarch 29, 2019 at 14:52#2703180 likes
Reply to Benkei I see one of them has upside-down marmite, but I can compromise and be flexible. I'm packing.
As far as I know the right not to be governed by Boris Johnson is currently enjoyed by all non-UK citizens and may soon be enshrined in EU law.
Oh god. I'm not remotely superstitious, but just in case, please don't tempt fate. We don't want a repeat of what happened across the pond. Trump and Boris... can you imagine? :scream:
Yes. And sublime hypocrisy that the rejection of a second referendum (in favour of repeated attempts to get this through) is based on the idea that you shouldn't get to keep asking the same question until you get the answer you want.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47752017
Failed again... Maybe there can be a people's vote now?
unenlightenedMarch 29, 2019 at 16:02#2703370 likes
Reply to Benkei It's the Scottish ancestry coming out in a crisis.
The European Commission has released a statement following vote, calling no-deal "a likely scenario".
The statement reads: "The Commission regrets the negative vote in the House of Commons today.
"As per the European Council (Article 50) decision on 22 March, the period provided for in Article 50(3) is extended to 12 April.
"It will be for the UK to indicate the way forward before that date, for consideration by the European Council.
"A 'no-deal' scenario on 12 April is now a likely scenario. The EU has been preparing for this since December 2017 and is now fully prepared for a 'no-deal' scenario at midnight on 12 April. The EU will remain united.
"The benefits of the Withdrawal Agreement, including a transition period, will in no circumstances be replicated in a 'no-deal' scenario. Sectoral mini-deals are not an option."
Absolute deadlock in a Parliament which is against everything and for nothing, so the only way out looks to be a general election or a people's vote. In the meantime, expect more extensions.
unenlightenedMarch 30, 2019 at 10:50#2705720 likes
Reply to Wayfarer I've decided to become a hard brexiteer in order to further the causes of Irish unification, Scottish independence and the break up of the United Kingdom. There might even be some democratic reform come out of it - What's not to like about Right Wing Bigots stuffing things up in such an undeniable way? They will of course blame Corbyn and Bercow for everything, but people have already stopped listening...
I've decided to become a hard brexiteer in order to further the causes of Irish unification, Scottish independence and the break up of the United Kingdom.
Ah, the break up of the United Kingdom! People formerly know as 'the British', be ready to rip your clothes, hide yourself in a closet and sprinkle ash on yourself while mourning there about the unfathomable that happened.
Actually, if it would happen, I would love just hearing the utter gloom and the overwhelming sorrow, the effusive misery and the absolute destitution of optimism that the now ex-British born-again English would have to say, delivered hopefully in their affluent yet meticulous Oxford English, about the break up of the UK. Losing the Empire was one thing, but losing the British Isles? Not only that, losing the island where England lies, broken to what it was last time in the Middle Ages? Yes, and don't forget the Welsh. Move over, Oswald Sprengler.
And I can say that I would love this… because it's not going to happen.
But perhaps I can walk in your moccasins and have similar anxiety. In my case it's about the next elections just around the corner..and the "fear in what country I will wake up some day". The Green Party is purposing giving automatically every Iraqi a residence permit that comes here. So I guess, wellcome former ISIS fighters here. :razz:
Metaphysician UndercoverMarch 30, 2019 at 12:57#2706260 likes
Reply to unenlightened
Don't worry, us Canadians will always be part of your Kingdom -- well at least until we have a referendum, then bye bye.
And sublime hypocrisy that the rejection of a second referendum (in favour of repeated attempts to get this through) is based on the idea that you shouldn't get to keep asking the same question until you get the answer you want.
Get some advise from the Québécois they know how to change the question to avoid the accusation of asking the same question. They also know a lot of other tricks which best be kept out of Trump's hands.
I'm always a bit baffled by 'Ze Vill of Ze Peepul'. Which people - the ones of 2016 or now? If this idiocy breaks up the UK, that's great, but I fear that the huge (30%) immigrant vote here might mean that we were left alone with the English, to be robbed and bullied forever. Better death!
unenlightenedMarch 30, 2019 at 13:38#2706550 likes
Before you can discern the will of the people, you have to decide the extent of the people.
Therefore, questions of nationhood cannot be decided democratically, though folks like to pretend they can. Likewise, by what voting system is the voting system to be decided? Boundaries and systems of governance are necessarily prior to democracy, and cannot be settled democratically.
One must have recourse to tradition, to geography, to force majeure, to sentiment, to something or other fundamentally morally indefensible. 'We, the people' are of a certain age, a certain race and gender, speak a certain language, live within certain lines. These are decisions that have to be made on the streets, before decisions can be made at the ballot box.
So there are immigrants and natives? And which group gets to count that 30%? Am I native if I am born here, or my parents were born here, or my skin is white? Who decides, and then who decides what the decision means?
"Better death!" - when that becomes the will of the people, it is time to leave.
Alas, the answer you might choose to give, or someone else might choose to give, or the dictionary definition or the legal definition, none of these are what I am asking. Who decided, (was there a discussion or a vote,) that place of birth was of any importance?
To put it in context, when Scotland didn't vote for independence, the line was already drawn that defined Scotland, and only those living north of that line got to vote. Perhaps if Northumberland had been included, the vote would have gone the other way... And when the UK voted to leave the EU, the line was already drawn between those deciding to leave or not, and those being left or not. We (the UK) decided one way. We (Scotland) decided the other way - but for this vote, that line does not exist because... no reason.
Next week, the line of birthplace may supersede the line of citizenship and naturalisation. 'We' could decide that after all immigrants (your definition) shouldn't get to vote. And that can be a democratic decision to eliminate those 30% of votes, but whose vote counts in deciding whose vote counts?
So Theresa tries to clinch the MV3-deal by offering BoJo and Moggle potential power by resigning, if either wins the Tory vote for class president. That might work. But you can ask whether the split is all that meaningful. The withdrawal agreement explicitly states:
It seems a moot point now (though perhaps 4th times the charm), but explicitly excluding something in a negotiation is generally basis to argue that it creates a wide birth around what would otherwise be implied (i.e. compared to had the thing in question not been proposed and removed, it may very well have been part of the agreement by implication of other language present); I do this all the time in negotiations. There's a latin expression for it, but I can't remember. So, in this case, removing the political declaration would be the basis for the next PM to argue that political declaration and everything implied by it was not agreed to, even if remaining language would otherwise imply the entire thing.
I can't believe she's actually considering a fourth try. The next time it fails, she should receive some sort of punishment for this tomfoolery. She should be put in stocks outside the houses of parliament or something.
Before you can discern the will of the people, you have to decide the extent of the people.
Even apart from the implications you're getting at, the extent of the people in this case (eligible voters in the UK) have a rather big impact on the ability to discern the will of the people. 51.9% voted in favour of leave with a turn out of 72%. We can ask whether that's significant. Luckily someone did and the answer is, no it isn't. So the will of the people is basically not known.
What is known is that Tories know what's good for themselves.
Reply to Benkei If 1,269,501 people turned up at your house, would you think that significant? Yes, you most certainly would. That's over a million people. That's how many more voters voted to leave.
It's bad sportsmanship to complain about a contest after it is over and you've lost. We could do this with countless cases. I bet, for example, you don't give supporters of UKIP any credence when they complain about the fact that UKIP didn't end up with 83 seats after the 2015 general election as they would have under proportional representation, as opposed to the 1 seat they secured under first-past-the-past, so stop with the double standard. You're finding problems to fit your political motive.
I really don't like these sort of attacks. It's bad enough that we will be financially worse off in the case of Brexit. That's reason enough to be against it. There's no need to attack the referendum itself or the results.
There's nothing wrong with having a referendum on membership of the European Union after 40 years, setting rules, voting, counting votes, and declaring a winner based on the agreed upon rules. That's just democracy in action.
The waters are muddied somewhat by
1) The vote was close
2) There are many ways to leave, but that was barely an issue at the time, so vague was the wording.
3) Leaders of the winning side announced before the result that they would be seekinganother referendum if they lost
4)the 52-48 has become 47-53 ... and decreasing
Democratic honour does need to be satisfied, but it is not clear where the honour lies. I guess a very soft Brexit would be fairest, but I can certainly see that a second referendum would be almost as fair, with the added bonus of the possibility of remaining - which would be a far better economic outrcome.
Perhaps a second referendum would have to be STV from 3 or 4 options ranging from no deal to remain. I am sure there is a cognitive bias to select a non-extreme option so this second referendum would be a little biased against remain (and no deal), but this could be seen as a "fair" compensation to leavers given that the first referendum did produce a win for "leave" (whatever that means!)
There's no need to attack the referendum itself or the results.
There's nothing wrong with having a referendum on membership of the European Union after 40 years, setting rules, voting, counting votes, and declaring a winner based on the agreed upon rules. That's just democracy in action.
You seem to be unable to understand the distinction between criticism of the method of democratic process, (which was also shit as most referenda are), and criticism of drawing the wrong conclusions based on the result of that process. It was basically a tie so interpreting the result as "the will of the people" is simply political expediency and nothing more. That's a criticism of your political class and media.
So no, that isn't democracy in action. It's a lack of understanding how referenda work to begin with and a subsequent abuse of the result because of it.
Reply to Benkei Yes, I browsed over your link. It was simplistic, I'll grant you that much. For instance, it starts with an obvious and irrelevant fact which you get with just about every single political vote on just about anything: absence of a full turnout. When has there ever been a full turnout on any vote ever? What a joke! How about the fact that this was the highest turn out in a political vote in the UK in a very long time? That's of far greater significance. It is clearly one of those pieces which has a specific goal in mind, namely to trivialise the results, and then sets about trying to manipulate the reader into agreement.
Reply to Benkei No, it's not basically a tie. That's just how you want to spin it. There isn't a winning side and a losing side in a tie, so it can't be a tie, "basically" or otherwise. There were set rules before the event, the event went ahead, both sides were happy enough to get right into campaigning, the vote took place, the results were announced, revealing a winning side and a losing side, not a tie. That the leave side secured over a million more votes made them the winning side. You know that as well as I do. Sorry, Benkei, but you don't get to make up your own rules and declare your own results. That's make believe.
No, it's not basically a tie. That's just how you want to spin it. There isn't a winning side and a losing side in a tie, so it can't be a tie, "basically" or otherwise. There were set rules before the event, the event went ahead, both sides were happy enough to get right into campaigning, the vote took place, the results were announced, revealing a winning side and a losing side, not a tie. That the leave side secured over a million more votes made them the winning side. You know that as well as I do. Sorry, Benkei, but you don't get to make up your own rules and declare your own results. That's make believe.
Yes, I browsed over your link. It was simplistic, I'll grant you that much. For instance, it starts with an obvious and irrelevant fact which you get with just about every single political vote on just about anything: absence of a full turnout. When has there ever been a full turnout on any vote ever? What a joke! How about the fact that this was the highest turn out in a political vote in the UK in a very long time? That's of far greater significance. It is clearly one of those pieces which has a specific goal in mind, namely to trivialise the results, and then sets about trying to manipulate the reader into agreement.
What are you on? The article is dumbed down for a broader audience and you take issue with it. It's not spin, it's actual statistical methodology. Here have fun with this then : https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.06552
And since you browsed it but didn't read it we can rest assured you don't know what you're talking about.
Metaphysician UndercoverApril 02, 2019 at 12:26#2718180 likes
Even apart from the implications you're getting at, the extent of the people in this case (eligible voters in the UK) have a rather big impact on the ability to discern the will of the people. 51.9% voted in favour of leave with a turn out of 72%. We can ask whether that's significant. Luckily someone did and the answer is, no it isn't. So the will of the people is basically not known.
What is known is that Tories know what's good for themselves.
Different places have different rules concerning referendum votes. I've heard sometimes it takes a 70% vote on a referendum for change to a country's constitution. Sometimes it might be stated that 50% of the eligible voters is required for change, such that not voting is a vote for no change. Whether such rules are "democratic" is debatable. But governments in office have the power to, and been known to play tricks on voters in an attempt to get the vote they want, and that is not democratic. Referendums in general are tricky business.
What are you on? The article is dumbed down for a broader audience and you take issue with it. It's not spin, it's actual statistical methodology. Here have fun with this then : https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.06552
And since you browsed it but didn't read it we can rest assured you don't know what you're talking about.
Different places have different rules concerning referendum votes. I've heard sometimes it takes a 70% vote on a referendum for change to a country's constitution. Sometimes it might be stated that 50% of the eligible voters is required for change, such that not voting is a vote for no change. Whether such rules are "democratic" is debatable. But governments in office have the power to, and been known to play tricks on voters in an attempt to get the vote they want, and that is not democratic. Referendums in general are tricky business.
[I]Nothing[/I] about the rules for what was required for either leave or remain to win the referendum was inconsistent with the political system of the United Kingdom, which is a form of representative democracy. It was all perfectly legitimate. Leave won, remain lost. Maybe some people would rather the rules had been different. Well, that's too bad. For that to really stand any chance of counting, then you would have needed to be in a position to have done something about it at the relevant time. Benkei isn't even a citizen of the United Kingdom: he rightfully has no say, except to express his opinion of course. The electorate had the chance to vote for a party other than the Tories under David Cameron. The electorate had the chance to vote to remain. The majority was against. Thems the rules, like it or lump it. And this is coming from a Labour supporting Remainer.
Nothing about the rules for what was required for either leave or remain to win the referendum was inconsistent with the political system of the United Kingdom, which is a form of representative democracy. It was all perfectly legitimate. Leave won, remain lost. Maybe some people would rather the rules had been different. Well, that's too bad.
I thought we already went through this. S and and Benkei are just pointing out that votes do not necessarily entail "will of the people" or democracy. If you don't view first past the post as democratic, but a sort of managed aristocracy, then the rules setup are likewise undemocratic. Though this is another part of the debate.
For the matter at hand, "dem's the rules" is also an overstretch. The promise was to trigger article 50, which has been done, so the PM's and government can claim they already fulfilled the mandate of the referendum. The fact that it was presumed to be irreversible and this assumption turned out to be false, we can say is "tough titties" for the leavers, and given this new information it's the responsibility of the house and government to review whether revoking article 50 is the best course of action today including putting it to another referendum vote. Likewise, even ignoring new information as the "dirty tricks" of remainers, it's entirely consistent with the "rules" you describe of putting the form of Brexit to another referendum and including in that vote the option of reversing it; as any deliberating body always has the option to change their mind, whether a king, cabinet, MP's or the electorate as a whole.
Likewise, it would be consistent with "the rules" to argue MP's must push Brexit through as it's of practical importance to not make Britain look like a total farce and their responsibility as first-past-the-post MP's is to make these tough decisions even if a majority are against it now. Criticizing this position reduces to criticizing the first-past-the-post system itself, not the particulars of Brexit proceedings within the system as it is.
However, that it is in principle undemocratic to use a democratic process to make a decision, because that decision might contradict the result of a previous democratic decision, is not consistent. Decisions can change, even in a democracy.
Now, one can argue there should not be a second referendum, but that argument does not follow from democratic first principles but from practical constraints (i.e. we can't have a referendum or general elections about everything all the time, and a second Brexit referendum falls on the other side of the line we must draw).
Metaphysician UndercoverApril 03, 2019 at 02:10#2720570 likes
Now, one can argue there should not be a second referendum, but that argument does not follow from democratic first principles but from practical constraints (i.e. we can't have a referendum or general elections about everything all the time, and a second Brexit referendum falls on the other side of the line we must draw).
I'd say, perhaps go for three referendums. Two wins out of three ought to be fair.
"Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it". - Marx.
That was essentially my point. You either work from within the system, or you work towards revolution. I assumed the former in my criticism.
From within the system, there were options for a different outcome. I haven't said anything about the "will of the people" in any of my most recent comments. The majority of voters voted for leave. That's a fact. The rule was such that this meant that leave won the referendum. That's a fact. David Cameron pledged an in/out referendum and his party was subsequently voted into government by a majority of voters. That's a fact. These were opportunities for change from within.
As for change from without, clearly that hasn't worked so far either, although I didn't take them to be arguing that in any case. It just looked like attempts to trivialise the result or complain that a different set of rules, like a higher threshold for a winner, would've been better. That's merely theoretical and complacent. In reality, it simply didn't go down that way. You can make a case to handle things like this differently going forward, but there seems little point in crying over spilt milk.
Question to the UK members: was the prospect of a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, and the consequent risk of a return of the Troubles, highlighted in the referendum campaign as a likely consequence of leaving?
If not, surely that alone is sufficient reason to have a second vote, as it would be reasonable to assume that many people were not aware of that very significant consequence when they cast their first vote.
If not, surely that alone is sufficient reason to have a second vote, as it would be reasonable to assume that many people were not aware of that very significant consequence when they cast their first vote.
As I've said before, I think the prospect of a hard border is a reason to simply cancel Brexit. Maintaining the GFA is more important than "respecting" the referendum result.
A well-educated electorate is crucial for any referendum to work the way it ought. Sometimes the majority of people are quite wrong and base their vote upon misleading, inadequate, and/or downright false information.
Good, accurate, and adequate information ought be a cornerstone; the necessary pre-requisite of anything meant to resemble self-governance.
Question to the UK members: was the prospect of a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, and the consequent risk of a return of the Troubles, highlighted in the referendum campaign as a likely consequence of leaving?
If not, surely that alone is sufficient reason to have a second vote, as it would be reasonable to assume that many people were not aware of that very significant consequence when they cast their first vote.
It's definitely an extremely important issue, and it definitely seems to have been neglected. It's only a risk at this stage, although that in itself is very serious. But I hope with all of my heart that it remains nothing worse than a risk. I hope with all of my heart that it doesn't become a reality. This is actually the sort of thing which could spurn me into protest: the prospect of undoing the work that went into achieving relative peace.
Reply to SReply to MichaelReply to andrewk et al... If the world's oldest parliament can't maintain the box on which the Prime Minister puts her papers when she is addressing the Speaker, I don't see much of a future for the country. For Gawd's sake, repaint it or put some new contact plastic covering on it. How long has it (the country, the parliament, the PM, the box -- all of it) been looking so shabby?
"Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it". - Marx.
That was essentially my point. You either work from within the system, or you work towards revolution. I assumed the former in my criticism.
We've been over all these points before. If the MP's voted for another referendum, that would be working within the system. If the MP's voted for May's deal that would be working within the system. If the MP's voted for something else, that would be working within the system.
None of these possibilities are "anti-democratic" as democracy is currently understood in the UK system as it is today.
Your argument is that a second referendum is somehow anti-democratic, or for whatever reason should be dismissed prima faci. However "best 2 our of 3", nor any of your other arguments, is not an anti-democratic process; if the MP's voted for a 2 our of 3 contest they could do that and, insofar as first past the post is democratic, then the 2 out of 3 referendum would be democratic too.
All arguments you have presented are not based on the principles of democracy, neither from some philosophical view of what democracy is or should be nor from the practical implementation of what the UK calls their democracy today. All the arguments you have presented, and other "no second referendum" participants to the conversation, are either simply bad arguments (that if a second referendum was held and Brexit lost this would be unfair to the voters of the first Brexit and somehow anti-democratic) or then arguments from practical considerations (that having too many referendums too close together is simply not practical).
Think about it: "elected MP's voting on an issue they decide to vote for" is anti-democratic within the UK system.
Now if your projecting that I believe it would be anti-democratic not to have a second referendum in the UK system's current democracy, and you have just poorly formulated the above argument from the opposite starting point that not-having a second referendum would not-be-democratic in the current UK system, no where have I made that claim. If the MP's vote for May's deal or something else that's not a second referendum, then likewise nothing anti-democratic has occurred within the first-past-the-post system of democracy.
My mention of first-past-the-post is that criticizing Brexit proceedings by the government and in parliament as such reduces to criticizing the first-past-the-post system, there is nothing special about Brexit in such a criticism. This was to simply make clear that none of the outcomes voted by MP's I view as undemocratic in the current system and that debating first-past-the-post would be a conversation largely independent of Brexit.
I've been predicting a second referendum, but not because the UK citizens have a right to a second referendum, but because it is the-least-worst-option for the debacle and at some point MP's will have a hard time making objectively worse choices.
Though second referendum may seem "too late", it is still very much in the running as it maybe the only way to secure a long extension from the EU.
From the Tory government perspective, there are only 2 good options among only bad options. Work out some sort of exit from the EU that can be called Brexit and move on (May's deal) or drag on the negotiation be at least able to say "we tried" and then create a last minute crisis where a second referendum needs to be carried out before a general election; this would at least bring some semblance of closure to the issue and the Tories could regroup before the next general election (whereas a "Brexit" general election would be the worst possible scenario for the Tories at is would an election where the only subject to talk about is Tory incompetence).
So, given May's deal is dead then (maybe) my prediction remains second referendum will spontaneously generate over the next couple of weeks out of the chaotic negotiations with the EU for an extension. The EU has now more reasons to revoke an extension than to grant one, but at the end of the day the EU is about democracy so there is no possible principled opposition to granting an extension for the purposes of a second referendum, which if the UK people voted to remain it's basically the best possible outcome for the EU: the UK is humiliated and the EU suffers zero negative consequences remaining as strong economically as before with a few countries having gained some business and investment from all the uncertainty (so all other EU national leaders as well as Brexit technocrats would be able to toast to that).
Of course I could be wrong, the humiliation of admitting a mistake and letting the people of the UK resolve by referendum a crisis created by a ill-defined referendum, maybe too great for the crust of English high society (in other words, the English upper class, in particular the Tories, may prefer to harm UK citizens much more by a chaotic Brexit or just stupid trade policy with their biggest trading partner, rather than harm their own pride even a smidgen; long term the consequences could be grave even for political careers of those involved (relative hiding behind a second referendum, just as the goal was initially with the first referendum), but who cares about that).
Reply to S And here is the same box on the 20th of March, a fortnight before the picture above. Doesn't seem to have the tacky white contact material attached which P.M. May had tried to remove,
It's not really apathy, except apathy at an endless argument conducted by ignoramuses and special interests with no concern for society as a whole.
International trade relations are important to everyone - rather like the gas central heating installation regulations are important to everyone. But I don't want either of them decided by what Boris can persuade Mrs Thing down the road is a good idea, and I don't want to decide them myself. I want clever experts with lots of time to work out what works best and everyone else to just shut up unless they know something about it.
No it is caring. I care too much about the gas central heating installation regulations to want them decided by a referendum of the ignorant, and the same goes for brexit. And the experts overwhelmingly agree that remain is the best course, both economically and politically, and no more time is required for that.
Reply to ssu The EU benefits if there is some agreement on trade between the UK and its constituents. Instead of disrupting trade unnecessarily due to a hard Brexit, they've opted for a delay. That is still making a choice.
The EU benefits if there is some agreement on trade between the UK and its constituents. Instead of disrupting trade unnecessarily due to a hard Brexit, they've opted for a delay. That is still making a choice.
The EU benefits with the UK being in the EU. So we will continue to October... to only then perhaps start the final (?) transfer time for Brexit.
So, I guess I should be asking how many British here will be eagerly voting on the EU elections in May? Will Nigel Farage, one of your present EU Parliament members be running for re-election?
I wonder how many years will the UK be leaving the EU.
What else are the EU supposed to do? Deny the request and have us leave without a deal? They don't want that.
Of course, IF the EU would be a genuine federation which would behave as real sovereign state, it would have the option to basically shove the Brexit up the UK's ass sideways as a warning to any other state considering leaving the Union. It would then try, first and foremost, to take away the position of the City of London enjoys in the financial markets. The evil money laundering London banks would be a nice populist discourse. And have that no-deal Brexit if the UK doesn't submit. It could possibly lure Scotland to remain in the EU by promising that if Scotland would want independence it would be immediately recognized by the EU and the new country would automatically inherit the position of the UK. Imagine the talk then of the Anglo-Scottish border from over 300 years ago being erected again.
Of course the above is totally ludicrous and crazy. The EU would not and could not act like that. And this just shows that the EU isn't at all one coherent entity or actor like the United States of America. And hence the above shows how the discourse of "Brussels" taking power away from it's members is nonsense: the EU simply doesn't have the ability to truly control it's member states. The idea of a tight federation is not only wrong, it is detrimental. The European Union cannot be anything else than a confederation of independent states.
It would then try, first and foremost, to take away the position of the City of London enjoys in the financial markets.
That is financially not feasible without seriously undermining the banking book of every EU bank in the process. They'd pay through the nose to move their cleared swaps from LCH to EUREX, ICE and EuroCCP. If you want to move it, it will have to be done gradually by grandfathering existing portfolios and requiring new euro-denominated swaps to be cleared with a CCP established in the EU27. To have the bulk move would then take about 10 years and for all the historic portfolios to close about 30 years. But LCH offers more than just clearing of euro-denominated swaps and would probably be recognised as a third country equivalent CCP any way, which you'd want if you want your EU banks to operate meaningfully internationally.
So following an election in which both major parties lost, and parties representing remain made large gains, the two major parties are showing us how democracy works by trying to stitch up a brexit deal in order to avoid the humiliation of EU elections.
I don't think I'll be the only one to see that as a betrayal of all principle except self-serving fear of the electorate. Anything at all to avoid an election you will lose, even a compromise you have refused for 3 years.
How it's supposed to work, this democracy thing, is that people stand for ideas and policies they believe in, and try and convince the electorate to agree with them. But what has been happening is that people have been finding out what the electorate want to hear and telling them they stand for that.
And of course what the electorate want is an impossible magic world where everything is free and somebody else does all the work.
Reply to Evil Surprisingly little. Because the Uk government still has to make a decision, unless the EU finally runs out of patience. Somehow I don't see a few Brexit MEPs swinging the EU to a vote to expel the UK.
Reply to Michael That's sort of the scenario in the US, but it goes both ways. That is, I think most conservatives in the US would have rather seen almost anything than Hillary being elected. The same holds true for liberals. I think they'd have agreed to scrap almost any liberal policy than to have Trump as president.
So dedicated to accomplishing Brexit are Tory members that a majority (54%) would be willing to countenance the destruction of their own party if necessary. Only a third (36%) put the party’s preservation above steering Britain out of the EU.
Party members are also willing to sacrifice another fundamental tenant of Conservative belief in order to bring about Brexit: unionism.* Asked whether they would rather avert Brexit if it would lead to Scotland or Northern Ireland breaking away from the UK, respectively 63% and 59% of party members would be willing to pay for Brexit with the breakup of the United Kingdom.
It really is rather difficult for me at least, to understand what is happening. It is as if we are fighting on the beaches, and on the landing grounds, and in the fields... At any cost, it seems. What has the EU done to warrant preferring the breakup of the country and your own political party?
It is probably the weird assumption that the democratic voice of the people has spoken in the referendum, which was so narrowly in favour of Brexit that the only statistically relevant conclusion that could be made is that the people were hopelessly divided on the issue.
In a sense it's a righteously principled stance, the consequences be damned, because the principles of democracy trump everything else.
I originally thought it was about controlling immigration but it seems it's now about ensuring the right to make worse trade deals with other countries than they already have with the EU. Stumped.
That has the ring of true fakery to it. Like the terrible plight of the white race, the poor English are under siege from all quarters, but this hard done by, once proud region that includes the capital of the Union the way the Conservative party is actually called 'The Conservative and Unionist Party', resents those other regions with their separate identities, and has to invent its own identity in the Sainted Nigel, slaying the EU dragon, and King Boris and his knights of the round table returned in Albion's hour of need.
I think it has to be down to an awakened archetype of war and destruction, of sacrifice to the vengeful gods in atonement for the sin of giving up the Empire without a fight.
That's sort of the scenario in the US, but it goes both ways. That is, I think most conservatives in the US would have rather seen almost anything than Hillary being elected. The same holds true for liberals. I think they'd have agreed to scrap almost any liberal policy than to have Trump as president.
I didn't think it was like that here. Prime Ministers aren't like Presidents.
Though the biggest takeaway is really that Conservatives are willing to break apart the UK, damage the economy, and destroy their party just to secure Brexit.
It just seems like no one can advocate for immigration regulation without being accused of bigotry.
The thing is, we already have immigration regulation for EU citizens. We can kick people out after 3 months if they can't prove they're working, seeking work, or self-sufficient. The government just isn't doing that.
The thing is, we already have immigration regulation for EU citizens. We can kick people out after 3 months if they can't prove they're working, seeking work, or self-sufficient. The government just isn't doing that.
Sure, it's hard to enforce and everyone makes arguments that you're just kicking people out because they're Mexican, Polish or whatever the migrant worker country of origination is. The only solution then becomes to build a wall, either literally, or by making your island more of an island, fully divorced from the EU.
Though the biggest takeaway is really that Conservatives are willing to break apart the UK, damage the economy, and destroy their party just to secure Brexit.
No they're not. They're making Britain great again. MBGA.
The only solution then becomes to build a wall, either literally, or by making your island more of an island, fully divorced from the EU.
According to this, in 2018 there were almost 350,000 immigrants from non-EU countries and just over 200,000 immigrants from EU countries. If the government wanted to it could cut immigration by almost two-thirds without even leaving the EU.
No they're not. They're making Britain great again. MBGA.
You're probably joking, but breaking up the UK and damaging the economy isn't going to make Britain great. So honestly what's the real reason those Conservative voters want Brexit so bad? Seems like they want to make Britain worse off and I wonder why (and also why whatever reasons they have don't hold up in the face of a Corbyn government).
You're probably joking, but breaking up the UK and damaging the economy isn't going to make Britain great. So honestly what's the real reason those Conservative voters want Brexit so bad? Seems like they want to make Britain worse off and I wonder why (and also why whatever reasons they have don't hold up in the face of a Corbyn government
They don't want Britain to be worse off. That's not their motivation. They want autonomy. It's sort of like how I'd vote that you not have the right to come in my yard to cut my lawn, trim my bushes, and make sure my house looks in order all on your dime. It's my house damn it.
They don't want Britain to be worse off. That's not their motivation. They want autonomy. It's sort of like how I'd vote that you not have the right to come in my yard to cut my lawn, trim my bushes, and make sure my house looks in order all on your dime. It's my house damn it.
So they want autonomy even if it means breaking up the union and damaging the economy? But they don't want autonomy if it means a Corbyn-led government?
According to this, in 2018 there were almost 350,000 immigrants from non-EU countries and just over 200,000 immigrants from EU countries. If the government wanted to it could cut immigration by almost two-thirds without even leaving the EU.
I don't know enough about it, but I'm assuming there are limitations to how much Britain can limit emigration from EU countries into Britain and that imposes upon Britain self-rule.
So they want autonomy even if it means breaking up the union and damaging the economy? But they don't want autonomy if it means a Corbyn-led government?
Just seems like bullshit to me.
They must think Corbyn is the boogey man.
Let me take a poll of you:
Would you rather: (A) A Trump led Britain with no Brexit, (B) a Corbyn led government with Brexit?
I don't know enough about it, but I'm assuming there are limitations to how much Britain can limit emigration from EU countries into Britain and that imposes upon Britain self-rule.
But not a limit on control over immigration from non-EU countries, and yet there's more immigration from non-EU countries, so if immigration is a problem then we can cut it by up to two-thirds without having to leave the EU by limiting immigration from non-EU countries.
Would you rather: (A) A Trump led Britain with no Brexit, (B) a Corbyn led government with Brexit?
Probably Trump with no Brexit.
Although the situation is slightly different when asking me about it because the reasons I have for opposing Brexit, e.g. the threat to the NHS, are also reasons I might have for opposing Trump, and if what Trump would do to the NHS is worse than what a Corbyn-led Brexit would do to the NHS then it would be consistent with my motivation to favour a Corbyn-led Brexit.
Whereas if your reason for being in favour of Brexit is that you believe that the democratically-elected Parliament of the UK should be autonomous then it would be inconsistent to then favour shared-rule with Brussels over an autonomous democratically-elected Parliament with Corbyn as Prime Minister.
Which makes me wonder what they think Corbyn will do to the UK if they're willing to damage the economy and break up the union to ensure Brexit but not willing to let Corbyn be Prime Minister to ensure Brexit.
But not a limit on control over immigration from non-EU countries, and yet there's more immigration from non-EU countries, so if immigration is a problem then we can cut it by up to two-thirds without having to leave the EU by limiting immigration from non-EU countries.
Sure, but the non-EU immigrates are the immigrants Britain has chosen to allow in but the EU immigrants are the ones foisted upon them. They want to choose who they let in and who they don't.Quoting Michael
Whereas if your reason for being in favour of Brexit is that you believe that the democratically-elected Parliament of the UK should be autonomous then it would be inconsistent to then favour shared-rule with Brussels over an autonomous democratically-elected Parliament with Corbyn as Prime Minister.
I think the Corbyn objectors are similar to your objections to Trump, which is that they think Corbyn will damage something particularly central to their ideology that is greater than their desire for an autonomous Britain. Just like you'd rather have Brexit if it meant Trump coming in and doing significant damage to the NHS, I think the Corbyn objectors would rather have Brussels controlling certain aspects of the British economy than to Corbyn doing the various damage they expect he will. Quoting Michael
Which makes me wonder what they think Corbyn will do to the UK if they're willing to damage the economy and break up the union to ensure Brexit but not willing to let Corbyn be Prime Minister to ensure Brexit.
He's a socialist. That might make me giving up some autonomy to avoid that. In the US, I'd likely accept a socialist President over control by Brussels because a socialist president would just result in gridlock and an American socialist is equivalent to a European conservative.
Reply to Michael Hi, I've been away for a while, what better way to get back into the forum than venting some Brexit frustration. "They"(the erg) are stuck in the 1960/70's, and seem to view Britain as if it needs saving again, like when Maggie "saved" us. To them Corbyn is a Marxist who will turn Britain into Venezuela, alongside the threat of a European super state controlled by the Germans, which we will inexorably become sucked into. They have pretty much seen their dreams of Britain once again independent on the high seas, with the world as its oyster, fade into impossibilities. And so in desperation to save us at the last minute, they will commit Harikari, and take the rest of us down with them.
"Britain will survive either way. That many on both sides couch it and so binary and end of Britain if the wrong choice is made isn't helping anybody."
I'm not here to help anyone, I'm here to discuss politics.
By the way, do you think Scotland will leave UK if there is a no deal Brexit? I'm listening to an interesting discussion on LBC about this at the moment.
Reply to Punshhh My Christmas wish for the last two years has been - Brexit is abandoned, Trump is impeached. Both votes were unmitigated disasters, but my wish doesn't look remotely like coming true. It even looks like Johnson is going to be Britain's version of Trump. Heaven forbid. :cry:
Reply to Wayfarer Hi there, I share your pain. I'm listening to a great radio pundit on a phone in radio show, who has been asking for sometime, for someone to ring in and point about a benefit of leaving the EU and none has been forthcoming, a few people have tried, but it turns out they have been mislead and haven't questioned the assertion they have been sold.
Theresa May is speaking in Scotland right now warning of the split up of the Union in the case of a no deal Brexit. While having spent the last three years ignoring any Scottish representatives, and telling them to shut up and get lost. The hypocrisy.
Reply to Benkei Yes, it is available online, or on Global Player app. Just google LBC UK. The pundit is James Obrian, 10.00-1.00 UK times Monday to Friday. He is a philosopher, so cuts the crap quite well.
Reply to Punshhh Thanks. Unfortunately, or maybe I'm just stupid, I can't find an option to find the whole show from this morning. Am I not looking closely enough or is it really not there?
Reply to Benkei Sorry for the delay, I listen on DAB radio, so don't know how it works online. Essentially the majority of callers on that programme thought it quite likely that Scotland would leave the union with a no deal Brexit. The bit about Gibraltar was scary.
The show should be good this morning following the leadership debate last night
I'm a Dual Citizen British and Swiss so I have an escape plan if need be. Having said that I don't like what the EU is becoming, while I agree with the basis of an EU (a body to help with European trade), it has become a power hungry entity (it feels like a cult now with their behavior). It is very undemocratic with not just the lack of proper elections by the EU population but also with the idea of different nationals ruling each other. It would make sense that a German EU politician would do things that are in Germany's favour.
So I am attracted to Brexit as it not only provides sovereignty but also we can create trade agreements that best suit us, an EU trade takes many years and is filled with far too many regulations. Now with Brexit we could create the perfect trade agreements.
As to the commitments we made, I think they were made with the mindset that we would commit ourselves to the EU, now we have decided to leave those commitments are no longer valid. While I agree this is unfair it is also the danger of a Union, it is always possible that members could leave so in that case its just one of the disadvantages a Union has. If I go to work 9-5 I have to accept that im possibly going to eventually get really bored of it.
But what matters is the result, could it damage our quality of life in the long run or only short? This is impossible to predict as Brexit does provide a lot of opportunities to improve our economy. However the EU might want to punish us by introducing all kinds of tariffs and make trade between us as difficult as possible, the reason I believe this is because they want to set an example so no other nation leaves. But we all know that these interior fear tactics shorten an empires stability.
I dont want anyone to get hurt, even though I dislike the EU, I hope we can trade with them positively and share a great growth of prosperity. Politics has become very hateful recently and that type of attitude needs to stop, just because you disagree with Brexit doesn't mean you should hope the UK economy fails as I have heard so many say.
Boris Johnson, to whom lying comes as easily as breathing, is on the verge of becoming prime minister. He faces the most complex and intractable political crisis to affect Britain since 1945.
That should be concerning enough. But given Britain’s political system — which relies for its maintenance on the character and disposition of the prime minister — it carries even graver import. Mr. Johnson, whose laziness is proverbial and opportunism legendary, is a man well-practiced in deceit, a pander willing to tickle the prejudices of his audience for easy gain. His personal life is incontinent, his public record inconsequential.
And his premiership could bring about the end of Britain itself.
"Britain will survive either way. That many on both sides couch it and so binary and end of Britain if the wrong choice is made isn't helping anybody."
I'm not here to help anyone, I'm here to discuss politics.
I meant in the poltical sense. I don't think it helps the debate, the discussion of political outcomes, the weighing of options, the understanding the situation when either say predicts the end of the UK if they do or don't Brexit.
when either say predicts the end of the UK if they do or don't Brexit
The sceptered isle of Britain won't sink into the sea on the basis of Brexit. But the United Kingdom could come apart and not be the UK anymore. Scotland, part of the UK for 300 years, could sever its union. So could Wales (probably won't). Northern Ireland--god only knows. So, theoretically, Brexit could scuttle the United Kingdom.
England will probably remain England. Maybe Cornwall will decide to reclaim itself. Maybe SE England will shed the poorer northern portions. Maybe London will become a city-state. Or maybe London will get swamped by rising ocean levels.
Scotland, part of the UK for 300 years, could sever its union.
Not likely. Those Pseudo-English don't have the stomach to get independent. Heck, their pro-independence politicians don't have the guts to make Scotland independent. And the English are so nice after all.
I'd say this is more of a trick of the media to get us following the media-circus around the issue.
I meant in the poltical sense. I don't think it helps the debate, the discussion of political outcomes, the weighing of options, the understanding the situation when either say predicts the end of the UK if they do or don't Brexit.
There's no denying that Brexit would damage the union. Scotland was clearly against Brexit. And the SNP - the party for an independent Scotland - have maintained control over most of Scotland for a number of years now. You don't know how future events will unfold, or to what extent they could effect the union. Dismissing the possibility of a breakup of the United Kingdom, as we know it, would be just as bad as rashly predicting it.
And there's nothing more annoying then someone who comments that we'll survive either way. Survival? Jeez, you're setting the bar real high. We'll be economically worse off in a Brexit scenario, and especially a No-Deal Brexit scenario, but hey, at least we'll still be alive!
And there's nothing more annoying then someone who comments that we'll survive either way. Survival?
I wasn't setting the bar. I was saying what I said, which was that the continued catastrophic predictions from both sides about something so incredibly complicated, especially in the long run, is not helping. I don't think people know as much as they claim about the consequences, yet there are so many experts, speaking with great certainty about a really quite unique situation. And there seems to be no difference between long and short term predictions and neither side will admit any possible differences or that there may be positive points on the other side. I see this pattern, as a Yank, in a wide range of issues over here also. No one can admit any point for the other team's position or even that there might be something positive there. Everything is clear and no one on 'my team' has motives other than the stated ones. No concerns on the other side are valid because the other team is, say, globalaists or racists. Or that any position they have might not be so cut and dry. And this affects how the other side is viewed: as stupid, evil and/or crazy. It's actually pretty common on the internet in philosophy forums for that matter - though this one is a bit better - where concessions around even small points are avoided at all costs. It seems to be the Zeitgeist. To think in binary terms and to demonize. To me that ain't working so well. I'd like to set that bar higher. And oddly that brings out sarcasm in others.
Reply to Coben The ones scaremongering tend to be those with a thinly veiled political agenda, such as the Lib Dems, the SNP, and the Brexit Party. That's to be expected. But it seems rather wasted to expend energy criticising these extreme positions when there are more credible arguments for or against to be addressed. Sure, as with the referendum campaigns, there are going to be incredible claims, like the notorious £350m claim and the World War 3 claim. These can simply be dismissed as not worthy of serious debate. But regarding predictions, one thing's for sure: there's a consensus among experts that Brexit will be economically disadvantageous.
But regarding predictions, one thing's for sure: there's a consensus among experts that Brexit will be economically disadvantageous.
Well, an economic downturn can happen in the fall too.
In the end, it's not a big hassle that you need a visa for a longer stay in the UK or when the queue line is different in the airport. Or books you buy online from a British bookstore etc. will be more expensive as the customs duties get added. Going to the UK will be like going to the US (and vice versa), which isn't such a huge deal in the end.
So what is the likelihood that a hard 'no-deal' Brexit will simply be a nonevent when it happens? Rather likely I'll say. The media still will milk the issue dry.
How the UK economy develops is more dependent on how the Global economy goes, but likely there will be an urge to blame / praise Brexit depending on the political stance of the commentator. So if the economy doesn't collapse, Boris will praise the decision and so on. Hardly anyone will admit the obvious that Brexit IS NOT the most important thing that decides if the UK will be in a recession or not. Nope, with or without Brexit, it's a globalized World.
I meant in the poltical sense. I don't think it helps the debate, the discussion of political outcomes, the weighing of options, the understanding the situation when either say predicts the end of the UK if they do or don't Brexit.
I don't really understand what you're saying. The Hard Brexiters (our government), say that we have a great future, one in which we are set free of the shackles of over regulation and protectionism. They point out that we will be free to make our own trade deals ( ye haa! )
Deleted UserAugust 01, 2019 at 06:04#3120980 likes
I don't really understand what you're saying. The Hard Brexiters (our government), say that we have a great future, one in which we are set free of the shackles of over regulation and protectionism. They point out that we will be free to make our own trade deals ( ye haa! )
I was saying that those on either side who argue that it is the end of things if what they want does not happen are not helping the debate or the discussions. I think they don't know this will be the case, in either the short or the long term. They are speculating,and wildly, but presenting it is as if it is a clear and obvious rational conclusion.
How the UK economy develops is more dependent on how the Global economy goes, but likely there will be an urge to blame / praise Brexit depending on the political stance of the commentator. So if the economy doesn't collapse, Boris will praise the decision and so on. Hardly anyone will admit the obvious that Brexit IS NOT the most important thing that decides if the UK will be in a recession or not. Nope, with or without Brexit, it's a globalized World.
This was my opinion shortly after the referendum result ( although the leave narrative at that time was one in which we would have the "exact same benefits" etc). However as time has gone by the magnitude of what it means to leave the EU has started to become evident.
This morning Johnson has been saying that there will be lots of support for all the farmers, small and medium sized businesses, drug supplies, even heavy industry, I expect the next thing he's going to say is that he will prop up/ bribe the car plants, who are all saying they will move to Southern Europe(where there is a large desperate workforce, just waiting to pick up the pieces) following a no deal Brexit. All this while spending all the money that has been planned for to be borrowed( this morning stated at £2.1 billion) to mitigate the chaos, at the ports and for customs.
So he will have to borrow an unknown amount to do this while the £ is plummeting, our credit rating is down graded, our international reputation is trashed, no one who we are expecting to agree trade deals with will trust a word we say, especially with our current administration, which, if you listen to the media has lost touch with reality. Just listen to the words coming out of Johnson's mouth.
Reply to Coben [qoute]
I was saying that those on either side who argue that it is the end of things if what they want does not happen are not helping the debate or the discussions. I think they don't know this will be the case, in either the short or the long term. They are speculating,and wildly, but presenting it is as if it is a clear and obvious rational conclusion. [/quote]
Oh, I see, thanks for clarifying. Yes, I agree. The problem from where I'm standing is that the majority of the electorate who voted and will vote if there is another referendum don't ever find out what the real issues are, what reality will be like. All they hear is the popularised slogans on each side.
I follow the media quite closely and I'm struggling to get down to the facts and realities. A case in point is the BBC, the one news organisation one can rely on. Or so I thought, but they rarely point out the implications of the events they report on, they just give a simplified gloss of the events of the day. They do have some more indeapth analysis, but you have to watch news night, or politics live to get it, which the majority of the population don't do.
I am beginning to have doubts about their impartiality, or at least their editorial decisions. They appear to be falling for the anti Corbyn, anti labour rhetoric and giving to much credence to the hard right dogma. While relentlessly attempting to analyse the minutiae of the internal politics of the Labour Party and continuously failing to call out the Tory bluster about the political psycho drama and undemocratic power struggles within the Tory party and with their corporate supporters.
Deleted UserAugust 01, 2019 at 07:08#3121050 likes
Oh, I see, thanks for clarifying. Yes, I agree. The problem from where I'm standing is that the majority of the electorate who voted and will vote if there is another referendum don't ever find out what the real issues are, what reality will be like. All they hear is the popularised slogans on each side.
I'm primarily a Yank (though also a Brit) so the above sounds to me like, well, politics. I mean, when is it not so. The difference is a huge decision made via direct democracy rather then representational. I can think of other decisions made via representational democracy, in Britain and the US, where similar descriptions fit. In fact it is the norm. Which is not to say one should not complain about it, but to my eyes and ears it is the rule and not a recent phenomenon.Quoting Punshhh
I am beginning to have doubts about their impartiality, or at least their editorial decisions. They appear to be falling for the anti Corbyn, anti labour rhetoric and giving to much credence to the hard right dogma. While relentlessly attempting to analyse the minutiae of the internal politics of the Labour Party and continuously failing to call out the Tory bluster about the political psycho drama and undemocratic power struggles within the Tory party and with their corporate supporters.
My guess is if there was a hard right candidate, they would be biased against him. I think there is a kind of radical center and anything that does not follow that line has any potential fault highlighted and often things that even that radical center would agree with glossed over, put in the footnotes so to speak. I could see this with Trump - who I do not like, just so that's clear, but who did actually have some good ideas, but these were treated as insanity or absolutely ignored, because he was not to be President. And whatever sympathy I might have with that particular goal, that ain't journalism. And that pattern takes place when you are dealing with much more interesting individuals and groups. They also get marginalized and mistreated by much of the media.
In fact this pattern, a kind of radically rejecting things not well understood, or that seem threatening, or might give someone or something a positive light and they 'should' not have it, the my paradigm is right and anything not fitting that paradigm must be treated like the immune system treats any intruder I find endemic and pernicious. My frustration with it online is ready to undermine all participation.
People just won't play fair when it comes to anything they have ego/paradigmatic stake in, which now seems to be everything. Politics, ontology, interpersonal relations, psychology. I find few people willing to concede anything, willing to say things like 'nice point, I still disagree, but I need to come back when I am sure why I disagree' or even willing to actually respond to specific points. There are jihads in the strangest places, including people advocating science.
I am surprised I am still surprised by this, given how this has frustrated me and no doubt many others, including many of those who I think do this, but, well, there are always parts of oneself that are slow to learn.
(and I am sure I have engaged in this type of thing myself.)
And you needn't respond to (or even read, too late) my rant. It's off topic. It just occurred to me and I found a way to articulate it which was, heh, beneficial to me.
Reply to Coben Well said. I have been surprised for years now how polarised the US electorate is. While I thought politics was more fluid in the UK. Now we are equally, if not more so, polarised and it is quite a surprise. I realise that the split had been developing beneath the surface for years, but I thought the EU scepticism was in a minority amongst the hard right and a little amongst the hard left. What surprised many was a large group of traditionally working class labour voters in the north who voted leave and a strong leave vote in agricultural areas ( who will suffer most from leaving).
Unfortunately this has resulted in the hard right seizing power, so we're in for a rollercoaster ride now.
Well said, I have been surprised for years now how polarised the US electorate is. While I thought politics was more fluid in the UK. Now we are equally, if not more so, polarised and it is quite a surprise. I realise that the split had been developing beneath the surface for years, but I thought the EU scepticism was in a minority amongst the hard right and a little amongst the hard left. What surprised many was a large group of traditionally working class labour voters in the north who voted leave and a strong leave vote in agricultural areas ( who will suffer most from leaving).
Unfortunately this has resulted in the hard right seizing power, so we're in for a rollercoaster ride now.
I'm a benficiary of the EU, in that it let me move fast to a third country from the US. I have to say I have long term concerns about it. I don't feel well read enough to demonstrate the validity of my fears. But I do think that larger entities, in the long run, are more subject to control by the private sector. And the governments are less connected to the people on the street. I feel this is the case with the USA, which can be seen as having similarities to the EU in that there is semi-independent smaller parts with their own laws,then there are federal laws that overlap, supercede or cover other areas.
I think the issue often gets couched as nationalistic or not. But in practical terms we are dealing with a small nation or a batch of small nations and the formation of a large nation. The latter nation will have specific values and goals. So, it is not as if wanting the EU is simply wanting a neutral non-nation thing.
I do get the ideas here. The huge wars. The increasing the economic power of members through group negotiation and more. I do get the idea of being a more unified center for certain values and something to offset the massive power and influence of the US and potentially a USSR again and China.
I just have a feeling that the EU will end up being a corporate entity. This doesn't mean smaller nations are immune to this. Nor do I think the current powers and policies of the EU make this easy for the corporations to manage, yet. But I think that is why they - the corpoations in general - are so, so pro EU. Any centralization of power, allows centralization of influence and control. And degrees of separation between representatives and the represented allow more sweeping disconnected changes.
None of my concerns are easy to demosntrate in terms of probability. I just note that they are not even considered. I remember when the State I lived in began to make noises about seceding - and not for racist or other reasons. Jus the sense, held by some, that it could represent the people's own needs better. This was treated as a kind of sin/sign of retardation. It would necessarily economically collapse. I doubt it. I think people in Canada and other parts of the US would find it fascinating there was a little nation there, an ally of course, and Tourism would have increased radically. Not that I could prove this, but i was skeptical about all the doomsayers - this would not have been the same as Brexit, I do not conflate the two. I think smaller governments can be more fair since they are known to their neighbors. More interconnected. It was also treated as not sharing values such as democracy. IOW the idea fell under so many guns that were extremely certain. Me, I think in the long run it would be better to evolve into smaller countries. I don't think we can think at the levels of megacountries.
Is now the right time? I don't know.
Were the motives of the Brexiters like mine? Not on the surface.
But remember people often justify their beliefs and reaction and emotions after the fact.
I don't think the working class is wrong that the elites don't really give a shit about them. That there is something off going on at a systematic level and that the EU in the long run likely will not have their interests at heart and will be, perhaps, even harder to influence.
Now my reactions are coming in part from the fact that the media where I am paints anyone wanting Brexit as per se stupid and evil. That message gets put through over and over. Nothing grey in it. No possible points of concern about the EU. Nothing. It is black and white, good versus evil, intelligence versus the fucking stupid manipulated proletariat.
That does not play well with me.
I remember when the country I now live in was going to swithc to the EURO. The government lost the referendum and immediately started to try to set up another one, democracy be damned. It was a drop in the bucket of controversy compared to Brexit, but the same patterns. TElling people they were stupidd and stuck in the past. Dire warnings about catastrophy predictions - in fact, it protected the country several times not having the Euro.
I distrust the powers that be have the same ideals as the people who voted against Brexit. IOW I am not sure that the very good values that most pro-EU brits have are actually what the goals of the designers and players involved in the EU have. I can't demonstrate this. I am not sure where the EU will go. But finding myself bombarded with the pro EU in all media with not the slightest possible future problem or disadvantage or concern, I find myself saying things like I did above.
And heck, I don't think demonizing the opposition is helping at all as a strategy. People just dig in their heels more. Adn you get the populist political groups gaining ground.
So project fear was in fact reality?': readers on no-deal Brexit funding
Readers have been reacting to the government’s £2.1bn funding boost for no-deal Brexit preparations
Funny how the old magic money tree * can cough up some dosh if required. But of course there is no chance of money for social provision. Instead we can be proud that we are a society with food banks where Tory MPs can take selfies.
In the distant pre-unicorn days I remember when George Osborne talked about an emergency budget necessitated by Brexit it was lambasted as project fear. But now it’s “planning”. pipini
"Theresa May has come under fire for telling nurses “there is no magic money tree” to increase their pay as living costs continue to rise.
The Prime Minister was responding to a member of the audience at an election special of BBC Question Time, who asked: “My wage slips from 2009 reflect exactly what I'm earning today. How can that be fair, in the light of the job that we do?“
The moderator, David Dimbleby, asked whether the Prime Minister could “sleep happily”, adding: ”Do you think it is fair that the nurses get just a 1% increase year in, year out, regardless of inflation, so they get poorer, so some of them we're told go to food banks?”
Reply to Coben Thanks for your thoughts, its interesting to hear insight from someone outside the UK. I sympathise with your concerns. Where I differ in my analysis is that I don't see the EU becoming a corporate entity, in the short term at least. I see how this is an issue in the US and I can see how corporate interests would move in on the touted trade deal with the US. Also I realised that the Ttip negotiations hinged around corporate access into the EU from the US. In my view the EU has quite good social democrat values and processes and it cannot be overstated that the Union was an important remedy to thousands of years of conflict between different regions within Europe.
The issue of "ever closer union" is a different matter and is at the heart of the crisis in the UK. I should stress that I see a deep existential crisis within the UK. This was a surprise to the EU and has been realised and spoken about by Michel Barnier, the EU chief negotiator. Leading to them bending over backwards to accommodate the UK and their flexibility in granting extensions, while the Conservatives fight amongst themselves.
As I see it the issue in this crisis is the love hate relationship between the UK and other parts of Europe which has been ongoing for thousands of years. The dichotomy between the concept of us being in Europe, or out of Europe is a conundrum occupying the thoughts of British people repeatedly over this period, without a resolution. So periodically we are revisited with crises hinging on this point.
On this ocassion it appears to have manifested inside the Conservative party, which is tearing itself apart and may soon implode, while visiting considerable flack on the population at large.
Reply to Coben Doesn’t it at all concern you that Brexit is what Putin wants? Hmm. I suppose Putin and the common people of the UK could have interests in common by accident and for different reasons... Never thought of it that way actually. You say the EU would be another step removed from the people they are supposed to represent, so that would be bad for the common folk. Putin doesn’t want a strong and united Europe for a couple of reasons, probably because they are his historical enemies, but also maybe because they won’t then need Russia for trade as much? I don’t know. That would be a common goal by coincidence, the common people of the UK and Putin. I don’t know. That sounds like a bit of a stretch to me that the corporate media is solely trying to line its pockets by hoodwinking the commoners who have a common goal as Putin?? Hmm. Maybe? Perhaps the corporate media isn’t all evil? In the US, there is MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News. Fox News is the corporate media and so is MSNBC, but they don’t see the world from the same lens. Fox News is pro-Trump while MSNBC is anti-Trump. Where is the conspiracy there? Both are corporate enterprises, so where is the conspiracy? Does the UK have a pro-Brexit network and an anti-Brexit network, too? I’d be interested to know.
Deleted UserAugust 02, 2019 at 13:03#3124230 likes
You say the EU would be another step removed from the people they are supposed to represent, so that would be bad for the common folk.
Yes, if that was the only factor, it would be a bad move to stay in the EU. It is however a complicated situation, extremely. I do think that the closer the electorate is to the representatives, the better the chances they will actually be represented, other factors being equal. I also think that centralized distant governments are more easily control by industry and potentially also military/intelligence players.Quoting Noah Te Stroete
Putin doesn’t want a strong and united Europe for a couple of reasons, probably because they are his historical enemies, but also maybe because they won’t then need Russia for trade as much?
There's Nato and there's the EU, both forms of European unification, the former tying it in with the US. I am sure Putin for purely practical reasons - perhaps some negative, some neutral, some simply taking care of his country's and his own interest - would see benefits in being able to negotiate with, engage in dimplomacy with and barter with a diverse group instead of a block. I would guess he is also concerned about US hawks and how they want to use Europe.Quoting Noah Te Stroete
That sounds like a bit of a stretch to me that the corporate media is solely trying to line its pockets by hoodwinking the commoners who have a common goal as Putin??
I haven't asserted that, nor do I think it. That's another extremely complicated set of causes and motives. I don't however think that most of the conservative and many of the labor players want EU because of farmers and working class people. They have steadily increased the gap between the rich and the poor through their polices going back to Thatcher. IOW all their talk about caring about migrants and caring about the state of the working class sounds like BS to me. They are pro EU for other reasons. Yes, some of these might trickle down to benefit those classes, but that's not their motivation. Does this mean that Brexit is right? No, but the fog of BS is huge and I understand why the working classes did not see the positions for EU as for them.Quoting Noah Te Stroete
Perhaps the corporate media isn’t all evil?
I think very little of it is evil. Like sitting around rubbing their hands with glee evil movie villain. I am sure that when they repeat the views the neo cons want them to have, the neo cons, as one example, have found a way to make it seem obvious (whatever the particular issue is) and those reporters, editors and owners to a great degree think they have the right editorial opinions, have investigated the right things, have taken facts to support their articles and so on. I would think very, very few journalists and editors thought the Bush Admin was making shit up about Hussein's WOMD to get both the US and Britain into Iraq. I am sure that a number deep down didn't really care, but even these still bought the ideas because it was comfy for them. There are so many reasons why even good people can end up supporting bad ideas, not doing due diligence, decided not to air their doubts. This is especially true when one would be damned as crazy, evil, hating your country, moronic for doing so.Quoting Noah Te Stroete
Fox News is pro-Trump while MSNBC is anti-Trump
Fox News was anti-trump before he was elected. I see you're right about where they are now. Sure, there have always been differing views, though anyone outside of the democrats and republican views, in the US will be marginalized and pathologized. No journalist could point out that the US is an oligharcy. No candidate who has not kissed Wall St. ass has come in the White house in, what 40 years. Obama made noises, but the moment he got in he put people in his cabinet who would toe the Wall st. line. And at the best time to push back in recent history on Wall St. Clinton, a theoretical liberal slashed social services, allowed a bill that radically increased the number of poor and black people brought up on drug charges and freed Wall st and banks in precisely the ways that led to the 2008 collapse. Fox news also needs to compete with other networks that are mainly staffed with liberals. If all stations are attacking trump, Fox news, which is branded as different, loses a lot of that difference. Further Trump - who I will repeat, I do not like at all - hasn't really done many of the things he promises. He is not or was not allowed to be the candidate that even freaked out the Republicans. He did end up intervening in Syria, despite long saying he would not play that game. He is still not really getting a wall - which by the way Clinton and Obama added to. Many his policies have been blocked by congress and the courts. He sure has made a lot of noise and said a lot of things that conservatives have bitten their tongues over. Fox news knows who hates him most. They have a brand and target audience to work with.Quoting Noah Te Stroete
Where is the conspiracy there?
I may have missed it but I didn't say there was a conspiracy. Not in any gett he main players together have a sit down and decide. People are actually much more easily led by people with power than to need their being in on whatever changes those in power want to make.
But let's go back to Putin. The US has entered militarily, well, I don't know how many nations in the years since 9/11, and left behind it a wake of not quite functioning countries. It has been screaming about Iran and Syria and just as the neo-cons announced in the years prior to 9/11, it has wanted to get into these two countries, along with the others it already has. Putin is a typical strong man dictator type. He's no one I want to be ruling my country. That said, I think he has good reason to be concerned about what the US is planning and just because the US is the cavalry of democracy and goodness, butrut because they are the most actively violence destabilizing country these days and they definitely have long term eyes on Russia and China. Of course Putin would like to see diversity in the Allies - in the Allies of the US. The better the chance that whatever polices and military movies, and destabilization moves are made using the US by the neocons, might meet criticism by US allies. Of course Britain, via Blair, a neocon in labor clothing, hopped right into Iraq. Putin would be a fool to think he has any guarantees of independent thought. But the more potentially separate voices and actors, the better off Russia is. That's just practical. Does this mean he cares about British workers? nah? Does it mean that it might be of benefit to both? Sure. And it certainly might be a benifit to poor young men in the US who will be the main cannon fodder, as they have been since ww2, the next time the US puts people on the ground somewhere at the behest of Wall St. and the Oil industry.
Reply to Coben
You give a very nuanced analysis. It SEEMS like it could be a good model of reality, so I don’t know how I would disagree. Anyway, there is too much there to respond to each point, but like I said, it seems like what you say might be true. Much of it speculates on motives, but what you describe as potential motives may very well be the true motives of the parties in power. That said, we’ve enjoyed a relatively long stretch of relative peace since WWII, so there’s that to be said for the powers that be, and I think free trade is a good means of helping to ensure peace, at least among nations states when it comes to hot wars. All of what I’ve said can be argued against, as its not very nuanced, and my simplistic explanations may just be what the neocons want us to believe. I would add that institutions aren’t inherently bad, but there are always selfish actors.
Deleted UserAugust 03, 2019 at 17:03#3127280 likes
You give a very nuanced analysis. It SEEMS like it could be a good model of reality,
I appreciate that reaction since we tend to think differently about it. And I certainly don't claim to know. Those are my concerns.Quoting Noah Te Stroete
Anyway, there is too much there to respond to each point
Of course. I realized after the enormous post that this could be a tactic, just swamp other people with too much to respond to. I wrote it mainly to work out where my own reactions were coming from, and to at least make it seem not completely irrational to someone with differing views.
I agree with what you say in the rest.
My guess is that in 2 years, we will still have a bit of a muddle knowing what is happening, what caused what and who is benefiting and losing and what this means about the long run.
There are so many reasons why even good people can end up supporting bad ideas, not doing due diligence,
In the US these days it has a lot to do with the near death of investigative reporting and taking news releases from the government (not inherently bad but run by neo-cons for the most part as you said) as news itself.
Deleted UserAugust 03, 2019 at 19:45#3127720 likes
In the US these days it has a lot to do with the near death of investigative reporting and taking news releases from the government (not inherently bad but run by neo-cons for the most part as you said) as news itself.
Exactly. No need for any conspiracy. The merging of huge media companies, the reduction of money for positions and investigation, the entertainment-izing of news, and dependency not just on government but also on private industry releases for news. And the background desperation for advertising is also problematic. It leads to conservative approaches to challenging the private sector especially if there is the threat of lawsuits which would almost always be the case if the reputation of the company was in question.
Question to the UK members: was the prospect of a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic, and the consequent risk of a return of the Troubles, highlighted in the referendum campaign as a likely consequence of leaving?
If not, surely that alone is sufficient reason to have a second vote, as it would be reasonable to assume that many people were not aware of that very significant consequence when they cast their first vote.
Sorry I missed this. In my recollection this was not mentioned at all during the campaign. And I agree with Michael, that the risk of the Good Friday agreement failing is sufficient reason to revoke article 50 and return to the decision to leave after a public debate.
We have an interesting twist developing at the moment. At a meeting of representatives of the EU 27 yesterday, it was stated that there is currently no basis for any talks with the UK and that the EU is working on the assumption that there will now be no deal.
While back at home Boris appears to have boxed himself in. He cannot negotiate with the EU, because they will not agree to what he wants, I don't think he knows what he wants and he hasn't announced it. He would come back from the EU with egg on his face and be judged weak by his party, which would resume the implosion of the party, which he's only just managing to hold together.
He can't adopt no deal as the official policy of the government because Parliament would bring the government down. Which would also resume the implosion of the party and could bring in a party of national unity before 31st October. So he just blusters on claiming that he wants a deal, while not meeting or approaching the EU, or the leaders of our European neighbours. Something which is, by the way, highly disrespectful to neighbourly relations.
He has to string us along as far as possible so that he can instigate a general election less that 5 weeks before 31st October( a general election takes a minimum of 5 weeks). As an alternative to pirogueing parliament(which he can't do now, as Dominic Grieve would take him to court at that point). So that there is no government on 31st October and we leave the EU by default.
Oh and of course, the EU would be to blame with their "undemocratic backstop".
This is how he saves the Conservative party from oblivion, because there would then be no need for the Brexit party.
Are there any leavers out there who want to point out how this is not putting party before country and a perversion of democracy?
I'm not a betting man, but if I were, I would bet that this won't be true, that's his leadership and/or government is going to fall before that date.
I'd agree, from the commentary yesterday it looks like he won't get that far and parliament will seize power during September.
So the no confidence vote will be at the beginning of September, parliament will then have 14 days to find a leader who can command a majority in the house. Johnson is powerless to prevent this and can't advise the Queen(as he doesn't have the confidence of the house). If this fails parliament can command Johnson to request a further extension from the EU for a general election. Which he must do or the Queen would be likely to sack him and form another government against his will.
Thank God for the Queen, I wonder who is giving her advice at this time? I'm not sure the Privy council can be relied upon to be untainted at this point?
Reply to Punshhh It’s looking very dicey to me also. I think Johnson is manifestly incompetent, all this kind of ‘can-do’ bluster is completely baseless. 'Chin up chaps, over the top!' Ridiculous. I notice that Dominic Raab is bullshitting about how leaving without an agreement will be the EU’s fault because they wouldn’t compromise. What bollocks.
I too think the Royal Family might end up with a pivotal role in what happens, as the last thing they will countenance is the fracturing of the United Kingdom, which is a real possibility. I'm sure if Britain leaves without an agreement there'll be another Scottish independence vote.
The thing is, I do wonder if there were an election called, how it could feasibly amount to a vote on Brexit. I mean, I don't think Labor is going to campaign on Remain, are they? Because unless the general election lances the boil one way or another, then it will just continue to be a stalemate.
I think the whole thing is a terrible pickle, a real predicament. Although part of me wants to see Britain leave without an agreement and sink into depression, because then the Yes vote will really, for the first time, grasp what it has wrought.
I notice that Dominic Raab is bullshitting about how leaving without an agreement will be the EU’s fault because they wouldn’t compromise. What bollocks.
Yeah, pretty sure May’s agreement is the compromise. What the government want is for the EU to give us more without us giving anything back.
Not only is it the compromise, it's the compromise BoJo voted for when he thought he couldn't be blamed for it by the Brextremists. Now that it's his responsibility, it's morphed into inexplicable EU intransigence. Scratch head. Michael Gove is sad. So, we're in rewrite-history-maybe-noone-will-notice bullshit land. And Michael Gove is sad. Fucking frauds.
Yeah, pretty sure May’s agreement is the compromise. What the government want is for the EU to give us more without us giving anything back.
It would be interesting to know what the "more" is, I bet the EU negotiators would like to know that too.
The trouble is if there is a no deal exit then the brexiters will have to work out what the "more" is. Because when the shit hits the fan, they'll have to sit down with the EU again and go right back to square one with the same issues to deal with, while having lost all leverage, integrity and face.
Perhaps they will find that to unpalatable and say to hell with the EU, we'll go and find other friends. Only to find no one else will want to make friends with us until they know what our relationship with the EU will be. So again they will have to go back and sit down with the EU, with even less credibility.
I can't see any hope for the Conservative party, the're dooomed. At least then we will get someone more moderate, or left wing in for a while and begin to put the country back together again after 40 years of being ravaged by Tory's.
Reply to Wayfarer I think Labour will have to campaign for remain in the general election, because otherwise a coalition of remain party's will decimate their vote. It might be to late already because a lot of voters have written Corbyn off as unreliable, because he is at heart anti EU, whilst also showing few leadership skills and a hopeless leader of the opposition.
I expect the Lib Dems will win the popular vote, but I don't know how that adds up in numbers of constituencies to win a general election. I expect that about two thirds of the people who will vote will vote for remain party's now, because it is such an unholy mess with the only sensible way out being to revoke article 50.
Reply to Baden I don't see May's deal as a compromise because the country is to polarised now. It is either total no deal exit, or revoke. Neither side would accept May's deal.
Even if May's deal is accepted, it is only a transition, the new relationship has not been worked out yet and the same issues of Northern Ireland, single market, customs union etc will still have to be solved.
I don't see May's deal as a compromise because the country is to polarised now. It is either total no deal exit, or revoke. Neither side would accept May's deal.
The deal was a compromise between Britain and the EU. The fact that Britain is internally polarised in no way negates that.
I've thought of a new mantra, harking back to the gunpowder plot. Following which the population was taught to recite the saying "Remember Remember the 5th of November", as a warning against plotters to overthrow parliament. Now, we must start saying;
Remember Remember the 1st of November.
(Johnson is considering calling an election to be held on the 1st of November.)
Reply to Baden Yes, but this was always about what the British people want. The EU have repeatedly asked what we want and they will accommodate that, what ever it is, in a way which maintains the integrity of their single market and the 4 freedoms etc.
Boris Johnson’s controversial enforcer, Dominic Cummings, an architect of Brexit and a fierce critic of Brussels, is co-owner of a farm that has received €250,000 (£235,000) in EU farming subsidies, the Observer can reveal.
...Since being appointed as Johnson’s chief adviser, Cummings has presented the battle to leave the EU as one between the people and the politicians. He positions himself as an outsider who wants to demolish elites, end the “absurd subsidies” paid out by the EU and liberate the UK from its arcane rules and regulations.
An Observer analysis of Land Registry documents and EU subsidy databases reveals that a farm in Durham, which Cummings jointly owns with his parents and another person, has received roughly €20,000 a year for most of the last two decades.
The revelation opens Cummings up to charges of hypocrisy, as writing on his blog, he has attacked the use of agricultural subsidies “dreamed up in the 1950s and 1960s” because they “raise prices for the poor to subsidise rich farmers while damaging agriculture in Africa”.
He notoriously came up with the claim that leaving the EU would allow the UK to spend an extra £350m a week on the NHS. His blog clarified the claim, explaining “the Treasury gross figure is slightly more than £350m of which we get back roughly half, though some of this is spent in absurd ways like subsidies for very rich landowners to do stupid things”.
The website Farmsubsidy.org, which lists EU rural subsidies, reveals that the Durham farm received almost €208,000 between 2000 and 2009, roughly €20,000 a year.
The money was paid out to Cummings’s parents and another family member for several reasons including “set aside” – the now abolished and controversial scheme that paid farmers not to grow anything. The programme has been blamed for making it harder for food producers in developing countries to compete with their European counterparts.
unenlightenedAugust 11, 2019 at 09:45#3147800 likes
Reply to Wayfarer Much as I despise the guy, it is nothing shameful. One can be in favour of tax rises and not pay the government the rise one proposes until it is implemented - one works with the systems as is and seeks reform. And the EU agricultural policy has been a notorious dog's breakfast for a long time, mainly to accommodate the result of the revolutionary law in France that property must be inherited equally by siblings, with the result that holdings became fragmented and inefficiently small over the generations.
[quote]Despite all the noise and dust, there is no majority for Brexit in the UK. In the referendum the Brexit vote was 37 per cent of the total electorate – 26 per cent of the population :gasp: – which, by the way the figures for votes cast on the day fell out, gave a 51.89 per cent “win” for Brexit. (Note that had this been the proportion of the total electorate it would still not be enough to trigger vast constitutional change in most civilised states in the world. There are scarcely anywhere a simple majority, let alone a small one, would permit this: for such a change, a supermajority would be required, of 60 per cent or 66 per cent either of votes cast or the entire electorate.)
The Lib Dems are really getting on my nerves with their anti-Corbyn hysteria. They won’t even work with him to stop No Deal?
You beat me to the punch there. I just read that in the news a moment ago. It shows that their number one priority is not in fact stopping a No Deal Brexit, in spite of all the hot air coming from the Lib Dems. If the expected no confidence vote fails, they'll shoulder a responsibility for that, and for all of the detrimental consequences which follow. :down:
unenlightenedAugust 15, 2019 at 17:19#3159800 likes
I think Jo Swindon is grand standing to get some media exposure. She claimed Corbyn had made it a precondition that he would be the caretaker PM before the coalition bring the no confidence vote. I see no evidence of this, but rather Corbyn proposing that it should be him as he is the leader of the opposition. She is going to talk with him, so I think they will work something out, and she only has a few MPs, although they are growing at the moment and I expect they would split if it came to the crunch.
It was hilarious watching Grant Shapps last night saying we can't have Corbyn leading a caretaker government because he would wreck the economy etc, when it is well known that the caretaker government would explicitly be for the one purpose of stopping no deal and calling an immediate general election. This is the standard of Tory rhetoric these days, a laughingstock.
It was hilarious watching Grant Shapps last night saying we can't have Corbyn leading a caretaker government because he would wreck the economy etc, when it is well known that the caretaker government would explicitly be for the one purpose of stopping no deal and calling an immediate general election. This is the standard of Tory rhetoric these days, a laughingstock.
Did you watch the Tory leadership debates? Some of the candidates, Jeremy Hunt in particular, seem to think that he's the literal incarnation of Lenin! You know, Jeremy Hunt: the one who wants to bring fox hunting back, halve the time limit on getting an abortion, and give big corporations a massive tax cut.
Reply to S Sickening, they just lined up and said what their aids had decided the Tory base wants, while airing their dirty Landry in public. We saw Johnson's true colour's there, he didn't answer a single question, just waffled and tried to shout down the interviewer on the ITV debate, launched a pathetic attack on Hunt in reference to the UK ambassador to the US. While ignoring any of the pressing political and government issues. His stance on Brexit faced both ways at the same time, in a vain attempt to draw the two sides of his Party together.
Literally a pantomime, great for the image of the Tory party, which is sinking like the Titanic.
Unsaid in the letter, but streaming through it like shafts of light through a broken roof, Johnson’s plan of action – doubtless guided by the arch-Brexiter svengali Dominic Cummings – is clearly to call an election and dissolve parliament as soon as the beginning of next month, with polling at some point after the existing Brexit day of 31 October.
He is gambling everything on Jeremy Corbyn’s unpopularity and a public which, at that point, will have yet to experience the full force of no-deal economic headwinds. He may even hold a pre-Brexit budget to lull the public into a false sense of security, bribing them with their own money, through a splurge of new spending promises and tax cuts funded by an increase in the national debt...
...Under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, parliament is automatically dissolved 25 days before an election, but it can be done sooner. Such an election lock would close the doors of parliament and legally push the UK over the EU exit date. So, while MPs debate a vote of no confidence and Corbyn attempts to become leader of a government of national unity, Johnson could dramatically pull the rug from underneath their feet...
...What a travesty it is that the high priests of Leave in 2016, who insisted to all of us that Brexit would mean a return to parliamentary sovereignty, are undermining and circumventing parliamentary sovereignty in order to deliver their hard Brexit.
All now depends on that same parliamentary sovereignty: MPs of all parties must summon the courage to hold an overweening executive to account and do what is right in the name of the people they are elected to represent.
'MPs of all parties must summon the courage to hold an overweening executive to account and do what is right in the name of the people they are elected to represent.'
1. Corbyn-led temporary government
Jeremy Corbyn has offered to lead a temporary government tasked with requesting a delay to Brexit from the EU, before triggering an election.
Likelihood: one in five
2. Government of national unity
Jo Swinson, the Lib Dem leader, has said Corbyn cannot command enough support to lead a temporary government. She has instead suggested a temporary government of national unity, led by a more neutral figure such as Labour’s Harriet Harman or veteran Tory Ken Clarke.
Likelihood: two in five
3. New laws blocking no deal
MPs such as Dominic Grieve, Oliver Letwin, Nick Boles and Yvette Cooper have been part of efforts to pass new legislation that orders the prime minister to request a Brexit delay to avoid no deal.
Likelihood: three in five
4. A Brexit deal is agreed
Some MPs are still holding out hope that Boris Johnson will offer them a vote on a Brexit deal based on the agreement put forward by Theresa May. For it to pass, Labour MPs opposed to a second referendum, such as Lisa Nandy, would have to back it.
Likelihood: two in five
Just as in 1914, the Brexit buildup is making calamity feel inevitable.
Even with a century of hindsight it is impossible to discern a point of no return, a junction at which all future paths, by whatever gradient or circuitous route, converged on disaster. If history doesn’t afford that view, how are we to know in real time when such a moment is close, or has been passed?...
...We are transfixed by frenzy on the stage before us: manoeuvres in anticipation of a no-confidence vote. We suppose that all possible routes are still open. Pro-Europeans must hope that there is a way back, that it is not a just a choice of gradient on the downward slide. Yet I sense fatalism creeping into formerly strident anti-Brexit voices. I glimpse shudders of dread that events are being driven not by the MPs who will vote in the coming weeks but by a critical mass of cowardice, ignorance and ideological prejudice that was reached months ago, maybe years.
Reply to Michael
Exciting times, huh.
There's a petition against this - linked in the Guardian Politics Live BTL comments.
But what good will it do.
Its text reads: “Parliament must not be prorogued or dissolved unless and until the article 50 period has been sufficiently extended or the UK’s intention to withdraw from the EU has been cancelled.”
Boris is out-Nigelling Nigel in order to neutralise the Brexit party (his biggest electoral threat) before the inevitable snap election. Fun and games for him. Not so much for the British public.
Comments (3111)
My hope is that we're able to go back and renegotiate a better deal, meaning that we won't be as worse off as we'd be under the current deal, in spite of how many times it has been said that this is the "only deal" and "the best deal possible".
But how do you think you can justify a [i]second[/I] people's vote (which [i]is[/I] what it would be)? That would undermine the first one that we had back in 2016, and betray all of those 17.4 million people who voted to leave, as well as betray the trust of all of those who were lead to believe that it was a one off, binding vote. I don't think that you [i]can[/I] justify it, and I've heard a lot of the arguments in favour of it. Besides, recent polls still suggest that most people would vote the same way that they did the last time, and you can't just keep rerunning the referendum until you get the result that you want.
Meanwhile, the Leave campaign was farmed out to a shady organization called the Tax Payer's Alliance - a rabid right wing economic policy group. Other, unofficial Leave campaigns sprang up - and used stolen facebook data to design and target false and divisive propaganda.
David Cameron lost on purpose for Remain, in coordination with the main Leave campaign. We can know this because the rhetoric employed by the official Leave campaign, was written by David Cameron in the 2005 and 2010 Conservative Party manifestos. "Take back control of our borders" etc.
The cherry atop this huge shit sundae is that the current Prime Minister was David Cameron's Home Secretary - with responsibility for immigration. She dismantled the border force, allowed 635,000 immigrants into the country in 2015, (five years after Cameron's pledge) then published those figures weeks before the vote. Then, when Cameron lost on purpose for Remain and resigned, she stepped into his shoes - without a vote by anyone.
Brexit is an ongoing criminal conspiracy against the British people by the government; these are the facts - but if you imagine you can interest any MP or media organization in bringing them to light, you'd be wrong. No-one wants to know.
You neither, huh?
Sorry, I'm not a conspiracy nut.
Nor am I. I'm a politics nut. Check my facts. David Cameron was a brexiteer who called the referendum, sabotaged the Remain position he then adopted, and lost on purpose for Remain.
I don’t. I think Article 50 should just be revoked and Brexit cancelled.
Haven’t the EU said that there’s nothing left to negotiate? Unless TM abandons her red lines, e.g an end to freedom of movement, this is the only deal on the table.
There’s been a material change of circumstances: the lies, the overspending, Cambridge Analytica, etc. have been exposed; there’s actual advice on the repercussions of leaving; and now that we know what the Leave deal is we have real information about what we’d be voting for.
Quoting S
Did the 2017 GE undermine the 2015 GE?
Quoting S
Yes it would. But that’s a price worth paying to avoid the much worse alternative, especially if May’s deal is voted down and we leave without a deal which will break the Good Friday Agreement. The reality is that the practicalities often require going back on promises, which is why manifesto pledges are rarely, if ever, all fulfilled.
1. Hard Brexit, including hard borders between UK and Europe on movement of all people and goods, including a hard border around Northern Ireland.
2. The deal that was about to be voted on by Parliament.
3. Cancel Brexit and remain in the EU.
After the first round of counting, Ballots for the least popular option would be distributed to whatever option was indicated as 2, and not counted in the second round if no option was numbered 2.
That way people that prefer Hard Brexit but would rather stay in the EU than have the current deal could have their wishes respected, as would people that prefer to cancel Brexit but, if that's not popular enough, prefer Teresa May's deal to a hard border.
So alternative vote?
It's a shame that alternative vote for General Elections was voted down in the other referendum.
There was no way in hell that the EU would offer benefits in the area of the four pillars (freedom of movement of people, capital, goods and services) that equal the benefits EU-membership has as that would result in a Europe á la carte in the long run. The impossibility to stay in the customs union was a given from day 1 and that every other EU-member state would close rank on this was obvious as well. Why the fuck give the UK access to these benefits when they have to pay for it through EU contributions? It's all so pathetically obvious that UK politics in this respect is just cringeworthy.
I hate the UK is leaving, I think they are part of Europe and the EU and despite the technocracy of the EU still believe it is more a force for good than anything else. The UK especially has always traditionally been very good at avoiding the more ridiculous financial regulations were passed due to their experience and knowledge thanks to its financial centre in London. That wisdom will be sorely missed.
Preferential voting is like having a two-round election like they have in many countries, such as the French Presidential election. Except by marking the preferences on a single ballot, you avoid all the cost and wasted time of having to conduct a second ballot, without losing any of its nuance and functionality. The elimination of less supported candidates and narrowing down to a final two happens automatically.
There must have been a lot of misinformation about for it to have been rejected in 2011. I suppose the Tories prefer first past the post because Labour and Lib Dem would direct preferences to one another, and thereby be elected much more often than at present.
:smile: :smile:
No it wouldn't. It would be a third people's vote. The first vote was in 1973, and the result was to remain. But there is always something suspect and downright paradoxical on having the people decide who are the people.
Quoting Benkei
Another folly of a referendum is that it asks an isolated question, when policies are interdependent. If you have a separate vote on, say...
1. lower taxes - yes/ no.
2. better services yes/no
3. economic stability yes/no
...You are very likely going to get three yeses. But they constitute a trilemma of which only two can be had.
So if a question is framed in terms of 'them' coming 'here', and no one mentions 'us' going 'there', and the impositions of the trade deal we have, but only the benefits of the ones we don't, the response will be contradictory, and expectations will be hopelessly unrealistic.
I suspect what would be really popular would be to end the Good Friday agreement and give N. Ireland back to the Republic. It would save 'us' a fortune (more than leaving the EU), make Brexit easy, and apart from the pesky loyalists, everyone would be happy. But 'we' don't get to vote on that, any more than the EU gets to vote on Brexit, because - well why not? Because 'they' are not the people who get to vote on who 'we' are, the first paradox of a referendum, already mentioned.
I didn't even realise it happened until much later. I was living in Thailand at the time and wasn't paying any attention to politics.
Trouble is the Establishment influence in trying to keep the UK in the EU is starting to become a little bit obvious as a hard Brexit would seriously unbalance their political seesaw system. Will enough people see through it all to change it? I doubt it.
Quoting Michael
The government of the day derives all of its legitimacy (in a political ethics sense, not a constitutional or legal sense) from parliament, and parliament derives all of its legitimacy from the people. So the decisions of government are at two removes from the source of legitimacy, and the decisions of parliament are at one remove, whereas the decision in a referendum is at zero removes from the source, and therefore has a legitimacy that the other two cannot match. It follows that the result of a referendum cannot legitimately (again, in an ethics sense) be overturned by parliament or government. So the only legitimate way for government or parliament to overturn the result of the 2016 referendum and revoke article 50 is to have another referendum.
Personally I would favour another one (I didn't vote in the last one), with everyone being told 'this time it will have to stick'. I know that sounds silly, but when your country is being run by the Keystone cops, as the UK currently is, what's an extra bit of silliness between friends (or enemies)? And if Remain wins, article 50 can be torn up, and if Leave wins again, then we can have another referendum where the choices are TM's deal or no deal, and the result of that will be implemented on 29th March. And whatever happens, the police will have to be paid overtime until the inevitable civil unrest dies down.
One thing's for sure. When the dust finally settles over this whole Brexit shambles, it'll be a long, long time before a government here in the UK lets us have another referendum.
Trouble is this Establishment v People mythology can be overlaid on the Right v Left mythology, and neither align with the leave v remain split, which is largely a concocted diversion from the real political problems which stem from the loss of power of democratic government of any flavour or territory to global economics. One can argue that the EU represents Global economic interests, or that it is sufficiently large to resist them somewhat - or, as I see it, that it is largely irrelevant either way.
To put it bluntly, the nation is no longer a fundamental unit of politics, and has become a trope of nostalgia. What is replacing national government and international relations are global corporations, and it is there that the democratic deficit need to be addressed; it is there that 'The Establishment' already resides.
Is Brexit a rightwing populist thing? Is Clinton right?
Are you saying the global capitalist system should be democratised?
According to this, for 40% controlling immigration was the most important reason.
It's pretty clear that the complexities and complications of Brexit were not foregrounded enough by the overly complacent and disparate Remain campaign. That's their fault, but added to that, the Leave campaign has been shown to have lied and cheated, and in the end only won by a slim margin. So, there's a possibility that some who voted did so on the basis of incomplete or false information, and there might be enough who realize that now and have changed their minds to call the result into question. If that is the case, a second referendum will overturn the first and reverse the decision fairly and squarely. If it's not, it won't. And far from being betrayed, those of the 17.4 million who voted to leave and now realize they made a mistake will have a chance to rectify it. Just as if you buy a product and realize it doesn't function as advertised, you generally have a right to change your mind, if you vote for a change of policy in a referendum and there's a reasonable case to be made that you voted on the basis of false or incomplete information, you should also be given a chance to change your mind. And in a free and fair referendum, which involves a chance to not change your mind too, I don't see what's unethical. So, turning the tables, what's your justification for denying those who think they have made a terrible mistake in voting for Brexit a chance to rectify it (given that those who don't think they did have every opportunity to repeat their vote)?
Quoting S
The charge that the referendum is being re-run until the result required is achieved is weak on two counts. One, if a majority continue to oppose remaining, it doesn't matter how many times the referendum is re-run, it will always fail. Two, in practice, it would be almost impossible for any government to propose a quick third referendum given both that the justifications for the second won't apply with the same force and there is no time for it. You fall (or glide if you're lucky) off the cliff at the end of next March and there can be no simple glide back on. A second referendum is justified by the stark, imminent and in many ways unexpected threat of a no-deal scenario in a way further referendums can't be. Peak information and opportunity is now.
Well just as it is not the system of nation states, but each nation that should/could be democratised, so each global corporation needs - and I'm not sure that democracy is the right word - accountability of some sort.
What I see is that the function and power of national government is migrating to corporations - security firms, infrastructure firms - G4S, Amazon, the big finance companies, energy companies, Facebook, armament companies, and so on. So what government, and whether it is the sovereign nation or the enlarged trading block ceases to matter very much, because our lives are mainly ruled by corporate powers, which at the moment find that their interests lie in fomenting division and conflict, which serves to secure their position by dividing the opposition. Democracy is a restraint on the power of government, and we need a restraint on the power of corporations now, because that's where the power is; government is no longer in charge.
Yes, they've said statements like that, and I've acknowledged that they've said statements like that. But this is politics. It suits both May's and the EU's agenda to say that. But what other options have they got? It won't get through parliament and a no deal is unthinkable on both sides of the negotiating table, again, in spite of all of the hard talk. So that leaves this as the only viable option. And I don't think that there's a chance in hell that May will opt for a second referendum whilst she still clings to power. Under Corbyn, possibly, but Labour would have to get into power first.
Anyway, I heard that May had already compromised at least some of her red lines. That's what politicians are saying in the media.
This is the nature of capitalism right?
There's always lies in any political campaign, that's to be expected, and that doesn't warrant a second referendum. There has been overspending in the past, that also doesn't warrant a second referendum, it warrants being reported and dealt with by the authorities, as in any other case, which it has been, and ditto with Cambridge Analytica.
There [i]was[/I] actual advice on the repercussions of leaving [i]before now[/I], with the government spending millions on posting leaflets to every household, economists making predictions, and politicians and others being all over TV and in the papers talking about the repercussions of Brexit almost nonstop for the last couple of years. Have you been living under a rock?
This being a representative democracy, now that the withdrawal agreement has been published, it was to be put to the houses of parliament to have a meaningful vote and final say. And that is still due to go ahead, whatever May brings back. She can't delay the inevitable.
You have no right to be complacent. The people wanted a direct say, and our representatives were generous enough to grant the people their wish with a referendum, and with the caution that whatever the people chose, both major parties would commit to honouring the result. The people voted to leave.
Now, just because it hasn't gone your way, you want to do the dishonourable thing and reverse all of that, despite the repercussions. And you're scraping the bottom of the barrel for excuses, just like the SNP who were agitating for a second referendum on independence so soon after losing it. Well, no, sorry, but that's not how it works, or how it ought to work. Don't be a sore loser. You lost fair and square. If you want someone to blame, then blame David Cameron. He bears responsibility for much of this mess.
Quoting Michael
Yes, it did in a sense, but that's on Theresa May for going back on her word and calling a snap general election. From a nonpartisan perspective, I don't generally condone politicians strongly and publicly committing to a course of action, only to u-turn on it later, except in exceptional circumstances. That's why politicians have such a bad reputation, and that's not a good thing.
Quoting Michael
I don't think that we'll leave without a deal, as that's widely considered on all sides to be a worst case scenario. As things stand, May's deal would have almost inevitably been voted down. That's why she had to delay the vote. And that's why she now has to renegotiate a better deal. That's the best option available without betraying the vote to leave. And betraying the vote to leave would do serious damage to the health of our political system and to society. It's not a price worth paying, unless perhaps it triggers a revolution and we end up with a much better system. After a soft Brexit, we won't have it as good as we have it now, but neither will it be the end of the world. We'll set up new trade arrangements and still be a prosperous nation in relatively good health. We will recover.
That seems like a very remote possibility at this stage. But maybe if there's a major fuck up, it could happen. May has acknowledged the possibility of there being no Brexit, but seemingly more as a warning and as a tactic. And Corbyn has made mention of all options being on the table, but more as a last resort, and, of course, he is in opposition, not government.
Who started Brexit? What was their expected benefit?
This isn’t a game. It’s not about winning and losing. There are very real and very serious consequences to leaving that weren’t apparent during the referendum and that certainly couldn’t have been known before the terms of leaving were actually negotiated.
For some people this really is a life or death issue. There’s talk of staff shortages for the NHS and a negative effect on the medical supply chain, at least in the case of a no deal exit.
Sure, and if the choice were made to stay, there'd be people arguing that they didn't realize what staying really meant. That's the thing about decisions. You are stuck with the information you have when you decide.Quoting Michael
Nobody's going to die. In the US, we don't even have an NHS and everyone, regardless of income, figures out how to get care. You really need to get off the idea that the government is as necessary as it is. That's a very European viewpoint of yours.
My assessment from thousands of miles of way is that the decision to leave was ideological and wasn't based upon a review of the pros and cons of leaving versus staying. It's for that reason that I really don't think any of your data points would be very persuasive to someone in favor of leaving. It's about autonomy, self-governance, self-reliance, and a general view that Brits believe they know what's best for Brits better than anyone else. The opposition will interpret all that as racism and xenophobia I'm sure though.
Don't you think I know that? That wasn't my meaning. But the metaphor is apt when you think about this in terms of virtue ethics. Virtue ethics has an important place in politics. If you can't be trusted to play with honour, then that will have detrimental consequences for the game, for players, for supporters, for society. And, when you think about the fact that this has widely been considered to be the biggest political event since the second world war, and when you think about the fact that the referendum brought about the largest turnout for a long time, I can tell you, society would be deeply divided, far more than it is now and than it has been in a long time, and the backlash would be fierce.
Quoting Michael
In the case of a no deal exit...
And what if your favoured course of action caused serious riots? We've had them here before not all that long ago, and they've been going on in France the last several weeks. People lose their lives, people get injured, cars get set on fire, windows get smashed, projectiles get thrown, tear gas, rubber bullets, violence and mayhem.
Remember, 17.4 million people voted to leave. That'd be a huge number of angry citizens feeling betrayed by their government.
There could be, but if so, it should only contain options about what kind of Brexit you want, because Remain lost, and that ought to actually mean something.
"We'll honour this referendum, we promise". [I]Loses referendum[/I]. "Scratch that, we're having another referendum, but this time, we'll honour it, promise ". And what if this second referendum were lost? "Come on, guys, let's give it another shot, eh? Third time's a charm!".
And what if this second referendum [i]wasn't[/I] lost? "Oh, never mind that first referendum that we lost, that didn't really count, but this second referendum that we've won, [i]that's[/I] the one that counts".
I would lose trust in the government. I would actually consider voting to leave in protest.
I'm not trying to persuade them. I'm saying that there is justification for holding a second referendum.
And also that Brexit should just be cancelled without bothering with a second referendum.
It isn’t about private or public healthcare. It’s about the UK’s supply chain being tied to us being a member of the single market, given that we don’t manufacture all the drugs. It takes significant time to establish new trade agreements and work out the new logistics of getting stuff into the country.
Like I'm saying though, if the justification of those who wanted to leave is that they simply believe in the concept of home rule and autonomy, then your justification holds no weight for them. People who believe in self-rule are not going to be convinced that there will be major failures when they begin to self rule.Quoting Michael
I agree with S on this one. You can't defy the democracy, as if you know better for them. The loss of public support for the legitimacy of the system is a bigger loss than simply pulling the plug on the latest economic idea.
It’s justified even if they aren’t convinced that it is.
Quoting Hanover
I’d wager that the consequences of a no deal Brexit are worse than the consequences of cancelling Brexit.
I expect diligence on the part of your leaders as well as allowances on the part of other European nations in making sure people don't die of curable diseases. I'm not saying Brexit doesn't matter as I'm sure it will have economic consequences, but I truly think that your concerns that there will a real lack of basic goods and services is alarmist.
It's largely tactical, I suspect. I think alternative voting systems threaten the pattern of governments alternating between Labour and Conservative, or threaten to decrease the Labour-Conservative share of seats, and most people, being either Labour or Conservative, therefore have an incentive to preserve the status quo. It comes as no surprise that most of the smaller parties, like the Lib Dems, Greens, and UKIP have supported alternative voting systems, whereas the two major parties seem content enough with the current system. First past the post, over the last decade, has helped prevent UKIP candidates from gaining seats, which I consider a positive.
Yes, I was aware of that. Although the result was to join, not to remain. Back then "remain" would've had a different meaning. But the reason I didn't include [i]that[/I] people's vote is because it was forty-five years ago, as opposed to just two years ago. I'd be much more sympathetic to a people's vote if it was to occur in forty-five years time since the last one.
Quoting unenlightened
Yeah, let's just casually risk reigniting the tensions behind The Troubles. :brow:
Dream on. That'll never work. The world is too big a place, with multiple conflicting interests. There will always be a great number of those who would oppose unification and prevent it from happening. And if it became corrupt, it would be harder to topple. That actually makes me think of The Empire in Star Wars.
The main thing we'd need to get over is people wanting to control others. We'd need people to be comfortable with letter others do their own (consensual) things
So, we'd need people to stop acting like people? You're wading into sci-fi territory here. What do you propose? Forcibly inserting a chip into people's brains? The Clockwork Orange method? Eugenics, as per a Brave New World?
Plebiscites aren't won or lost. They choose between options. Since all three options in my proposal above are clear, concrete and possible without agreement from outside parties, it would be political suicide for a government to not implement the result, whatever it was.
This contrasts strictly with the 2016 plebiscite, which was purely aspirational, with no concrete options on the table, and no knowledge of what the consequences of the 'leave' option would be, since they would require agreement from the EU. It's like having a plebiscite question 'would you like to have lower tax', when there's no specification of what services would be cut, and which ones, or whether the fiscal deficit would be allowed to increase instead.
For a plebiscite to be credible it needs to have concrete options that can be implemented without requiring consent from extra-territorial parties.
Look at how bills are turned into acts in parliament. They are not voted or even formally debated until a bill is presented that spells out ALL the details.
BTW I use the term plebiscite here because referendums actually change the law directly, whereas plebiscites are an indication of preference, on which the government is expected to act. In Australia we have both referenda (on things like conscription and banning the communist party - both lost) and plebiscites (recently on marriage equality). My understanding is that the UK has no provision for referenda in its constitution, so only plebiscites are possible.
No, they are either won are lost in the right context. Are you just going to ignore the context, or background, here? We've already had a referendum, and there were two sides: Leave and Remain. Leave won, Remain lost. It's either disingenuous or some sort of pedantry to deny that there are winners and losers here, as in any referendum or election.
Now, the hypothetical scenario of which I spoke was spoken of in terms indicating that it was addressing the Remain side, i.e. the losers, and it raised the valid concern about what the implications would be if the Remain side won a second time around; meaning, going by your options, the third option to cancel Brexit and remain a member of the EU.
Quoting andrewk
It was political suicide for the Lib Dems under Nick Clegg to go back on their word to scrap university tuition fees. The pledge to scrap university tuition fees didn't have the support of anything close to 17.4 million people. So don't be so hasty in supposing that doing anything other than honouring the result of the referendum - by which I mean the one that we actually had back in June of 2016, in which the clear result was to leave the EU, not the as yet purely hypothetical second referendum - would be damaging, if not political suicide. And advocating a second referendum hasn't exactly revived the fortunes of the Lib Dems.
Quoting andrewk
Yes, the option to leave does indeed umbrella into a variety of other options, but one thing's for sure, remaining in the EU isn't one of them. Since the UK voted to leave, and therefore not remain in the EU, then the option to remain in the EU has no rightful place being on that ballot, as it completely goes against the will of the people, as expressed by the majority who voted to leave in the referendum. It would be utterly wrong of you or anyone else to risk undoing or invalidating that result. What do you think gives you that right? The people have spoken, and it's the duty of the government, as representatives of the people, to honour the result, as they have committed to doing. And if those in charge have a backbone, then they'll do just that, or risk being punished by the electorate.
Quoting andrewk
I've got nothing against that. By all means, let's have more details, let's have a vote on the various options, the various ways of leaving, but let's not risk undoing and rendering meaningless the 2016 referendum, of which a great number of people turned out to vote, and in which a great number of people are invested, by including the option to remain in the EU, the option that lost out two years ago. We ought to move forward, and move forward without taking two steps back with each step forward.
"Although the result was to join, not to remain"
Sorry but that is wrong, we were taken into the EEC in 1973 by the then Conservative govt under the leadership of PM Edward Heath, (without a referendum)
In 1975 the first referendum was whether to remain in the EEC.
Okay, I stand corrected. (I probably should have checked before commenting).
I understand that you think it would be utterly wrong. I am not convinced of your arguments for that.
My position is that the question asked in the plebiscite was inappropriate for a binding vote. The solution is to have a vote with options that are appropriate for a binding vote. That means options that clearly outline what would happen in each case, not just some airy-fairy magic word like 'leave'.
Australia had a plebiscite about becoming a republic in 1999. In opinion polls a large majority of respondents responded 'Yes' to the question 'Do you want Australia to become a republic'. But that question is inappropriate for a binding vote, because there are many different types of republic one could become. Quite rightly, the PM at the time insisted on the vote being on a specific concrete option. Quite wrongly - IMHO - he chose an option that he knew would be unpalatable to most republicans - essentially 'republic lite', like 'Brexit lite'. Quite rightly (IMHO again) the voters rejected that, even though most would say they wanted a republic.
A truly fair process would have been to have an optional preferential vote ('AV' for Poms) that listed the various models:
1. No change
2. Directly elected President
3. President elected by majority of both houses of parliament
4. President appointed by a committee that is appointed by parliament [the option that was put forward in the actual plebiscite]
But the PM was a devout monarchist so he didn't want to do that, as a republican option (either 2 or 3) would almost certainly have won.
But I still do agree with him that it would have been inappropriate to put the question 'Do you want a republic' to a referendum. And that's despite me being a staunch republican who still occasionally mourns that lost opportunity 19 years ago.
Pretty spot on, I'd say. The phrase often bandied around is "taking back control". Of our borders, our laws, our agriculture, our fisheries, our ability to strike trade deals with nations outside of the European Union. Even though the evidence suggests that we'll be economically worse off, which is a biggie for me.
But then, there very likely is a saturation of herpa derps who voted leave because dey derrrk our jerrbs!! Especially the ukippers.
That wouldn't have been such an issue, in my opinion, if the government and the official leave campaign, had (1) been better prepared, and (2) been more transparent. Although, admittedly, I do think that they were quite clear on [i]some[/I] of the key points about what a leave vote would entail - and no, I don't mean the idiotic sound bites, such as "leave means means" and "a red, white, and blue Brexit" - such as leaving the customs union and the single market, as well as regaining control of our borders.
Anyway, I'm glad that you didn't become a republic. I'm quite fond of the monarchy and commonwealth.
For the most part, yes.
Will the British manage immigration differently after Brexit?
Is it not ultimately the responsibility of voters to do their own research before such an important vote, and to make up their own mind? Is it not the responsibility of voters to have heeded the warning that the referendum will be treated as binding, and that there'll be no going back? It was said by David Cameron often enough. That's the equivalent of it being made clear to you that there are no refunds for this particular product that you've purchased, but then you go back and demand a refund anyway. Yes, at the campaign stage, both campaigns could have - and ideally should have - been clearer, more honest, more balanced, and so on... but honestly, what did we expect? We know that politicians lie and twist the truth, we know that they have an agenda to push. Are we really so naive as to believe anything different? We've made our bed, now we have to lie in it.
Quoting Baden
That's problematic because (1) on principle, why should it be rerun in the first place? And (2) it's still a risk.
Quoting Baden
I don't actually believe that there [i]would[/I] be a second, third, fourth, fifth, and so on, until the desired outcome is achieved. That's not really the point. It's a hypothetical designed to get the point across about a loss of trust. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
I expect so, yes. More so under the Tories. Theresa May has said that the focus will be on high-skilled workers.
That's kind of saddening: that we respond to the burden of taking care of our neighbors by turning into rightwing populists. Or maybe it's just that rightwing populist movement is a sign that the stress of immigration is becoming too high?
I find it more worrying than saddening. And I really don't see much of a problem with immigration, to be honest. Why would I? It's a net benefit, economically. Who cares about "integration"? Okay, so your neighbour speaks a foreign language, dresses differently, and so on: how is that a problem for you? Mind your own damn business. If you struggle to get work or find a school placement, then try looking inwards, or at what the goverment is doing, instead of scapegoating immigrants. If the alleged stress of immigration you speak of is the "stress on the system" that people talk about, then just take look at who keeps our beloved NHS running, or again, at what our government is doing, or not doing. Or, if the alleged stress of immigration you speak of is psychological in nature, then perhaps check yourself into our beloved NHS and get your head checked.
My take on it is that it probably has something to do with an anti-establishment sentiment, a feeling of not being listened to, with charismatic, outspoken mavericks striking a chord, and with the exploitation of fears and prejudices.
I think it's a total cock-up. Cameron miscalculated disastrously calling it, but now the genie is out of the bottle. I'm really hoping the net result of the current schemozzle is that there is a second vote and Remain wins by a decent margin. The worst case is a no-deal exit which many say will cause a deep recession.
As for Theresa May - I think she has done the only thing she was able to do, which is, negotiate a deal. The Brexiteers never would have even deigned to negotiate. Personally I think she should have held the vote, resigned, and said, 'Here, Boris, you look after it'. Talk about a poisoned chalice.
Anyway, my wishes for 2019 are that Brexit is abandoned (and that Trump is impeached). The results of both those votes have been and will continue to be unmitigated disaster for the world.
Hi Evil. I don't think I have the heart for this debate any more. Who knows, maybe I'll muster the energy to gather up my tatty old opinions for another try, but maybe not.
There's a dual responsibility on voters and on the campaigns providing voters with information. That is, respectively, to do a reasonably thorough job of searching for information and to do a reasonably honest job of providing information. Even if the voters carry out their responsibility fully, if the campaign is found not to have (as the Leave campaign has) and particularly if the vote was won narrowly (as it was) then the result is called into question. And if the result is called into question, the most straightforward and fair way to resolve the question is to repeat the referendum.
Quoting S
Saying "Tough luck" isn't a moral argument. The public may not be entitled to expect full honesty from politicians, but they are at least entitled to expect that neither campaign break the law, which the Leave campaign did.
https://www.euractiv.com/section/uk-europe/news/leave-campaign-broke-law-in-brexit-vote-uk-elections-regulator-finds/
Analogously, if someone advertising a product as non-refundable breaks the law in terms of the information it provides concerning the product, that condition becomes moot and they may be forced to give a refund regardless. Similar rules apply to contract law. That a company writes in a service contract that the second you sign it there's no going back doesn't matter if there is a legally binding cooling-off period written into law. And I expect if you were duped through illegal methods into buying something that turned out to have been falsely advertised and you were no longer satisfied with it, you'd feel you had the high moral ground in demanding a refund regardless of the conditions under which you bought it. And the law would rightly back you up.
All this is to say that considering the conditions under which this particular referendum took place and the close result thereafter, there is no ethical justification for denying those who voted to leave on the basis of false information and an illegally conducted campaign the opportunity to rectify their mistake.
Quoting S
Yes, millions of voters were fooled once by the Leave campaign into voting for something they didn't really want, and they shouldn't now be fooled into thinking there's anything wrong with being allowed to have another say. Thankfully, polls show they're not being so fooled with a plurality now supporting a people's vote. And no-one with a democratic bone in their body should deny them one.
https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/three-point-three-million-leave-voters-support-peoples-vote-says-new-poll-1-5719471
https://www.businessinsider.com/yougov-poll-peoples-vote-second-referendum-brexit-fears-grow-over-a-no-deal-brexit-2018-8?r=US&IR=T
Trying to maneuver people who very conspicuously don't want to control others into positions of social influence.
I don't know. There are pros and cons. I like the idea of self-determination in the form of a referendum put to the electorate of a nation on certain important issues, like the Scottish independence referendum and the Falkland Islands sovereignty referendum, so long as a sufficient length of time has passed since the last one on the same issue. But on the other hand, I wish that we had never had the EU referendum. Although, if enough people would've demanded it, then I think that the government would've been duty bound to offer one.
Quoting Bitter Crank
I think that David Cameron was the main culprit, despite the part that others had to play in it, like Nigel Farage. He was the Prime Minister, after all. Before the referendum took place, he expected to negotiate worthwhile reforms from the EU and quell the rabble rousers within his own party, but that failed, and it left many people with feelings of disappointment and frustration that the reforms didn't go far enough. He then tried in vein to spin his agreed reforms as a great success, but very few were buying it. Then he expected to win the campaign he lead to remain, secure our membership to the EU for the foreseeable future, put the matter to rest for some time, and go some way to healing the divisions in his party. That backfired quite spectacularly, and he resigned shortly afterwards, leaving others to pick up the pieces. Thanks Dave!
Yes, every time I'm tempted to show my contempt for the US, and the President it chose, I remember we chose to teach the world a lesson :worry: by walking away from the most favourable membership-position in the biggest economic power block on the planet. :fear:
If we're not to choose him again in 2020 the Democrats had better start getting their act together pretty soon and come up with some viable candidates, people who don't already have a mound of controversy in their past, people who aren't 80 years old or whatever already, and people who have some charisma, with an ability to appeal to some of the people who would otherwise vote for Trump.
But that's comparing an unpopular worst case scenario of Brexit to cancelling Brexit. I'd wager that the consequences of a soft Brexit which meets most people's expectations [i]wouldn't[/I] be worse than the consequences of cancelling that kind of Brexit.
I am hopeful that those doing the negotiating will be sensible enough to do their best to avoid that worst case scenario. But if that risk reaches a point where it seriously looks like it's going to become a reality, then yes, I think that cancelling Brexit should be an option on the table, as I doubt that there's a majority, whether of the people or in parliament, for a no deal Brexit.
So Beto.
I don't know enough about him, really. What would you blame for him being defeated by Cruz last month?
He ran in Texas.
Well, if he can't beat Trump in any of the traditionally conservative states, doesn't that make him score low in the "ability to appeal to some of the people who would otherwise vote for Trump" metric?
There hasn't been a Democrat Senator in Texas since 1993. Cruz won it in 2012 by 16pp, but only beat Beto by 2.6pp. That's a big swing. I don't know how much of that is down to Beto being Beto, but he probably appealed to a lot of people who usually vote Republican.
If he can pull that off in the swing states that Trump won then he can beat Trump.
So maybe there's some hope for that, then.
But think about the metrics that Trump scored low in. Women and minorities constitute a very significant portion of the electorate. And he had little hope of winning them over in big numbers. Yet he still won. I think the Democrats need someone who can stand out and match or supersede the momentum behind Trump, even if it might cost them swing votes.
Yes, but equally straightforward is the observation that the majority you refer to is quite a small one, so the people who voted against are not many fewer than those who voted for. That is the problem: the split is more or less even, in the country and across the government. The original referendum should have had a 66% or 75% threshold for change, given the seriousness of the decision being made. That was Cameron's crime against the British people: not putting that threshold in place. But now, given the mess he's left us all in, there's no fixing it, that I can see.
If it was possible, I would re-run the original referendum, with a 66% threshold, allowing 15+ year-olds to vote, and disallowing anyone over 70, who will not be around to suffer the consequences (or reap the benefits). But that can't happen, if only because of Cameron's failure to ensure a threshold in the first vote.
Can anyone see a way out of this catastrophic mess?
Do you honestly think there's any sort of Brexit that would command a majority of the British people? I don't, and I think that's why we're in such a serious mess. There is IMO no solution that "meets most people's expectations". [ Unless "most" is meant to mean just-barely-over 50%.] :fear:
It seems slight in percentage, but in actual numbers, over 1.2 million (source) more people voted to leave. And that seems more significant to me.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
I wouldn't rerun the referendum, but I wouldn't have minded if the referendum that we had, had've been run under similar conditions to what you propose. A 66% - 75% threshold seems too high to be fair, though. If the results were 60-40, for example, then that would look like a fair win to me. But it's too late for that now.
YouGov did an interesting poll where considering Remain, Leave (no deal) and Leave (May's deal) as options, Remain wins on any head to head, but May's deal wins on a three-way alternative vote. I suppose because most Remainers and most Leave no-dealers would favour just about anything over each other's respective positions. Something like a soft Brexit is probably the fairest option then as it allows Leavers to give their coveted up-yours to Johnny Foreigner while only shooting themselves (and everyone else) in the foot rather than in the head.
And she will be replaced by [ insert the name of a suitable candidate here]? :chin:
But that seems like an inconsistent and opportunistic position, as you aren't piping up about other elections or referenda which succumbed to similar faults being rendered invalid and needing to be rerun or compensated in some kind of way, are you? How are you not guilty of a double standard? To be consistent, this would mean that we've had quite a few invalid general elections. What are we to do about that, then?
Quoting Baden
It is, actually. It's just phrased in a straight talking manner. For example, if you're found guilty of murder, then you're going to prison. If you don't like that, tough luck! You should've thought about that before committing a serious crime. Agree or disagree?
Quoting Baden
Yes, I know, I haven't ever disputed that. But that has been dealt with, or is being dealt with, appropriately in the usual manner in which these things are dealt. Your proposed way of dealing with it stands out as unusual, and opportunistic. It lacks precedent. We have authorities and a legal system to deal with matters such as this. People like you, on the other hand, are exploiting this for a political agenda.
Quoting Baden
Yes, it should be dealt with by the relevant authorities in accordance with the law. And it has, or is. But no judge has ruled that the referendum be declared invalid and be rerun. And they probably aren't going to. It's the politicians, journalists, TV personalities, activists, and people like you who are calling out for another referendum.
Quoting Baden
There is, and I've made the case for rejecting calls for a second referendum here in this discussion.
Quoting Baden
Tell that to most of the 17.4 million people who voted to leave, and would do so again, as numerous polls indicate, yet who are strongly against a second referendum being held because it risks undoing the results of a referendum which we were promised over and again would be upheld. You suggest rectifying lies by creating more lies? I don't think so. It has been accepted that we're leaving for two years now. The goverment has been working towards making that happen all of this time. You Remoaners really ought to stop making excuses to change the past and accept the situation for what it is. The situation isn't great, but we're locked into it, lest we face the double whammy of betraying the people and damaging the credibility of our political system. Something extraordinary needs to take place to warrant undoing that, and that [i]could[/I] take the form of an impending and unwanted no deal scenario, which would be quite disastrous.
That's an odd charge. The topic of this conversation is Brexit, which is why that's the focus of my posts. I'm not under any obligation in order to maintain consistency to research and comment on other referenda that were closely fought and narrowly won through illegal means (and I don't know of any off-hand). Which were you referring to? Name one.
Quoting S
Off-topic but feel free to name them, so I at least have a chance to respond.
Quoting S
It isn't a moral argument in the context in which you applied it, which didn't involve any crime or immoral act on the part of those who you aimed the comment at.
Quoting S
The issue is what an ethical response would be and that's what I was explicating. So again, you're filling your posts with irrelevancies. It doesn't matter what political viewpoint I take or whether it appears opportunistic to you. The argument that a referendum that may have been won by cheating should be repeated so as not to deny those cheated a chance to change their minds stands on its own merits.
Quoting S
Nor have they ruled that it can't be. Which is why we're having this discussion.
Quoting S
An extremely weak case from which when you extract all the irrelevancies and accusations concerning the motives of your opposition still boils down to nothing more than "tough luck".
Quoting S
Those who are strongly against a new referendum are strongly against it because they might lose one that's run fairly and without illegality or cheating. Again, a very weak position morally.
Quoting S
"Most" does not equal "The vast majority" btw. And if a significant number wouldn't vote the same way, which polls do show (see my last post), why should they be denied that opportunity? Oh I know, "tough luck" because murderers have to go to prison. You're going to have to do better than that.
Quoting S
No (and I have no idea where you got that from. Where did I suggest we "create" more lies?). I suggest an unfair referendum where one side conducted their campaign dishonestly and illegally (in part) be rectified with a fair referendum where both sides conduct their campaigns honestly and legally.
Quoting S
I suspect this continuing pattern of irrelevancy and emoting is indicative of the lack of moral substance to your position.
Oh no, I don't think so. I'm not much of a diplomat. If I was in charge, anyone who owned more than £5m would have the balance removed; income tax would be abolished and moved onto resource-consumption, business and commerce (from where it would return to the common people via retail pricing); Brexit would be cancelled; the national anthem will be replaced by "21st century schizoid man", and so on. I suspect the British people wouldn't like/want me, despite the good I would do....
I rather think we here in the United Kingdom have a long-established tradition of our governments betraying us, whereby our political system long ago lost its integrity and credibility.
But, irrespective of my answer to that question, the fact of the matter is that Leave won the referendum. So we're not starting from scratch here. [U]As things stand[/u], Remain is no longer a viable option. So it wouldn't be the various kinds of Brexit vs. Remain - which would split the Leave vote whilst keeping intact the Remain vote, meaning that Remain would probably win. It would be the various kinds of Brexit vs. each other, and for that, I can confidently predict that a no deal Brexit would lose. There would be a majority in favour of some sort of deal being struck.
That's what I'm arguing on the basis of, the possibility of a no-deal scenario. May's deal does not have parliament's support and there is no deal B both according to her and to Europe. If May's deal had been passed, we wouldn't be having this conversation as there would be nothing left to talk about. So...
You got my vote.
It's not completely lost. The damage can manifest itself in terms of low turnouts, protest votes, protests, and in extreme cases, riots. If the system is already in poor health, let's not make it worse if it can be avoided.
In other words, the Brexits won. Game over. Stop bitching at the refs to achieve in the courtroom what you couldn't achieve on the playing field. These efforts of yours at fairness are really just efforts to force through a minority position that you think is obviously right despite it being less popular. Go back to the gym, work harder, and get them next time.
If the UK's exit from the EU turns catastrophic, they'll just reenter later. It's not like the EU nations are unforgiving. The real concern is if the UK thrives, how long will Germany hang in there and carry its poorer neighbors? No one here has actually contemplated the possibility that the good citizens of the UK might have made the right call here.
None of this has to be litigated in a courtroom any more than it has been. Leave has been found guilty of cheating and the government doesn't have to ask a court's permission for a new referendum. What we're arguing over is whether a new referendum would be ethical given the circumstances of the last. (As for the bitching/gym workout/sore loser part, I've had that from Sap already and it still doesn't an argument make. Whether I'm a disgruntled remain voter (which I'm not, I'm not even British) or an objective outside observer or whatever in-between makes no difference here).
Quoting Hanover
Economically, they haven't. According to every study done. For very obvious reasons. The only practical gain here is for those who want less immigration. And the implication that Germany is carrying its poorer neighbours (in the sense of losing money due to being in a club with them) and looking to the UK's example as a possibility to follow is just ridiculous. Germany as the world's third biggest exporter needs easily-accessible markets for its goods. The Euros it pays in to develop and grow these local markets are more than paid back by the increasing purchasing power of the poorer countries it's "carrying". That's why it's been so pro-European all this time. Not because it doesn't know what it's doing, but because, unlike the UK, it does. And exit from the EU would be even more devastating for it than for Britain.
I'd hoped for an answer to the question, not tired propaganda. :confused: The problem now, today, is that there is no solution that will satisfy enough of us for it to be considered acceptable. Do you dispute this?
And I say it's unethical to demand a new vote because you lost pretty much fair and square. Nothing's perfect of course. I'm less troubled by misstatements and misrepresentations during the campaign than I am cheating during the process (like stuffing the ballot box or blocking votes). Voting is a free for all, and everyone has to exercise their due diligence in deciding how to vote. That's what democracy is. Quoting Baden
Which brings up the point of why the Irish were allowed to Irisexit from the UK when it's fairly obvious that it cost them economically, yet we all know that economics should always be the primary driver in determining whether a nation seeks sovereignty, right? I think Ireland's doing ok now, but I don't know if anyone is left. Quoting Baden
This is sort of the karmic theory of economics where when you help out your neighbors, fairness rains from the heavens and everyone does well. What actually is happening is that the Euro is undervalued compared to what a single nation deutschmark would be and that has allowed Germany to increase its exports and profit handsomely . https://economicquestions.org/germany-unfair-trade-advantages/ The argument isn't that Germany has propped up its weaker neighbors and thereby permitted them to become worthy customers now enjoying previously unforeseen wealth, but it is that Germany is unfairly benefiting from a relatively weak Euro and making less competitive nations even less competitive.
That's what I have gleaned from my good 20 minute Google investment into European economic theory at least.
Except it wasn't fair and square. Leave criminally cheated. I think I mentioned that several times.
Quoting Hanover
Wtf?
Quoting Hanover
Wtf?
Quoting Hanover
At least you're no longer claiming Germany would benefit from leaving the EU, which is progress I suppose. Maybe next try Googling "Ireland" +"History" + "Colonisation" + "For dummies" or some variation thereof.
(If all this is not sufficiently patronising btw, please let me know. I'm only in first gear here.)
I wonder what makes you think that? I am old enough to remember when DeGaulle blocked the UK application to join the EEC as then was for many years, and having lived in France, I think the sentiment there will be fairly unforgiving, as the UK has not been an enthusiastic supporter of the project, but typically the awkward one, demanding special arrangements and exemptions. If I was the EU, it'd be a cold day in hell before I let the UK back in.
There are allegations that Leave broke rules regarding the spending cap, but it's also clear that Remain spent more than Leave and benefited from a government funded leaflet supporting their cause. https://www.economist.com/britain/2018/03/27/did-vote-leave-cheat-to-win-the-brexit-referendum. As I've said, I'm not terribly worried about such violations because at the end of the day the will of the people was presented. Had votes been thrown away or people voted twice, then I'd care. I also have a general problem with funding caps because it violates my First Amendment sensibilities. Democracy, voting, free speech, and free press, in their purest and finest forms, are shouting matches. Quoting Baden
My references to Ireland's exit was only to make the point that the value of autonomy goes far beyond economic gain. That is, even if it could be shown unequivocally that the UK will suffer economically from leaving, that's likely not going to matter to the Leave movement because their decision was not driven by economic pragmatics. If the US could form a special economic alliance with Germany, for example, that would most likely lead to greater economic prosperity, but it would also grant greater power to Berlin in deciding American economic policy, there'd be a 0% chance it'd be accepted by America. It feels very much like that is what is going on in the UK right now, and for that reason I think all these economic doom arguments miss the point. Leave isn't basing their decision on the economy alone, which shouldn't be surprising. Most nations are motivated by a sense of kinship, mutual values, history, and all sorts of other things that demand self-governance. I also think that those who wish to stay will portray Leave's desire to protect the special substance that is Britain as being xenophobic and racist, and that will only strengthen Leave's resolve. I know how this ends. Trump gets elected.
I'd like to think we still have an ideologically principled and spiteful Europe that hands out vindictive punishments that damages its own self interests. It sounds very old school American, and I would gain much respect for France if it told the UK to fuck off for having left the party in the first place and they can't just come back now because they've gotten all lonely. My thinking is that newfangled Europe has lost its fangs, but maybe I'm wrong.
Sure, but it's not as you said, which was that Germany had economically propped up poorer European nations and that created an overall more prosperous Europe. What appears to be happening is that the single currency is allowing Germany to dominate the poorer nations and greatly increase its exports. You were arguing that the EU helped Germany because kumbaya principles were at play. It seems like something more sophisticated and manipulative is at play.
1. complex problems are reduced to yes/no options (and if you don't know, vote no)
2. it is not realistic to expect regular people to make informed decisions, or as informed as representatives in parliament
3. you can't suggest amendments or improvements to either option
4. considering the complexity behind the actual question, how is "the will of the people" to be interpreted?
Especially on no. 4 there's an extensive discussion. Some say the will of the people needs to be respected. But was a leave vote one against immigration? For sovereignty? Against the EU? Fishing rights? Against the then current UK government? For UKIP? etc. etc.
In my view the outcome AND the fact there were lies and people were badly informed are immaterial as the referendum should be totally ignored in light of the fact nobody knows what the fuck the question meant when they voted and nobody knows what it was that the voters voted for or against.
If you really want to have a referendum that means something, you ask the following question: "What's your biggest worry that you think the government should solve?"
Tired propaganda?! What are you on about? I answered your question, it just obviously went over your head. The answer to your last question was yes, I do honestly think that there is a sort of Brexit that would command a majority of the British people, and that would be a Brexit whereby we strike a deal with the EU instead of leaving without one. But beyond that, what your question is getting at would be trickier to answer, as it will depend on [i]what kind of deal[/I] the majority would accept and whether it can be successfully negotiated.
And to answer your new question - and I do hope that you pay closer attention this time - yes, I do dispute your claim that there is no solution that will satisfy enough of us for it to be considered acceptable, and I dispute it on the basis that neither you nor anyone else can know that, we can only make predictions.
A solution that would be acceptable to 75% of us would be a good start, 90% would be better. With a sizeable majority, the minority who lost can see that their beliefs are not shared by everyone, and are willing to accept our society's overall course. But 52-48, if it is still that? It isn't enough to support a solution that is generally accepted by us all. And this is my point.
This argument still rages because we cannot seem to reach any kind of consensus. As long as that continues, we are stuffed. And I can't see a solution with any promise of acceptance by more than the tiniest of majorities (e.g. 52-48 = 4%). Can you? :chin:
Please bear in mind that, in the fateful referendum, 17.4m voted Leave, 16.1m voted Remain and 12.9m chose not to exercise their vote. This is a very balanced thing, not a decisive victory. If it was (decisive), we wouldn't have a problem.
Odd then that the Leave campaign focused so much—in what turned out to be a very effective lie—on the money that was spent on the EU and how that could be saved and given to the health service.
Quoting Hanover
No-one said they were. My point on the economy would be that Leave seriously misled people about the negative ramifications of leaving. And this does matter to a significant number of Leave voters, which is illustrated by the poll numbers (see my post above) which show millions of them now changing their minds (potentially enough to reverse the referendum result if it's rerun) and utter panic among politicians as Britain faces economic chaos in a no-deal scenario (which is now the most likely Brexit outcome with May's deal having been rejected and the EU refusing further negotiations).
So obviously, some Leave voters based their decision more on economic issues and others more on issues of immigration and others on some fuzzy notion of not wanting to be run by EU bureaucrats. I'm not disputing there's a mix.
Quoting Hanover
Britain has been in the European club since the 1970s; it didn't suddenly become less special on joining and it won't suddenly become more special on leaving. What it will become, according to every analysis, is weaker politically and economically. But then I suppose it depends what you mean by "special". If "special" means less engaged with its neighbours, more insular, and less diverse then yes, it will be that, and to some people that will be a positive that outweighs other considerations. And if enough of them take that view then a re-run of the referendum will deliver the same result. But I suspect they won't and that's where the objections to re-running the referendum lie, not in any ethical or democratic basis, but in the hope that the British have been irreversibly duped into a self-destructive decision.
A lie, assuming it was one, isn't a campaign violation. It's just what happens in political events. If you overturned every election every time a lie were found, we'd never have had a single leader.Quoting Baden
If the liars won, blame the truth tellers for having not gotten their message out. That's what these contests are. You don't get a do-over because one side lied.
Quoting Hanover
I explained several times already they were officially found in violation of campaign rules.
Quoting Hanover
Fascinating.
No, I don't think that it's in the least bit odd to be subjected to a charge of inconsistency in any debate on this forum. And the relevance is that if you're found to be guilty of inconsistency, then that calls into question why anyone should accept your argument here when you yourself don't even accept it when it's reasonably applied in other contexts.
First of all, I said elections or referenda, not just referenda. And a brief google search will bring up elections or referenda where there has been evidence of lies or of twisting the truth or of not being very transparent - which, let's be honest, is going to be every single election or referendum that we've ever had - and it will also bring up elections or referenda where the results have been narrow, and likewise with overspending. Now, given the aforementioned, I don't think that it's too much of a stretch to suppose that, throughout our entire political history to date, there has never been an election or a referendum whereby the results were narrow and there were lies or twisted truths or a lack of transparency involved, or that there has never been a sufficiently similar situation to that of the 2016 EU referendum. But, to give you some idea, here's an example of a lie in another referendum, here's a list of close election results, and here's an example of overspending in an election. These things do happen, and they're dealt with in the usual manner.
Quoting Baden
No, it's not off-topic, as I've now explained.
Quoting Baden
Yes it is, changing the context doesn't change the fact that it's a moral argument, regardless of whether or not you agree or disagree with that argument. I don't get why you're dismissing it as a moral argument. It's clearly an argument about personal responsibility, a bad attitude, apportioning blame, judgement, and consequences. How is that [i]not[/I] a moral argument? I just think that you disagree with it and the language I used to express it, which you're free to do, but dismissing it as a moral argument is simply a mistake.
Quoting Baden
No, it's not as matter of fact as you make it seem. That's merely [i]your opinion[/I] of what an ethical response would be, and it's an opinion I happen to disagree with.
Quoting Baden
No, not irrelevancies, since my ethical views are in sync with the usual manner in which these problems are dealt with through the law.
Quoting Baden
Or falls on its own demerits. But consistency is also relevant, as I've explained. You can't duck that charge so easily.
Quoting Baden
It should be left up to judges, not left in the hands of laypeople, and especially not in the hands of politicians.
Quoting Baden
No, you're not being at all charitable in your assessment, and I put that down to bias.
Quoting Baden
It was run about as fairly as some past elections and referenda, so again, consistency! If I were to accept your argument here, then again, I ask you what is to be done to right similar wrongs in the past? It's not a weak position morally at all. I'm not saying do nothing, I'm saying that we already have a system in place which deals with these things, and that gets my approval. If you overspend, for example, then I think that you should be punished, usually with a fine. On the contrary, you're coming from the weaker position, as your proposal is unorthodox and carries with it a backlog of past cases which would demand compensation. It's impractical and unworkable, even if you do think that you've got the moral high ground.
Quoting Baden
No, not quite. Tough luck, because we already had a referendum, and undoing that is the greater wrong.
Quoting Baden
Yes, I'm afraid that is what you're suggesting, in effect. What you suggest - having a second referendum - would turn the guarantees that there would only be one referendum with the results treated as binding into lies. That doesn't rectify the situation, it makes a bad situation worse. You can't fix lies by bringing about bigger lies, just as you can't put out a fire by pouring fuel onto it. Your ethics are whack and you need to go back to the drawing board.
Quoting Baden
I'm still waiting to hear how you'd deal with the backlog of cases. You can't overturn a system without consequences.
Sure, but what was written on the bus wasn't one of them. I pointed out the violation of the rules seemed to deal with spending more than the cap permitted based upon what might be a mischaracterization by Leave regarding how money was spent. Quoting Baden
You're being dismissive of my pointing out that your characterization of German intent was incorrect. You were suggesting that Germany's remaining in the EU was mutually beneficial and for that reason it wouldn't leave. It looks like really it's unilaterally beneficial and others might be benefited from leaving, especially those poorer nations that would benefit from having their old weaker and more easily controlled currencies still in place.
This is silly. Quote me where I was inconsistent or stop wasting my time.
So now you've gone from saying Germany would benefit from leaving because poorer countries were taking advantage of it to Germany is taking advantage of poorer countries and they should leave. When you've finished debating yourself, let me know, and also please tell me why it's relevant to the UK as it's not one of these poorer countries.
That is a fair point. It might to an extent. It then depends on much weight to give to that. In any case, it's the only sensible objection I've seen here so far.
Ok, but in terms of the overall question of whether a rerun of the referendum is justified, it doesn't matter where the violation was. They cheated and that undermines the legitimacy of the result.
When it's confirmed that there's no plan B - which is something for which we'll have to wait and see, since what is said whilst talks are still ongoing can't be taken as sacrosanct, and the meaningful vote has not yet taken place - then there will be more of a place for arguments for and against that scenario, but as things stand, it's still hypothetical.
You can fix a result possibly brought about by cheating by rerunning the process in a fair way. The fact that this means that Cameron would have turned out retroactively to have told a falsehood is a less important consideration than having a fair referendum. And presumably when he made his promise, he didn't expect cheating to occur, so the idea that that was a bigger lie than the deceptions of the Leave campaign doesn't hold up.
Ok, and a rerun undermines the legitimacy of the result as well. The question is what to do about violations. Lock the cheaters up, fine them, throw tomatoes at them, whatever. I'm just saying a re-do isn't the answer. I
Although I recognise the problems you raise, you can know what something means without knowing the finer details or the consequences. The electorate understood the option to leave or remain, even if they weren't clear on the finer details or consequences, so I think that these kind of arguments are overstated. I mean, I didn't exactly look at the question and think that it was written in Japanese or that it was asking me whether I prefer jam sandwiches to apple pie.
I'm not saying it's black and white either, there are negatives to re-running it, but I'm arguing that it's the less unfair of the two options. Again, if there were no cheating and/or if the referendum result wasn't so close and/or the looming consequences of a no-deal weren't so serious, it would be harder to make this argument. But with those qualifications in place, it seems reasonably clear to me what the fairer option is, and not only that but that the British population as a whole would feel more upset by being pushed into an unexpected and damaging no-deal than being offered the chance of a final say to avert it.
You think that the fact they played with words to give a false impression makes it alright?
Quoting TWI
What money? Every economic forecast says the exchequer will have less money to spend after leaving the EU, potentially a lot less, and there's a 39 billion pound divorce bill to pay even before exiting. There is no "extra" money for the NHS. There's less money overall, which actually puts pressure on the government to cut the NHS.
No. The negotiations finished and a deal was signed. There are no negotiations now. There's a deal that May is afraid to put to Parliament and nothing else.
:brow:
I'll amend that to where they "mostly" lie.
Quoting TWI
You mean all the expert's forecasts could be wrong and Britain could make money on leaving? That's a hypothetical possibility I suppose, but rather far-fetched.
Yes, that's true. People ought to stop making it out to be more than it is, bringing it up alongside actual campaign violations, as though they're even remotely on par. Overspending, on the other hand, [i]is[/I] an actual campaign violation, but that's not something unique to the referendum, and we already have procedures in place for dealing with that. There's no justification for suddenly overhauling these procedures on the basis of a single case, and it smacks of opportunism.
Quoting Hanover
Yes, but Baden doesn't seem keen on talking about that logical consequence. Perhaps because it either exposes his double standard or renders his position absurd.
Yes! It would do that and more.
There's a strawman to add to the red herrings. The logical consequence of arguing this particular referendum be rerun based on the particular circumstances I've outlined are not that every election should be overturned every time any lie is found. Hard to believe I have to explain that to you.
At best, it was very misleading, which isn't much better. Permissible in terms of the law, but nevertheless condemnable.
Then stop hiding behind the Brexit debate and tell me how you would make your proposal here work fairly, in light of similar past cases.
1) One side breaks election law i.e. cheats (not merely lies).
2) The result is close enough so that the cheating may have decisively swayed the result.
3) The unforseen negative implications of the result are very serious.
4) Polls show a significant number of voters feel misled and / or have changed their mind on the basis of new information.
All these are in place in this particular referendum, but most likely apply to very few referenda.
I'm not under any obligation to research other cases to try to help you out. If you want to raise a particular case, I'll test it against the criteria I've outlined above and respond.
Funny. I don't recall you saying anything like that when I've raised that objection, yet you give him credit. I'll take that as indirect praise. Thanks. :grin:
They should wait and let it play out for better or worse then. If it's detrimental, the next generation can vote to rejoin with tangible evidence.
Better to do it that way than have every referendum outcome from now on being rejected by the losers.
I had a brief moment of charity. I'm over it now. :wink:
And other results. Hmm... what to do about that, eh? Still no answers forthcoming from you, I see. And I already linked to one other case of overspending, so don't act like I haven't thrown you a bone.
Obviously, if whatever result you're talking about meets the same four criteria I've just outlined, you can take it I'd support a rerun.
It's not even a referendum. And it should be obvious from the reporting that my criteria don't match up (there's no information on how close the result was and whether the spending could have affected it, for example). I could go on and detail the circumstances under which I think a byelection etc. should be rerun, which would be similar, but it's fairly irrelevant.
Rerunning the process wouldn't be fair to begin with! So your talk about [i]how[/I] that could be done is for the birds. The real cheating would be against all of those who voted to leave and won, and all of those who innocently believed that the result would be binding, as we were told in no uncertain terms, and multiple times. The cheating of overspending has already been punished, and it's not up to you to come up with your own custom-made punishment like some sort of vigilante. You don't have that authority. If you don't like how it has been dealt with, then take it to court and see how far you get.
Quoting Baden
No it isn't. It's already too late to act at a stage when actions taken would have retroactive consequences. The time to act would've been before the vote. That's why a fine is a better way of dealing with a campaign violation than rerunning the vote.
Quoting Baden
His expectations in that regard are completely irrelevant. He wouldn't be at fault, whoever undermined it would be at fault. With a turnout of around 30 million, that's too big of promise to break, and would be by far the greater wrong.
We're arguing here over whether a new referendum, which is a possibility, is justified. It's obviously relevant to take the cheating in the last one into account in determining that. I'm aware I don't personally have the authority to determine British law.
A cancellation should be a last minute option if all else fails. We're not there yet.
Oh, come on. You shouldn't believe everything you read or see on TV. Firstly, it's not a deal, it's a draft withdrawal agreement. And secondly, it suits both parties in the negotiations to spin it as the only offer available: the EU because they don't want to make any further concessions, and May because she wants to pressure the house to vote it through rather than be forced to do an about-face and scurry back to the negotiating table with her tail between her legs, begging for more. (Obviously, the latter has already happened now, to May's great embarrassment).
Also, it's in the interests of both parties in the negotiations to avoid a no deal scenario, so, with the knowledge that, at present, it's at serious risk of being voted down in parliament, why wouldn't they renegotiate?
Then you should look into the research more. These arguments cannot be repeated and underlined enough because otherwise we're doomed to repeat the same mistakes. Look into the Dutch referendum on the association treaty with the Ukraine for another clear cut example. Suppose people voted leave because of immigration then it doesn't follow leave was what they wanted. It only tells you that of the available options presented one provided them a vote to stop immigration. But since the reason for their voting isn't known even that information hasn't been provided as a consequence of the referendum. So the referendum tells us nothing. It's just all a big waste of time.
If there are past cases with sufficiently similar circumstances, and if your argument here implies that this particular case should be treated differently to all of those other cases, then, absent justification, that's special pleading.
You mean they didn't sign a deal, that there are negotiations now, or that May is not afraid to put it into Parliament? Those are the negations of the three facts I mentioned, and they are facts.
Quoting S
You don't get it. The EU has far less to lose than the UK by the UK crashing out. It's 28 versus one, a huge crash for the UK and an inconvenient blip for the EU mollified by the severe disincentive the example would send to other potential leaving nations. So, the UK, despite the empty bravado of the Brexiteers, never had any cards to play and never had a hope of anything but managed capitulation, which is what happened. There is no better deal to be had. It's a Brexiteer fantasy. It's this or something even more objectionable to Tory hardliners, which won't fly unless there's a general election.
My argument doesn't imply that, so again you're wasting my time with nonsense. Every case should be treated according to similar considerations. If you can find another case where all my four criteria apply then obviously I'd argue for the same thing.
So, let me get this straight. You're inventing a new policy for righting the wrongs committed in situations when an important vote is put to the electorate, but you're trying to tie it down to the circumstances of the 2016 referendum? That way, you won't have to worry about all of those past cases which don't quite meet your criteria, yet you get your desired second referendum. How convenient. You seem to care more about that than real justice.
I agree.
So, go ahead and cheat, so long you're careful enough not to violate all four of Baden's criteria. Got it.
The results are only illegitimate if they match the circumstances of the referendum that Baden wants to see rerun so that we can have another chance to remain a member of the European Union.
The topic of this discussion is Brexit. I'm giving you the reasons I think a new referendum is justified. Which unsurprisingly relate to Brexit. You first accused me of not wanting to apply these reasons to other referenda and said that made me inconsistent. But I said I would apply them to any referenda you wish to raise. Now you're saying doing that means I don't care about real justice or some other such blather. Sorry Sap but that's not worthy of further response.
Er, one of the criteria is cheating. :D
What the referendum tells us is that a majority of the people voting voted to trigger leaving and all who voted knew that was the consequence of the vote. To the extent the referendum doesn't provide us the basis for those voting, that's the fault/decision of the democratic process that created the referendum. Had the democracy wanted to know why the democracy was voting, or had it wanted the vote to provide other options, it could have asked that of the democracy, and it could have even written in that if the basis of the vote was to end immigration, then they wouldn't leave (if that's how the democracy wanted to do it). All of this is to say that the king can do whatever he wants for whatever reason he wants (within certain discriminatory limits). The king needn't be logical, honest, or virtuous. It's his kingdom and he can run it like an idiot if he wants. In this instance, the king is the people because it's a democracy, and the people can create whatever they want.
(Besides I said "if" not "if and only if", but I think you know that and aren't arguing seriously).
But that'd be on them for being too stupid to realise that the only guarantee under a leave vote is that we leave. The option on the ballot was to leave or to remain, not to leave with a guarantee on immigration. That's on them if they voted based on an imaginary ballot, or a hope, rather than the actual options presented to them, with all of the risks involved. We all knew, or at least should have known, that a deal would actually need to be negotiated and compromises would need to be made on either side. You can't rightly blame that on the government or on either of the campaigns. That's basic level stuff.
Quoting Benkei
It provided them with a possibility. A means in which that goal might achieved. Not a guarantee.
Quoting Benkei
No, not at all. It was leave or remain, and that much was understood. If they voted leave, then they should have been prepared to leave, even in the event that they didn't get everything they'd hoped for or expected.
But if people really are that stupid, or have such terrible judgement, then yes, referendums probably aren't such a great idea. I mean, I've already said that I would've rather we never had that referendum.
Right, and I'm saying that it can only be justified by going through the proper channels, not on a philosophy forum.
Right. There we were wasting time arguing ethics on the philosophy forum when we should have been speaking directly to Theresa May about all this.
I mean your mention of a deal, when in fact there's only a draft withdrawal agreement. I mean your assumption that the negotiations are finished, just because that's what has been said, when in fact they've effectively resumed. And I mean your assumption that there's no other deal possible, again, just because that's what has been said - even though you should be astute enough to discern that there are political reasons for saying such things in public, when that might not in fact be an accurate reflection of what's happening behind closed doors.
Quoting Baden
No, you don't get it. That both sides would[/I] end up [i]worse off[/I] than they would otherwise be with an acceptable deal undermines your point about which of the two would be [i]more worse off. The key point here is that it's in the mutual interest of both parties to avoid that no deal scenario, hence the effective resumption of negotiations until May returns once again to put a final deal to a parliamentary vote.
Quoting Baden
That's exactly what they want people to think! I can't believe you're lapping that one up. You sound like a member of the cabinet towing the party line! :lol:
Quoting Baden
Hold on, you said that there's the deal that May's afraid to put to parliament and nothing else. That looks like backtracking now, unless you actually meant that there's nothing else so far. Which is precisely why we need to wait it out a little longer. You never know...
Key point here. Let that sink in.
Not we, just you. I don't need to speak to anyone in a position of authority, or take any actions, in order to trigger a process whereby your ideas on why a second referendum should be held can stand a chance of attaining the required justification of which you speak, meaning the approval of an authoritative body, like if it were taken to court and a judge ruled in your favour. I'm okay with the situation as it stands, whereby your ideas are just that and nothing more, and will remain unjustified, except in your own mind.
You mean, if they meet your four criteria vs. if and only if they meet your four criteria? What's the relevant difference? Either way, each case would be required to meet your four criteria to qualify, and all other cases could be dismissed, correct? Which was my criticism.
Basically, although you've suggested in other comments that I'm moving the goalposts, I actually just think that you're cornered into a lose-lose scenario. On the one hand, without applying your criteria consistently, that's a double standard which leaves out other cases, but on the other hand, it looks like you've set up your criteria in such a way so as to exclude most other cases anyway, because otherwise you'd have to come up with a way of dealing with all of those cases in a satisfactory way, which would be challenging to say the least.
I don't think that it's fair to let the Tories off the hook with a fine for their overspending in relation to the 2015 general election, yet make it so that the overspending by the Vote Leave campaign, in combination with other criteria which I consider to be less relevant, qualifies for a rerun. I think that it's fair the way that it is: to just fine for overspending instead of messing with the results after the fact. Either that, or perhaps a zero tolerance all-or-nothing rule taking effect from now onwards, not retroactively, and which would apply across the board, instead of your 'pick-and-choose' method.
No they haven't. It takes two sides to negotiate and the EU have flat out refused to renegotiate the agreed text. There may be renogotiations if there's an election as I said earlier, but this deal will not be renogotiated with May.
https://www.politico.eu/article/jean-claude-juncker-eu-wont-renegotiate-brexit-deal/
The rest of your responses are repetitive and pointless. I've already explained to you my reasons for thinking a new referendum justified in this case, and that I have no reason not to apply the same type of thinking to other referenda though obviously each case is different and would have to be judged in its particular context.
Quoting S
Yes, that's what I mean. And seeing as you're not willing to put in the mental effort to try to understand that basic distinction, and continue to harp on the red herring of an imagined inconsistency, we're done.
One can only reach that conclusion if one limits consideration to immediate consequences, and ignores longer term consequences.
The reason the EU would rather suffer a worse impact itself than make the deal better for the UK is that, the less penal the deal is for the UK, the greater the risk that other valued members may at some stage vote to leave. So it's in the interest of the EU to make the deal as bad as possible, even if it causes short term pain for the EU.
I expect the USA would take the same approach if California voted to leave the union - cause great pain on both California and, where unavoidable, itself as well, so as to discourage other states from following suit. [Disclaimer - I know nothing of the US constitution and whether it is possible for a state to leave]
There are some who would like to split California into two or three states because some believe that northern California and southern California have quite separate interests. They may have quite different interests, but those differences are probably to California's advantage, in the same way that rural agricultural counties in a given state have little in common with large industrial cities. But states with combination rural agriculture/urban industrial economies tend to be financially more stable than all agricultural states, or all industrial states. The two different kinds of economy compliment each other.
There is no obvious road to splitting states either. A territory could be broken into several states, but there is no provision for states to divide or merge. If California really wanted to split, it would probably require a constitutional amendment which would need to be passed by congress and 3/4 of the states.
Were California to secede, everything else being the same, it would be the 6th largest economy. I think Hell would freeze over before California was allowed to leave. Not going to happen.
‘Nothing concentrates the mind so well as the knowledge one will be hung in the morning’.
4 options: May's deal, no deal, another referendum, or revoke Article 50.
If, on the other hand, the aim is to follow proper procedures, then we are free to remain in the EU as any referendum is only advisory and we live in a representative democracy.
If the aim is to abide by promises made as an ethical stance, then the nature of those promises surely bears significantly on the duty of others to abide by them and clearly the greater good of the people on whose behalf you made the promise must come above that duty otherwise what was the point of it in the first place?
I'm not seeing the line of argument which requires the government to actually leave the EU, nor one which prevents them from holding another referendum if they so wish. Legally, the government can do whatever parliaments allows, ethically a government should work for the best interests of its population at the present time. Making an argument that the government is under either a legal or ethical obligation to carry out the stated preference of a snapshot of the population at some fixed time in the past seems tenuous.
Perhaps someone can explain what will happen to the Irish border in the event of no deal? Because my own primary concern is not the economy but peace. The civil war in Ireland spilling over to the mainland as I remember was 'rather unpleasant', and I would guess, worse than the possible unrest that would result from another referendum or even the revocation of article 50. The defusing of the issue of the partitioning of Ireland is for me one of the most important benefits of the EU, and yet the issue was hardly mentioned during the campaign, and is still little understood on the mainland, let alone abroad.
Yes, we do, but this isn't my point. I would be as unhappy - alright, almost as unhappy - if Remain had 'won' with such a small majority. The losing minority is far too big for there to be a solution that is acceptable to all. We are at an impasse. I don't see where we go from here, if we are to achieve some form - any form - of compromise that is acceptable to more than just 52% of us...
Yes, I'm aware of what has been said. It doesn't look like we're going to reach an agreement on this point. It seems that I'm more sceptical than you because I accept that what has been said in politics doesn't always match the reality, and there are countless examples of this, whereas you take a more naive approach.
Quoting Baden
Well, since you've indicated that don't want to help me understand, given that you've ignored my request for an explanation, then I don't believe you're actually interested in pursuing a constructive exchange of views about your own point, so yes, we're done.
Maybe you're right. I get the incentive for that, but I'm not convinced that it's the overriding incentive. I'd have to think on it, and maybe do some more reading on the subject to see if anyone shares that view.
It looks to me that the main problem with the deal is the backstop, and the backstop is there to protect the Good Friday Agreement, which is a treaty between The UK and Eire to end the civil war in N. Ireland. That is to say, it's actually nothing to do with the EU but is something the UK needs. (see my previous comment)
Exactly.
Yes, I've heard Brexiteers like Jacob Rice-Mug and others say things like "Well, if May just gets rid of the backstop, I'll vote for her plan" as if there's a remote possibility the EU would agree to that, or as if the EU didn't need every member including the Republic to ratify the agreement, and as if the Republic would agree to anything that threatens the Good Friday agreement. I suspect though they know it's backstop or no deal and are actually willing to take no deal at any cost and want only to give the veneer of reasonableness to their position, being covered enough financially themselves not to care about the economic havoc that position would wreak on the rest of the country.
For me, I guess he walks that line between pathetic and dangerous that men of inflated self-importance and fortunate political status often find themselves on. I expect he'll lose in the end, which will probably be the best thing for him.
That's exactly why I think that No Deal isn't an option. If May's Withdrawal Agreement is rejected by Parliament then Parliament must revoke Article 50. Maintaining the Good Friday Agreement is far more important than respecting the result of the referendum.
You do realise that over 30 million people voted, right? And I actually think that it being a relatively close call would, in a sense, make it even worse to rerun it, because that would mean that it was hard to win the first time. And remember, it's not the fault of those who voted to leave, and were declared winners, that the Vote Leave campaign overspent, or that politicians on either side put out false or misleading claims. Sure, punish the cheaters, condemn the liars, but don't penalise all of the innocent people who came out to vote leave and won.
And also, bear in mind that the government was given a mandate by the people to hold a referendum. It was part of the Conservative manifesto. That's representative democracy for you. There's no mandate for a second referendum, the power to hold one rests with the government, and they ruled it out last time I checked.
And another thing, I'd say that fourty years between a referendum and a rerun is a lot more acceptable than two years.
Are those who voted leave to be barred from voting in a second referendum? Surely not! They will be allowed to vote. So you must be saying they would not be offered a Leave option? Again, surely they would! It's the will of the majority that's being established - on something that's now specific, rather than entirely theoretical.
No, that's not what I'm saying. Of course they're not barred, and of course there'd be an option to leave, but they'd be penalised through no fault of their own by having their win rendered invalid and by being exposed to the risk of losing.
Moreover, don't you think that there ought to be suitable restrictions regarding the length of time between a referendum and a rerun? Otherwise there'd be nothing from stopping a government, if they so decided, from having one every couple of years until they got the result that they wanted.
— karl stone
Quoting S
So you're telling me that the amorphous sense of 'winning' an individual might have as a result of his or her opinion being confirmed by a slight majority of others who cared to express an opinion two years ago, is more important than the actual consequences of the policy now we know what it is?
Of course - I hadn’t considered straight-out revocation.
Brexit ruling: UK can cancel decision, EU court says
The Government just needs to write to the European Council announcing that it revokes Article 50. So long as the Government has the legal authority to do so under UK law (i.e. approved by Parliament) it's valid.
Here's the press announcement of the ruling with more details.
Parliament votes to have one. Or it votes to just revoke Article 50 without a referendum.
Well, it would cancel Brexit which would be pretty big. Don't know about the political repercussions. Maybe more votes for UKIP at the next GE? Doubtful enough to win them more than a couple of seats though.
No, I'm talking about the fact that they won, not an "amorphous sense". But with that correction, yes, it's more important to honour the result, with the only possible exception being to prevent a no deal scenario.
And you didn't answer my question.
But is there a majority of MPs for either of those options? I don't reckon so at the moment. The official line of both main parties is against either option. If I'm right, then something would have to change, which it might do.
If the Withdrawal Agreement is voted down then what will the majority who oppose No Deal do? I doubt they will just let it happen. They'll vote for a second referendum as a last ditch attempt to avoid a hard Brexit.
A majority oppose the withdrawal agreement as it was to be presented before the delay. Yet, for example, in today's news, it has been reported that the Foreign Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, has said that it would be possible to get "a version" of the prime minister's Brexit deal approved by MPs.
It will depend on what May brings back. Although I'm hardly optimistic about her chances, it's too soon to write it off.
But yeah, if it gets voted down, I agree that a second referendum or a cancellation would be much more likely.
The EU have rejected a renegotiation of the current deal.
Once again, I'm aware of what they have said. You don't need to point that out to me. We'll just have to wait and see whether that bears true.
Besides, that same article that you linked to says that, on Thursday evening, Mr Juncker urged the UK to set out more clearly what it wants, which seems to suggest that he [I]is[/I] open to considering variations to the draft withdrawal agreement. Mixed messages?
David Cameron tried and failed to do just that. He negotiated some reforms from the EU, although he didn't get everything that he wanted. And then a majority of those who voted in the referendum indicated that they thought that his reforms didn't go far enough, since they voted to leave.
I think that it's more the latter. I think that many people who voted remain, myself included, were critical of certain aspects of how things were under our membership of the EU, and would've preferred to remain with reforms than to remain in an unreformed EU or to leave. This view was also reflected in the views of a majority of MPs.
But it's complicated regarding self-determination. There are things that I would trust more in the hands of the EU than a Tory government. I trust Labour to protect or improve upon the things I care about more, but they're currently in opposition.
There's potentially another option. A no-confidence vote in the House of Commons could change things. Then it might not be May's deal, but someone else's.
If the UK had another referendum and voted to stay, is there an underlying problem that will just pop up again down the line?
I would suggest looking up leftwing arguments against the European Union. There are two camps who agree on many of the points, but differ in their conclusions, with one camp favouring leave and the other favouring attempts to reform from within.
But to give you some idea:
[Quote=Larry Elliott, The Guardian]Some never bought the idea that being a progressive meant being positive about Europe. They saw nothing especially progressive about mass unemployment, the impact of the common agricultural policy on the developing world, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or the bias towards austerity ingrained in the stability and growth pact. Rather, they saw neoliberalism being hardwired into the European project. As indeed it was.[/quote]
Quoting frank
The problems wouldn't just disappear. We'd still need to work towards a resolution, towards reform. That way we'd still retain the benefits. But leaving would be like trying to solve a problem by creating an even bigger problem.
It was S that had some inane comments on "the will of the people" which is misplaced considering what we know about how referenda work. And my comments are patronising because I already indicated it is established fact (yes, you can look it up!), provided an alternative recent example and invite you to do some research yourselves. This isn't kindergarten where I have to spell everything out for you.
If it's not kindergarten, why the temper tantrum?
You've now moved on to the next argument which is trust in the government. Those people that voted remain and those that changed their minds in the meantime will consider it grounds for more trust. There are plenty of Brits who won't feel betrayed which is exactly why it's still being argued about. So that too isn't conclusive.
For me it's quite simple, if doing the right thing for the most people (UK citizens) means ignoring the vote then so be it. All other considerations be dammed.
So you favor totalitarianism? (Sorry about the kids. Hope they get well soon.)
But it can be, in accordance with my use of the phrase, logic, and established facts. The will of the people is expressed by the majority of voters, and the majority of voters voted to leave, so the will of the people at that time was to leave.
Your reasoning seems to be that just because there were various motives for voting to leave, like wanting to reduce immigration, then that somehow renders the result unreflective of the will of the people at the time. But that reasoning is invalid. As the slogan goes, leave means leave. The motive doesn't change that. You talk of established facts, but it's an established fact that the majority of voters voted to leave, and that's all that's needed.
Quoting Benkei
I'm not missing anything. I'm not in disagreement with your point about how a simplified ballot won't reflect the will of the people in greater detail. But it doesn't follow from that that the will of the people hasn't been represented. The ballot did what it was designed to do. If the government had wanted it any other way, then they would've done it differently. But they didn't, they went with a simple in-out format. And again, I'm pretty sure that they made that clear in their manifesto before they were elected, so there was a democratic mandate, once elected, to honour that pledge.
Quoting frank
Excuse me for quoting myself from page2.
Quoting unenlightened
So an excellent reason for not running the country by referenda, but by representation is that one needs to avoid contradiction. It does not require even that anyone is themselves voting for a contradiction: if one third votes for 1 & 2, one third for 2 & 3 and one third for 1 & 3, one has a two thirds majority for all three.
Now in this case, we have a single referendum, but with people voting for incompatible reasons, and voting without having considered the ramifications of the decision.
By and large, people did not vote to end the Good Friday agreement, or for the independence of Scotland, but did not either seriously consider that these might be consequences.
There is much emphasis laid on sovereignty, but little consideration of the sovereignty that will be given up in making trade deals elsewhere - the court which would administer disputes in a trade deal with the US, for example, or the regulations on food standards that would have to be aligned.
Much emphasis too on control of immigration, but very little on the loss of control of emigration.
And these two are certainly things that folks in economically depressed areas voted for, as if the transfer of power from Westminster to Brussels has been the reason for their neglect. But if you actually make the comparison, Brussels is the more benign power in terms of developing such regions.
Indeed, in my view, the loss of sovereignty itself is more seriously to the multinational companies than to multinational governance. So the direction in which totalitarianism lies is quite other than in not accepting an advisory vote.
The problem is, that same criticism can be levelled against our representatives in parliament. Boris Johnson, speaking as Foreign Secretary, said that his policy on cake is pro having it and pro eating it, and David Davis, speaking as Brexit secretary, said that we could strike a deal whereby we enjoy the exact same benefits that we currently do.
I went over that. You can either accept the fact that it isn't the case that those who voted to leave in fact wanted to leave or not. It's not about "a greater detail" of the will of the people it's that in fact we can be certain no majority ever was in favour of leave. We only know that for disparate reasons leave reflected an aspect of people's will that they thought remain didn't provide but without knowing who voted leave for what reason it's up in the air what policies really should be implemented.
We can't protect ourselves from idiots once elected (it's expected the same voices win or in parliament in the end) . We can protect ourselves from badly crafted referenda though, which is why it's so important to realise the stupidity of the type of referenda the leave vote was an example of.
What's ironic, one of the most brilliant examples of a participative democracy in modern times was the process of the UK pension system review.
Given the myriad of policy options available to get x, y or z, only offering leave and remain tells us nothing about the number of people wanting to leave for the sake of leaving.
No, that's a different problem. By and large, the voters are not idiots, and do not expect contradictions to be implemented. But some politicians are sufficiently two-faced to propose them in the hope that everyone will think they are proposing something they want, and won't notice they are also proposing the opposite. The technical term for such people is 'manipulative lying bastards'.
I'm not accustomed to taking anything for granted in that department, maybe just a cultural difference between us. So my question didn't seem at all ridiculous to me. Your statement would be considered alarming in my part of the world.
Interesting how differently people see things.
I've followed haphazardly the thread, but I think Benkei's main point is that any deliberating body can change it's mind. If I change my mind I am not somehow tyrannically opposing my own will; likewise, if a king, parliament or referendum changes decisions there's no fundamental political dilemma in doing so: new information or arguments come to light and a previous decision is changed.
The problem in changing decisions are secondary to the process itself. For instance, if an individual or a government signs and then reneges on an agreement then this may create problems with whoever the agreement was with -- given the issue it may even be argued to be immoral to renege that particular agreement, but it does not create a constitutional crisis in the fact itself of deciding and undeciding (on any political level: from the individual to referendum of whole countries).
The argument for not polling the people on every decision, both new ones and to confirm existing ones, every single day is that it is simply not practical to do so.
There maybe many practical argument for not having a second referendum on the Brexit issue, but the argument that it renders democracy incoherent in some way doesn't work for the same reason an individual changing a decision does not in itself render the person incoherent (the content of the reasons for the original decision and content and consequences of changing the decision would be where any incoherence would be found).
Absolutely, and polls show that as a whole the British want another referendum, but some here will no doubt continue to argue that giving the people what they want, (which is a chance to change their mind given the dubious circumstances surrounding the last poll), is a terrible injustice to them and an insult to democracy.
Must they hold hourly referenda so that all decisions reflect the pulse of the public in order to meet your definition of democracy? I do believe it's fair to hold the voters to what they voted for, and I don't think any voter had the expectation that his vote was preliminary and that there'd be multiple additional referenda prior to leaving. That is, the vote to leave was really to leave.
You act like fairness and adherence to prior decisions are unrelated, and you put no value on finality, as if indecisiveness is a virtue.
(From my Canadian perspective) my own reading of the whole situation is that the model was Quebec, which had a separatists movement that was partly fueled by "not being allowed to have a referendum, this is not real democracy". This argument is powerful as it's simply true and builds it's own momentum and displaces the argument from the substance of separation to a sense of injustice of being robbed a referendum. Both in the Canadian separatist experience (and many other contexts of different referendum movements for various things), losing a referendum simply dissolves this kind of momentum and what seemed like a political force yesterday simply evaporates the next.
So I believe that Cameron and his inner circle viewed the UKIP movement as similarly partly fueled by "the absence of a referendum as proof of a great injustice", and so a preemptive strike was a better bet than trying to ignore it and letting it make slow but sure gains. The other issues of Quebec nationalism, cultural erosion and regulations being "decided in Ottawa where not-Quebeckers dominate", and anti-immigration (both Anglophones from other provinces and immigrants to Canada) were also similar themes.
However, I think a better lesson from the Quebec separatist movement is the clarity act that came after the close referendum, that was passed some years after the close referendum, where a clear process was outlined on how a province could separate. Step one is to have a referendum that would simply start negotiation between the province and the federal government one what the proposed separation would actually be, then there would need to be an proposed separation agreement made and then a vote. Critically, the vote would need to represent the majority of eligible voters, not simply the majority of who votes; so a higher bar but not anti-democratic nor robbing a province of a right to make majority decisions.
Basically, the clarity act was made to solve the fact that a sudden ill-defined separation vote would be total chaos with dozens of practical problems no one had the slightest answer to: obviously same trade issues of exiting a common market, native Americans having treaties with the federal government, large amounts of people from other provinces living and working in Quebec and vice-versa, as well as things like the country being cut in half.
I'm not sure if you read my post, but the argument against this is it isn't practical.
Of course, democratic processes such as deferring to representatives and referendum should be democratically created; I don't think anyone's arguing against that.
Quoting Hanover
For instance, most states I believe have a potential recall process for congressmen. How easy a recall should be is a practical consideration that should be democratically determined; weighing the advantage of "getting a better representative" against the cost and disruption a proliferation of recall votes would create.
Quoting Hanover
You maybe confusing two separate issues. One issue is whether it is anti-democratic or a constitutional crisis to hold a second referendum. The other issue is whether it's a good idea to have a second referendum or not. That the vote was advertised or understood as "final" in someway, that going back on Brexit would be a international embarrassment accomplishing nothing but significantly weaken the UK within the EU (due to the embarrassment, being out the loop last two years on various committees, and more isolated than before due to changing alignments in the meantime), are arguments for not having a second referendum (which are basically May's arguments for staying with Brexit, though states more indirectly). However, those reasons are practical considerations, not inherently more democratic than a second referendum.
You're strawmanning me.
I'm not. My statement was for any deliberating body; I am a deliberating body when making my own decisions; therefore my principle should hold for myself; any mutually exclusive principle should not hold for myself. If the deliberating body represented in the referendum changing its mind would be an instance of tyranny against itself, then so too would an individual changing their own mind be an instance of tyranny.
Of course, it makes no sense to tyrannize myself so it could seem the whole argument makes no sense, but a democratic body tyrannizing itself also makes no sense in essentially the same way. A legitimately democratic referendum by definition cannot be an example of tyranny.
Again, there maybe other reasons not to have a second referendum, but avoiding tyranny or anti-democratic processes in one form or another isn't one of them.
Shame we didn't learn that lesson from you in good time.
The thing that makes a second vote on Brexit reasonable is the magnitude of the decision. In our experience, the campaigning for or against a given ballot item can be brutal, deceitful, devious, and entirely dishonest, especially from the side that has the most dollars and feels it has the most to lose. I gather there was a well funded side in the Brexit debate that felt it had a good deal to lose, and may have misrepresented the facts. The same thing could happen a second time, but at least the electorate in the UK has had time to think about which way they might vote a second time.
The various states in the USA have, for the most part, never been independent entities (not for very long, anyway) and have always been under an obligation to accept federal decisions they might not like. Many states send more money to the federal government than they get back, and they don't have much of a say in who gets the extra dollars. Southern white people were not very enthusiastic about civil rights reforms, but they were forced to accept it -- on occasion at the point of a federal gun.
States and cities selected to receive batches of refugees, like Somalis, were not asked if they liked that plan. The Federal government made the determination of where they were going to go. If 1,000,000 liberal northerners all decided to move to Mississippi (i don't know why the hell they would do that, but just for example) there is nothing that Mississippi can do about it. Similarly, immigrants into the country can settle where they please.
I understand that freedom of movement in a sovereign nation is a bigger issue than it might be in a system that was always federal in design. So are taxes, regulations, and a lot of other stuff. But it seems like the UK was benefitting from the federal system of the European Community (such as it was and is.
No? Yes?
Yes, we are in agreement here. I listed arguments for "no second referendum" simply to make the difference between the "anti democracy argument" and the "practical argument". By practical arguments I mean not having a Brexit referendum every day or every hour, as well as legitimate arguments elected representatives could make. The argument that the elected representatives advertised it as a "final thing" because once the process is started there's no going back, is in my view a legitimate argument. But by legitimate argument I just mean it can be argued without self-contradictions right off the bat; it is a viable position of the parliament so say "we said it was final, exactly because the process is painful and once started the only viable thing, for all sorts of reasons, is to carry it through".
However, by viable I don't mean to say it's the best decision nor that contradictions won't arise with further arguing; just that arguing no referendum for practical reasons doesn't fail right out of the gate (in contrast to arguing for no-second referendum based on it being more democratic to not vote again, which does, in my opinion, fail straight away).
In short, the current UK parliament is not anti-democratic in "sticking to the deal of a final vote" nor anti-democratic in calling a second referendum. One can question the democratic efficiency or even legitimacy of the UK parliament system to begin with (which I definitely would), but insofar as one accepts parliament as legitimate then they can legitimately "stick to their guns" as it were; as legitimate elected preventatives they could decide any number of things, such as campaign fraud, are reason for a second vote or then decide nothing is sufficient and as the elected wise rulers they need to stick to Brexit since it was known from the outset going back on it isn't tenable regardless the pain; if their decision are bad (which I would say they are) there is a process to replace them with people who will call a second referendum. Even after Brexit is official the UK could rejoin.
However, to argue the lack of a second referendum is anti-democratic is reducible to the UK parliamentary system being anti or insufficiently democratic. My point is that, the UK system being what it is, neither a vote nor not-vote is a constitutional crisis ... which the UK doesn't even have to begin with ...
But I agree with you that a second vote is probably a good idea, and the temporary embarrassment does not outweigh all the negatives of Brexit -- that sometimes it's better to fold even after a sizable commitment.
Look, no matter how hard you try to spin it, at the end of the day, they chose to vote to leave. I never said anything about leaving for the sake of leaving - that's a complete red herring. The electorate were faced with a choice - [i]the same choice that I had to face[/I] - and the majority of them - [i]unlike me[/I] - decided that leaving was a price worth paying in the hope of achieving x, y, z. No one forced them into making that decision.
So please, cut the crap. They voted to leave. The majority voted to leave. The will of the people is reflected by the fact that the majority of voters decided that leaving was the better of the two options. They wanted to leave (for the sake of x, y, z,) rather than remain, and placing emphasis on the part in brackets won't change that.
I'll leave it at that, as it feels as though my efforts to get this through to you are in vein. I'm done with your feeble denialism and attempts to underplay the significance of the results.
It boils down to ethics on a fairly basic level. Should promises be kept? Well, given that over thirty million people turned out to vote, and given that there was a clear majority by over a million people, then yes, this particular promise should be kept at all costs except in the most severe of circumstances, like a no deal scenario that only a minority would find acceptable.
It would seem like it might be a good idea to ask the electorate if they want to maybe stay and avoid the many downsides of just leaving without terms established.
Whether or not to hold a second referendum is up to the government. It is allowed. We're not simply debating a hypothetical here.
Quoting Hanover
Sure, but you could use the analogy with fixed-term elections just as easily to demand that the referendum be re-run after a few years just like elections are. There are no minimum or maximum terms for referenda. We've got to look at the justifications for re-running any given one in context. Which is what some of us have been trying to focus on here.
Quoting Hanover
No.
Quoting Hanover
Why is it fair to prevent the voters from enacting a change to their mind? Who are you trying to serve here? Not them in this case as they, according to polls, want a new referendum. Who then? Your search for some abstract rule or principle to rely on hasn't turned up very much of legal or ethical substance to fall back on, so are we not left to focus primarily on what serves the people and their wishes? And if they wish for a new referendum (not multiple additional referenda btw) then what is your justification for denying them that?
Quoting Hanover
I'm engaged in a weighting of priorities here not an absolute dismissal of all value to the opposing view. So, on the one hand, we have you saying "Indecisiveness is not a virtue and we must adhere to prior decisions because that's fair", and on the other hand, we have me saying "We have a referendum that was potentially won through cheating, the result of which was very close, that occurred a few years ago, that is now having potentially extremely serious unforeseen negative consequences, that polls say people want a chance to re-run, and that there is no legal or significant ethical impediment to rerunning, so let's rerun it."
That's a good point. Maybe if we had've had a referendum sooner, then Remain would've won and we wouldn't be in this mess.
Quoting boethius
But maybe it was already too late. Or maybe the referendum itself lead to enough of a build up of momentum for Leave to win.
Quoting boethius
Yeah, I don't think that the point that there were better ways in which this could've been handled will get much disagreement.
This is not simple ethics. Though most would agree that promises have some moral weight to them, one should not make a fraudulent promise or dismiss a promise for a slight convenience or on a whim, it's a pretty old and trivial philosophical exercise to show that placing "holding promise" as an overriding ethical principle is extremely difficult to defend.
For instance, if I, in a moment of anger, "promise to kill someone" (thinking it was a justifiable killing at the time of the promise), should I keep my promise if I later decide the murder is not justified?
A more trivial example is that in moment of exuberant celebration I promise to give you as many shots as you want, but then I renege on this promise when I see you may overdose and die; I, nor essentially any member of society, would view it as the ethical thing to keep giving you shots, and if you did die and I knowingly let you the defense "a promise is a promise" I doubt would sway any judge or jury in a manslaughter or some similar trial.
These are an extreme and a trivial example but sets up the basic dilemma, which I'd be happy to oblige you with plenty of other examples if you want. The general case however is that changing circumstances making a promise no longer feasible to keep or even circumstances staying the same but simply a recognizing a promise as too foolish to keep or that the promise was unethical at the time, we can easily invent circumstances that I'm confident everyone on the forum would agree reneging on the promise is the ethical course of action. Now it might be reasonable that some consequence goes with the promise breaking, but that's a secondary issue (in the case of Brexit maybe the secondary consequences should be resignations a general election and voting out anyone still associated with it).
In the case of "the promise to stick with Brexit", parliament could make any number of arguments to justify breaking the promise. First, "who made the promise" is not quite the same people as are in charge now, so the "new parliament" can decide is now new enough as not to be bound by the old parliaments promises (just like a new boss can easily cancel whatever promises an old boss made if there's no legal commitment and no one would think much of "promises must be kept"; the old boss was incompetent and got fires, so foolish promises that were made no longer stand unless legally backed). Pretty much every modern nation is based on the argument that it's entirely reasonable justifiable to break an oath to some king at some point in time.
The parliament could also argue that bad faith actions of the leave campaign do substantially outweigh any supposed equivalents with the remain campaign, and so the "good faith" implicit precondition of the promise was breached and the promise no longer holds. It can be further argued that the this good faith assumption did not need to be made explicit because there are laws that govern campaign finance etc.
The parliament could argue that they made the promise under the assumption that article 50 could not be canceled, now that it seems that it can it is their responsibility to reconsider their promise based on this new information.
Or, parliament could make no direct excuse at all for the promise breaking, but argue they have a more important promise to protect the interests of UK citizens and they simply made a mistake in organizing the Brexit vote the way they did and that they must act on their ultimate promise as servants of the public in providing a vote now that there is a concrete Brexit agreement to actually vote on.
Now, I'm not saying all the above arguments are "true". One could argue that in each case there isn't sufficient reason to act (not sufficient campaign violations, not sufficient changes in parliament that they can feel liberated from previous promises, etc.).
My point is that it is not "simple ethics" to conclude no second referendum should be made, it's a very complicated issue and parliament would be entirely within their mandate and power to call a second referendum as well as within their mandate and power to decide on behalf the people to push through Brexit.
He knows that it's impractical. The point is that lacking a suitable timeframe between a referendum and a rerun causes problems, and the suggestion is that two years isn't long enough.
Baden's argument is that there's enough of a basis to render the referendum results invalid. I disagree, and my view reflects the reality, as the results haven't been declared invalid by anyone with the authority to do so.
Like Dubya, Boris is not the buffoon he pretends to be. Nor is he as clever as he thinks he is, by a mile. He's out for everything he can get, and will do anything at all to get it. But Rees-Mogg is pure evil! You know that Sauron serves Morgoth, right? Well the complete hierarchy (in order of increasing evil) goes: Sauron, Morgoth, Thatcher, Tebbit, Rees-Mogg. IMO, of course. :wink:
But if those "innocent People" were swayed by lies, and might otherwise have voted differently, or chosen not to vote at all? A free and fair vote does not involve lies, and the lead-up to the Brexit vote did.
But there's much more to the current crisis than these lies. They're just part of the problem. :fear:
Yes. There could be a motion of no confidence, and Labour have the power to start that process, but for the time being they're holding back, and rightly so in my opinion, because of the risk of losing. But, going by what Labour have said, even if the government lost and it lead to a general election with Labour winning, they wouldn't jump straight into calling a second referendum. They'd first try to get a better deal, and only if that fails would they consider the option of calling a second referendum.
True, but the lies have been recognised by our courts as such, and where they contravened our law, cases are already in progress, or already over. People and organisations have been found guilty. But you're not bothered because the vote hasn't been formally declared invalid? It looks like you're taking a pretty partisan perspective on all this: defend everything to do with Leave; attack anything that might support Remain. That's a shame.
Feeble denialism? :rofl: You just pull arguments out of your ass and call it logic and aren't even aware of the fallacy you keep repeating.
This
Quoting S
is quite simply begging the question. begging the question
Whereas I have a logical argument supported by evidence based research. So let's go again for those who are actually interested in the latest viewpoints.
Suppose people want to pay a) less taxes, b) less contributions to the EU, c) less immigration, d) economic stability and e) Bwiddish patriotism. It's quite obvious that a, b, c and d can be reached through other means than leave, yes?
So if we only ask do you want to remain or leave, people are going to have to weigh to what extent their a, b, c and d are reflected in those options. But what would've happened if the ballot had the following options.
1. Remain and enjoy the trade deals the EU has and the access to the EU market (covers d)
2. Remain and enjoy the trade deals the EU has and the access to the EU market (covers d) and agree to the deal Cameron agreed with the EU (covers b and c)
3. Remain and enjoy the trade deals the EU has and the access to the EU market (covers d) and agree to the deal Cameron agreed with the EU (covers b and c) and use the low interest rate environment to borrow slightly more in the short end of the curve and lower taxes but increasing budgettary uncertainty for later years which might cause a tax hike in later years (covers a)
4. Leave and lose he trade deals the EU has and the access to the EU market (negative on d) but gain full control over immigration and stop paying EU contributions (covers b and c) important: leave will require negotations with the EU the outcome of which is currently unknown as are the economic effects on the British economy
5. Leave and lose he trade deals the EU has and the access to the EU market (negative on d) but gain full control over immigration and stop paying EU contributions (covers b, c and e) and use the low interest rate environment to borrow slightly more in the short end of the curve and lower taxes but increasing budgettary uncertainty for later years which might cause a tax hike in later years (covers a) important: leave will require negotations with the EU the outcome of which is currently unknown as are the economic effects on the British economy
If weighted voting was included then the above would give some sense of the will of the people on a range of interrelated subjects. Instead they are offered two contextless options without any real means of establishing agreed facts which diminishes the process to whichever political side has its "messaging" best in order. We also see that the "pure" remain option and leave option aren't symmetrical in the number of policy issues they address. Remain only gives us economic stability but leave means those pesky EU bureaucrats get less and the Brits have full control over immigration. Yet, if provided with the full scale of options, we can be quite certain the outcome would be different from what we have now.
In short, leave was a matter of issue voting and not about leaving the EU and this is supported by the research available. The debate now revolves around "whether issue-voting is driven by general EU attitudes or more proposition-specific attitudes" and "what drives EU attitudes (economic/materialist or identity-based concerns)" .
Here's some more background info: http://oxfordre.com/politics/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-503
Yes, I wasn't clear enough that I was trying to make this point that a referendum every 15 minutes being impractical doesn't mean 2 years is impractical. That some interval being certainly impractical does somehow extend to all intervals being impractical. I'm not sure who originally made the argument that accepting a second referendum would be a slippery slope to voting of Brexit every second of the day, but posters have already mentioned that by this logic only one vote could ever be held about anything.
Quoting S
They are not currently declared invalid by a sufficient authority, I'm quite sure no one is arguing that. In this context "the results are invalid" I would wager this phrase is making reference to what such an authority should decide. This is a notoriously tricking issue as rule breaking is almost inevitable (especially if you can send a mole to break a rule and annul the referendum if you like), but at the same time if the campaign rules have no substance if they can be broken without ever being able to invalidate the results (as the short time-span running up the vote is too short for any enforcement measure to likely succeed beforehand).
I don't know enough about the specific to make an opinion on this point, my main interest is arguing against the idea that a second referendum would be somehow anti-democratic or unethical/unreasonable for the parliament to decide to do. To be clear, I also don't see it as anti-democratic (in itself) to not have a second referendum, the wise representatives can always claim "they know more, even secret intel and negotiations, that can't be made public and they are sure means Brexit can't be undone without damaging the UK" (but this displaces the debate to whether the parliamentary system is sufficiently democratic, but is another debate).
Yes, it's allowed, as I expect Hanover knows, but the current government isn't allowing it, which is probably closer to his meaning, in which case your response would be beside the point.
Quoting Baden
There should be.
Quoting Baden
For the same reason that it's fair that retailers have the right to refuse a refund on the basis of a change of mind. That isn't covered by any UK law, only by the in-store policies of some, but not all, retailers. And the government made their refund policy clear, so complacent consumers don't have a leg to stand on. Appealing to the manager hasn't worked so far.
And as for cheating, it's fair to let the authorities deal with that. That's what they're there for.
The greater the number of recipients, the greater the duty of keeping the promise. The promise was made to the whole of the UK, which has a population of 66.57 million. There was a confirmed electorate of 46,500,001. And 33,568,184 ballot papers were included in the count. Which gives an exceptionally high turn out of 72.2%.
Any allegations of fraudulent promises should be dealt with appropriately with the systems already in place. There are electoral laws and authorities for determining whether any laws have been broken, and if so, what the consequences will be. People are entitled to their opinion, but they're not entitled to vigilantism. The best that they can do is protest or take it to court.
And I agree that one should not dismiss a promise for a slight convenience or on a whim, which, if it bears any relevance here, would work more in favour of my position and against that of a second referendum.
Quoting boethius
These examples aren't relevant, given that I'm not arguing that there are no circumstances in which a promise should be broken, only that the circumstances in the case of the referendum up to the present moment aren't enough of a basis to warrant breaking the promise that, to the extent that it's within their control, the results of the referendum would be treated as binding, and there wouldn't be another one, at least for a long time.
Quoting boethius
This is back on track. I accept that there are a number of arguments to justify breaking the promise. I am mostly in agreement with Labour's position, which is to honour the result of the referendum, but if we can't get a good enough deal, then all options are on the table, including a second referendum. So, it's to be a last resort.
Quoting boethius
Yes, that argument could be made in parliament, and it may have already been made in parliament, but there's a system in place for dealing with these matters, and I am of the position that that system should be allowed to do what it was designed to do, instead of taking matters into our own hands. The actions of Vote Leave haven't gone unaddressed or unpunished. The matter was referred to the relevant authorities and they received a fine.
Quoting boethius
Yes, and they should, as a last resort.
Quoting boethius
There isn't a concrete Brexit agreement to vote on. There will only be one when it actually comes down to the vote in parliament.
But yes, that's an argument that could be made, and I do find it persuasive to some extent, especially since it appeals to my reasons for voting to remain in the first place. But I'm against breaking the promise and rendering the results meaningless. I can't stand the consequence that it would've all been for nothing, that what was in fact my first ever vote in politics turned out to be meaningless and a waste of time. I don't want a second chance, I want the first chance to matter.
Quoting boethius
They're arguments worth considering, and I have considered them and given my opinion.
Quoting boethius
Okay, maybe it's not simple ethics. Maybe that was a poor choice of terms. Although I think that you've taken my meaning way beyond what I intended.
What you say about parliament is only hypothetical. As things stand, the reality is that there is to be no vote in parliament on a second referendum. There is only to be a meaningful vote on the final deal. And even if there were to be a vote in parliament on a second referendum, it would still need to get a majority in the house. Both major parties, officially, are against it. Would there be enough rebels? Doubtful.
More likely to shake things up would be a no confidence vote, which is becoming more and more likely.
Your idea of what makes a vote free and fair renders it a practical impossibility. There has never been such a vote, and there never will be. So that's a terrible basis on which to judge this matter.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
But the "lies" are part of what's to be expected and there's little that can be done about that.
No, they aren't. It seems you are happy to tolerate lies, but I'm not. Not lies that have been properly investigated, and court sentences handed out.
What cases? The Vote Leave case was about overspending, not lying, so that doesn't count.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
No, I'm bothered. But being bothered about it isn't sufficient grounds for abandoning my position. I'd need much stronger grounds than that, given the severity of the matter. This goes way beyond what you or I think, and we should tread carefully.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
On the contrary, my views on a second referendum are about as nonpartisan as you can get in terms of Leave and Remain, given that my view has always been that, irrespective of which side wins the referendum, the results should be honoured. My side lost, yet I'm sticking by my guns and refusing to exploit the situation so that my side can gain the upper hand.
Whereas if Remain had won, how many of those now calling for a second referendum would be doing so? :brow:
Reminds me of Trump saying that if he loses the presidential election, then it's rigged.
If I decide to go to the cinema to watch a film, have I decided to go to the cinema? Of course I have.
So if I decide to vote to leave to reduce immigration, have I decided to vote to leave?
Quoting Benkei
And the majority weighed up the options and decided to leave, so stop saying silly things like that the referendum told us nothing or that the views of the majority aren't reflected in the results. It does tell us something, and the views of the majority [i]are[/I] reflected in the results, just not to the extent that you think would be ideal.
It would be hilarious if the ramifications weren't so serious.
Face palm. It's not supposed to be an analogy. Look at the logical form.
It means that I've decided to shoot the mum rather than the kid, for whatever reason.
If we had a referendum on who to shoot, mum or kid, and a majority voted to shoot the mum, then, irrespective of their reasons, we at least know what their decision was. We know their conclusion.
So I think that means the Dutch would see rule-of-law as something one embraces until the shit hits the fan. True?
I'm just pondering the diversity of views on the OP issue.
Eh, you've already just conceded the principle and agreed that a new referendum would be a good idea:
Quoting Bitter Crank
Quoting S
The only difference apparently being you'd like to wait an extra couple of weeks, or at most months, before supporting my position (except in the "unlikely" case something changes). Glad you've come round. So, unless you want to argue with yourself, I think we're done again.
Except:
Quoting S
No, I've argued they're questionable not invalid. That should be clear from my use of qualifiers like "potentially" when talking about the result being changed due to the cheating that went on. And the result being questionable along with the rest of the context is enough to justify a new referendum, particularly with a no-deal being a real threat. But, again, you've conceded the principle of a new referendum being justified in the face of a no-deal, so the ethical argument is basically over.
I don't know where you're getting that from. The point is that two years isn't long enough, and I would be surprised if anyone genuinely disagreed with that point.
Hanover's rhetorical question, in which he questioned whether it was necessary to hold a referendum every hour, was a criticism of the view that in order to be truly democratic, we need to keep up with a change of public opinion, even without proper parameters in place.
Quoting boethius
They might not be arguing that, but that's what I'm arguing would be necessary.
Quoting boethius
My argument is not simply that it's anti-democratic, as I agree that that would make no sense with regard to holding another referendum, given that a referendum is democratic in nature. But it would be anti-democratic, in a sense, for any democracy worth its salt to permit referenda to be rerun after only two years, as that would be an example of self-inflicted harm to that democracy, given all of the problems that it would cause. It wouldn't be sustainable. It would be shooting itself in the foot.
Concede? Come round? I think I've been consistent. I don't think that I've ever supported a no deal scenario, and I've said that that would be a worst case scenario, so if my preferred course of action becomes an impossibility, then that would leave me with few options.
That hardly means that I think that it would be a good idea. It would just be better than the alternatives.
Quoting Baden
Okay, questionable then. But questionable isn't good enough, the results would need to be invalid - and besides, a rerun would effectively render them invalid anyway.
And again, I haven't conceded anything, I'm just talking about other options in a different way now than I was at an earlier stage, because the situation then wasn't as urgent or seemingly dire as it is now. Back then the prospects looked more hopeful. And a rerun still isn't justified, in my opinion, as things currently stand.
We know no such thing. It [i]would[/I] be the will of the people to shoot the mum. The only thing that's ridiculous is the unrealistic - outlandish even - nature of the hypothetical, not the actual reasoning behind it. (And you're the one who introduced the scenario of choosing between shooting a mum and her kid into a discussion that's supposed to be about the referendum, so don't blame me if it seems ridiculous in that context). You haven't even [i]come close[/I] to refuting my reasoning, but feel free to give it another shot (pun intended).
You've said the most likely scenario is the referendum will be justified within a short period (the deadline, is only a few months away):
Yet you still come out with stuff like this as if you believe it:
Quoting S
Again, excepting an, in your own words, "unlikely if not impossible" scenario, you've agreed it would be a "good idea" (edit: now you've shifted to "better than the alternatives") to do exactly that. So, having given up the principled arguments for the pragmatics of the likely situation, why do you keep repeating this stuff?
Yet you did. Then made a half-hearted attempt to unabandon it. Your position, whatever it is, is now utterly incoherent.
Because it hasn't come to that yet. The pragmatic option remains hypothetical. I'm not going to jump the gun. And I don't know why you would expect me to.
Is it really that difficult for you to grasp that my position has been conditional from the start? That I have considered alternatives if things go tits up? Is your position any different in that respect, or did you place all of your eggs in one basket?
There's nothing inconsistent or incoherent about my position, or at least you haven't shown that there is.
Again, you've said it's most likely you will support a referendum and then you say that supporting a referendum in the same time-frame you are likely to support it is an attack on democracy. And you don't see how you've fallen into self-contradiction? Really?
Let's try again:
Quoting Bitter Crank
Quoting S
Quoting S
*Bolding and text in square brackets mine.
Your position of most likely accepting a new referendum in a short period from now is almost indistinguishable from mine of accepting one now. The only difference is I'm not accusing myself of being anti-democratic.
I don't know what you're referring to. Source?
If we both agree a referendum is in principle desirable given a no-deal scenario then all the principled (anti-democratic etc) objections go out the window and we're left with accepting the referendum will most likely be justified.
It would be a self-inflicted harm to a democracy, so yes, I would be supporting something which meets the sense of "anti-democratic" that I mentioned previously. But it would not have gained my support as the ideal course of action.
Well, you can hardly blame others for supporting it either as long as it's not their ideal course of action (it's not mine, for example, I would have preferred if a soft-Brexit deal had been struck), In which case, I don't know what the criticism was.
The criticism is that your support for a second referendum was, and is, premature. Even at this stage, I still don't think that the time is quite right. I still don't support it. Whereas you expressed support for it some time ago.
You should go back and read your own posts. You gave the strong impression you were in principle against rerunning referendums in such short time periods (exactly what you now say you'll most likely support).
Yes, and I still do. =consistency. :wink:
Quoting Baden
The only difference in our positions now seems to be that you think number 3) alone is justification for rerunning the referendum (in the likely case of a no-deal threat) whereas I would require more than that. You could have said that earlier and saved us both a lot of typing
Btw @Hanover is going to be very disappointed at this Brexit betrayal. But, meh, who cares what he thinks. :up:
Yes, and I am, but I'm not an absolutist, so there can be exceptions where I would sacrifice that principle and consider it the lesser of two evils.
Quoting Baden
As a last resort! And only to avoid a no deal scenario. Can you show me where I've said that I would support a no deal scenario as the next best alternative to a deal? What other alternatives would there be if a deal isn't possible and no deal is a worst case scenario? You box me into a corner and then act like I'm a supporter of a second referendum, but that's quite misleading without qualification.
I have never agreed with the Tory sound bite that no deal is better than a bad deal. No deal would be the worst case scenario, so I would support any other option before it came to that, with my preference being for some kind of soft Brexit, as that would do the least harm economically besides remaining, which shouldn't be an option as a result of losing the referendum, except as a last resort.
Quoting Baden
I too would be disappointed that it would force my hand, just as I was disappointed that Leave won, and just as I was disappointed that being principled meant giving my support to the winners. But leaving without a deal is a red line. And I don't believe that there would be enough support for that particular option. I think that it's even less popular than May's deal.
The upshot would be that Remain is the best option in a number of ways, like economically. And besides, Hanover wouldn't feel the brunt of leaving without a deal, unlike those of us who actually live here in the UK, so for someone like me, it's not just an academic matter, it would effect my actual life in a way that it wouldn't effect the lives of others.
Sure. Deep down everyone is a murderer. :chin:
In your own words, it's "unlikely if not impossible" your worst case scenario won't happen. So you most likely will support a referendum under the exact condition I highlighted, which you previously criticized, and in the time-frame you railed against as being anti-democratic and resulting in "democracy shooting itself in the foot". Those are plain facts and your verbal gymnastics to try to downplay them aren't going to convince anyone. You're most likely to support this referendum soon because it happens to suit your pragmatic considerations just like it suits my pragmatic considerations now, the only difference being you want to wait a short time, which by your own admission is probably not going to make any difference. You therefore haven't got a principled leg left to stand on in opposing rerunning this referendum or any other where similar negative consequences are threatened.
The EU is a club with mutual overall benefits not a foreign colonizer. Leaving it is dumb because you lose those benefits and gain very little in return, and in a no-deal scenario, it's not just dumb but very self-destructive. Little birdies without any wings shouldn't be pushed off cliffs and everything is not going to be alright.
(You may consider the fact that @S is willing to dump every principled argument he's made here in the probable face of no-deal threat as a mark of how not alright things could get.)
Some Americans just don't understand what exports (or trade) mean to other countries. You just produce for yourselves and get the rest as imports from China. Don't have to care a damn about things like your main export partners as over 300 million of Americans is quite enough of a market.
Export ratio, meaning export of goods and services (% of GDP):
UK: 28,1%
USA: 12,6%
(Germany: 46%)
UK's exports (in £, 2015):
1. To the EU 133 bn
2. To the US 45 bn
(And of course that the EU is in reality more a confederacy made up of independent states, not a federation of non-independent subjected states.)
No, not consistency for consistency's sake, but I get what you're saying. It's a dilemma, at least for me - Michael doesn't seem as troubled - and one has to weigh up the options. I get the consequentialist argument for cancellation or a second referendum, but that would require making certain sacrifices which I'm not so willing to make and would rather avoid altogether or put off until there's no better option.
It's not fear, to a large extent it's that the economic forecasts are undesirable.
Yes, that's exactly what I suggesting. Glad we got that cleared up. :up:
This is going around in circles with you emphasising one aspect of my position and me emphasising the other, but we're both just describing my position.
But you're wrong that to say that I haven't got a principled leg left to stand on. One of those principles which remains in tact is that I have yet to resort to the defeatism of yourself and others, which you apparently consider a triviality. I'm not going to jump to any conclusions, I'm just thinking ahead.
It's not a foregone conclusion that we'll end up with no deal.
Yes, it is. Let's leave it at that
This figure has gained some interest as of late, making some question who's really gaining an advantage from the centralized Euro. I realize that the UK isn't one suffering, but the German success is an interesting phenomenon.
First of all, if the birdies have no wings, then they're going to be eaten by those who do. It's just a matter of time. Second, yes, everything is going to be alright, the song says so:
I see. I misunderstood your earlier post. What's the route to ignoring the last referendum (other than just having another one, and then possibly another?)
This is a very emotionally mature position.
Sure, all else being equal, promising to more people adds weight to the promise. However, I was aware that the referendum involved a lot of people and I don't see how this changes any of the reasoning's for a second referendum I posit as defendable. Again maybe not "true" arguments, just of a sound and reasonable structure following likely agreeable ethical principles to most UK residents.
Quoting S
Ok, we are in agreement here, but (at least in the post I was responding to) your argument was it's simple ethics that promises should be kept; if you make a bold statement like this you should expect to be challenged.
The relevance of the circumstances I bring up is that parliament could make a reasonable defense of a second referendum along any of the lines I mention. My main point is there's no clear constitutional or political or ethical or "fairness" principle that somehow excludes a second referendum. If you agree that in principle a second referendum would be justifiable with "sufficient changes" or "sufficient evidence of campaign fraud" or "sufficient changes to the makeup of parliament that they need not feel bound by poor decisions of passed leadership", then we are in agreement in principle.
As for the "promise of binding", I do not feel this is a simple defense. For instance, what do we mean by "binding"? That article 50 would be triggered? Well, that's already done so "promise fulfilled", what do we do now that a deal is on the table: consult the people once again.
Quoting S
From what I understand the May-EU proposed agreement is the "final offer" as far as the EU is concerned, so it seems to be there's something to vote on.
Quoting S
A second referendum would not render the first meaningless. In any complex planning process it's very normal critical things come up for votes several times; so it's fairly natural that there's a vote to start a process and then the same kind of vote at critical junctures in the process. For instance, if you instruct your lawyer to liquidate all your assets and throw the money out of a helicopter, it's likely they will come back at each critical step to know you still want to carry it through (though I don't mean this analogy as a alarmist parallel for Brexit, it's not like starting a disastrous war or something on that scale; for me the stakes are more geopolitical: I believe, despite the EU having man flaws, it is a much greater force for democracy and peace building than China or the US going forward; so UK staying in EU makes the EU stronger and in a better position to counter-balance China and US; and remember Trump maybe just the beginning of the current US foreign policy trajectory -- we should not assume that Trump is about to go nor that what will follow him will be magically better).
The consequences of the referendum have been triggering article 50, going all the way to 30 months before Brexit deal or no-deal. I believe in the context of the Brexit campaigns, the "binding promise" was more about the idea parliament would just ignore the vote and do nothing; in that scenario, yes I agree it would lower faith in the democratic process; however, the actions of parliament post-Brexit vote have definitely had consequence, and so given all those consequences and actions by the parliament it's quite natural to confirm things in a second vote.
Quoting S
"Promises should be kept" is a good slogan, but the problem with good slogans is that even knowing that the issue is more complicated, the feeling of "having a good slogan" quickly translates to a feeling of "the position is strong as it has such a good slogan that can make gains in twitter memes and sound bits allowed to air by the media". In other words, people can quickly become victims of their own propaganda, especially with a compliant media wanting to shelter people from any nuance (as that quickly creates space to criticize elites); though I'm not saying this is your case, it could be worth reflecting how "average George" can quickly believe good slogans means a good positions must exist that these slogans represent.
Quoting S
Yes, my points are mainly on the theme that it's not anti-democratic for Parliament to call a second referendum. Given Parliament "represents the people" it isn't anti-democratic "in itself" for parliament to decide not to have a second referendum (any criticism of this is reducible to the whole Parliamentary scheme, not inconsistency in the system as it is; i.e. no second referendum would be consistent but within a low-efficiency-democratic system as a whole; in other words the same elites-representating vs as-direct-as-practical democratic, such as the Swiss system, debate as existed before Brexit or second-Brexit).
Now, if I was an MP I would vote for a second referendum. The main argument I would use is that if I struck a preliminary agreement with another business and then the lawyers drafted the final version of the agreement, I of course have the right to backout and even if the lawyers (i.e. my representatives) had power of attorney to sign on my behalf -- and even if their understanding of my instructions left room for interpreting that maybe I don't want to review the final draft -- I would definitely want to review the final draft as well as consult me again at critical points. No competent representative in the business world would act otherwise without either incredibly clear instructions to not-re-consult or then some sort of bizarre situation where confirmation is impossible and so they did their best; in the case of Brexit, re-confirmation is not impossible, and any lawyer would, given a similar situation in business or with individuals, that obviously confirming at each step is the best way to know one is faithfully representing their clients; I don't see why political representatives should have lower standards (which is logic that leads directly to the Swiss system, which I am a big fan of). So yes, I'd expect my representatives to respect my preliminary indication of what to do, but I'd also expect them to come back once they have a clear idea of the agreement or execution plan so that I could give a final decision (preliminary agreements are not binding as that makes negotiations basically impossible, it's binding after the signature and parties can walk away before that; in the case of Brexit it's a highly suspect line of reasoning that "the results of the referendum being biding" continues to make every further step towards Brexit also binding, it's entirely consistent that the results are binding to start implementing the objective and further consultation is reasonable to make subsequent critical steps also binding).
I read that in the case of no-deal, they'll switch to WTO rules. I think they would actually be fine doing that except for the bumpy transition.
Why would a second referendum be plagued by the same issues? From what I understand the main problem with the first Brexit vote is that the option to leave had no clear interpretation; no reasonable person would argue that 51% of people voted for a no-deal Brexit for instance, and without that interpretation it's unclear what the mandate is exactly.
However, a second referendum can be between three clear options: EU's offer, no-deal, or remain.
Parliament simply revoking article 50 seems to me, pretty clearly, would be plagued by far more issues; and is exactly what the Brexiters were crying wolf about (that parliament would one way or another ignore the referendum results).
Edit: Also, in terms of time, the EU would certainly grant an extension so a proper referendum can be made if needed; in terms of money the cost of a referendum is far outweighed by the economic implications; and in terms of democracy it's the most valid democratic process on critical issues (why a referendum was called to join the EU in the first place, so completely consistent that a referendum would be called to validate a new relationship with the EU).
The problem for the UK is the loss of direct access to the EU market for goods, services and capital. That will lead to an immediate and permanent reduction in GDP.
This makes a number of assumptions: that the UK's free agent status won't allow them to negotiate better deals with other trading partners (like the US, Korea, or wherever), that the free trade within the EU was the most beneficial arrangement for the UK, and that the UK can't negotiate a better arrangement with the EU once they leave.
Britain going at it alone poses all sorts of risks, but if their expertise is superior, then they could be successful here. Judging from the muted enthusiasm over the whole enterprise, I'm beginning to lose confidence in them. Maybe they can hire some Americans to figure it out for them. If nothing else, they'll at least bring some optimism.
How do you know it would be permanent? The UK imports a hefty load from the EU, so it's not like they have no power to negotiate a nice deal. And there are other markets.
Economic crystal balls are frequently wrong.
Quoting Benkei
Then you've suggested that they could take their customs less seriously without any breakdown in rule of law.
Honestly I don't know what to make of the UK government. I'm not sure how it has managed to function this long.
The UK is steeped in tradition. It's not like they radically swing from one direction to the next. They have a monarchy for God sake. And it's not like the US Constitution has been used to maintain tradition and stability in the US. It's actually been used as a force for great change.
As Benkei also alluded to, Britain is a common law country, meaning its courts adhere very closely to precedent. I'd also point out that even in those countries with constitutions, many don't have constitutional courts vested with the power of striking down legislation. The point being, the US's method is just one of many.
The referendum is already contaminated by the results of the first thereby unnecessarily restricting the offered options. Remain still doesn't in any way address the issues people want to vote on, whereas both leave options do to a certain extent. See my previous example with five possible options to give you an idea. So it will still be issue voting and the only reason remain could win is because the leave vote would be fractured as the issues people would vote for are captured by both leave options.
Quoting Hanover
This doesn't make sense if you really think about it. Why would the EU offer a better deal to non-member States? It's not going to happen barring some full scale disintegration of the EU.Also good luck with finding an alternative market as developed with similar purchasing power and the size of the EU. So they'll have GDP growth at some point again but the GDP reduction for the next 2 to 5 years will be real (and a permanent loss compared to remaining).
Quoting frank
The Dutch stand to lose 4.7% of GDP because of Brexit. We still closed ranks as part of the EU because the value of the EU is not only economic. There isn't a nice deal available as it would undermine the EU if not being part of it doesn't make you significantly worse off than being in it.
That was a bad choice of words on my part. I meant the reduction will happen and you can't win it back, it's like running a 400 m race having to run 100 m extra compared to the rest of the track.
I mentioned three clear options to contrast with the first clear vs unclear referendum. I didn't mean to exclude the potential for even more options. Ranked choice seems to already deal with vote splitting. Do you think this wouldn't work for some reason, or are you against ranked choice in principle?
However, I completely agree with your points on why a no-deal Brexit (and Brexit to begin with) is a terrible choice.
From what I understand of the EU-May deal, it's basically "stay in the EU with a few ornamental changes, and have 80 years to activate the real Brexit". And I assume the politicians are in agreement that they won't let a no-deal Brexit happen, either calling an referendum or proceeding, as you suggest, of a parliament vote against the deal and then vote to remain in the EU (though I just don't see how that's politically palatable, so I assume they'll go with referendum or then accept May's deal).
edit: even now I can't bring myself to believe UK politicians are foolish enough to go no-deal ... but they've been proving me wrong so far ...
I think a lot of UK commentators, and certainly more voters, don't quite get these two critical parts.
A "good deal for the UK" is an existential threat to the EU, the only options are crashing out (so painful no other country would try it) or then functionally staying in the EU but now with no say (no other country would see the point). The UK is big but not big enough to have leverage over the EU to make existential concessions.
And even with these two option of crash-out or basically stay in the EU, Brexit could still cause a cascade of events that lead to the break up of the EU.
The EU is both a successful peace mission and a failed neoliberal-corporatist experiment (with undertones of NATO encroachment to Russia's border and playing second fiddle to disastrous US militarism in the middle east) with these bills now coming due. It's tempting to walk away from the failure parts, I do sympathize with the Brexiters, but on a global scale the EU can anchor a peaceful re-ordering during the US-China inversion. Without the EU, most countries will have no choice but to switch from US to Chinese patronage, and if we now view the US's promotion of democracy during tenure as world super power as wanting we will give it a stellar rating compared to what we will see with unchecked Chinese geopolitical influence (especially once they start to really need those east-Asian and African and South-American resources to maintain internal stability).
You are correct. The real winner of the Eurozone is naturally Germany.
You see, during the old times when countries had their separate currencies, the old trick was to devalue your currency and hence get your export industry back to being competitive for a while ...until inflation kicked in. Once all these countries that joined the eurozone couldn't resort to this gimmick as there was a single currency, the masters in competitiveness, the German export industry, were the ones being even more the winners. But heck, can you name some awesome Greek company making some well known industrial products like Volkswagen, Daimler Ag or Siemens etc? Nope.
The EU was simply an awesome idea as an union for commerce. It's hideous as a vehicle for political union especially if the objective is some kind of US of Europe. I think the worst threat to the EU are the idiots in charge that are trying to make it into a tight political federation.
The tighter federation is a failure of the corporatist forces, not the peace building I am referring to. The goal of the EU constitution was basically so corporations can overrule local governments, which is anti-democratic and anti-peace. But, the EU constitution didn't pass precisely because the EU is not a federation where a central bureaucracy can impose their will on local structures.
However, in terms of promoting dialogue and cooperation between nations, and more importantly creating an economic and diplomatic block to implement shared values on the global stage, the EU is a big success.
The EU has far more impact on global affairs than the sum of all the individuals countries would have separately, and I would argue this influence is far more positive than what would otherwise occur. EU development aid policies, inter-governmental cooperation, a block of "power" that does have leverage visi-a-vis other great powers, as well as trade relations, has a massive affect on global politics. The EU's policies promote democracy and human rights in all sorts of ways, and the EU is also a template and example for peaceful close intergovernmental relations.
Of course plenty of criticism of the EU is valid on many levels, and it's possible (though I think now very unlikely) the EU doubles down on corporatist police-state trajectory, but if the EU were to breakup I find it exceedingly likely China and the fully developed distopian police state Chinese model will start to fill in all the cracks at the global level. China has zero interest in promoting democracy and human rights, does not serve as a democratic model, and (absent the EU as an alternative economic partner) China will be able to provide vassal states both economic development, protection and their social control technology (which will become more and more refined).
These geo-political considerations need to then be put in the context of ecological disruptions and resource crisis. The EU is in my view our likeliest chance to solve our ecological problems, it is a large enough trading block to implement large policy initiatives.
Of course, if climate change is a hoax, if China's a success case of how capitalism can thrive without democracy, if massive famines and resource wars aren't "our problem", then of course the EU is a silly thing. Not to say that you personally have such opinions, but I wish here to highlight that the EU is more than just commerce for people who see it as a force for peace, human rights and reasoned global policy initiatives (compared to it not existing at all), and despite a lot problems to fix and a hard road to help build and promote democracies elsewhere and also start solving the ecological crisis, still a good bet and worth contributing too.
Edit: So for us EU proponents in the above sense, Brexit is not simply "will Britain GDP do better within or outside the EU", but very potentially a start of a process that breaks up the EU; the UK is a big piece and leaving has lot's of political consequences, many unforeseeable.
I think UK politicians will feel compelled to recognise the results of the first referendum and don't think that realistically their thinking will have evolved or will evolve in the time left that it would lead to a sensible referendum. So it seems politically impossible. Ignoring that I'd think it would be good to have a referendum although I'm still not sure if it is already ready for one considering the lack of detailed analyses of various options.
It's very interesting you say that, and thanks for the general analysis too. The suspicion I have is that it is the UK that will break up, with N. Ireland (eventually) federating with the South, and Scotland going independent and seeking to rejoin the EU. But we agree that it is divisive, perhaps it is a mutual myopia, or perhaps both will happen ...
Someone gave a great summary of what is happening globally, that there is a growing attraction to and rise of "Strong Leaders", who set about dismantling the institutions that were set up after WW2 to protect us from the repetition of "Strong Leaders" that brought us to that war. Well at least no one can accuse the UK of having a Strong Leader, though many wish for one. :roll:
Worth a look if you have time, or if you haven't try the Guardian's pre-digested bombshell - sounds appropriately messy and uncomfortable.
This is true. For example, this is why Russia is so against the EU and would be extremely happy if it dissolved. Any European country alone isn't at all superior to Russia. And smaller countries (just like my own) wouldn't dare to protest against the annexations of Russia with sanctions if not part of a bigger community.
When you look at geopolitics in Europe with a longer view focus, one can see an obvious thing that is lacking especially in Eastern Europe, and that is the void that has been let after the collapse of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. In a way the EU has replaced the old power politics in this area and has been able to sweep aside old tensions. The other organization that has also eased tensions between European countries has been naturally NATO and membership in the mutual defence organization.
Just to give one example is to look where Hungarians are a majority:
I was just raising a counter point. It would only change the arguments that you presented if you were to accept that it's reason enough to reach a different conclusion.
Quoting boethius
That's a misreading. That's not at all what I meant. I meant that, despite the complexities involved in discussions about Brexit, some of it can be boiled down to some key ethical issues of a more general nature, that we're all familiar with, such as whether a promise should be kept, and under what circumstances would it be justified to break one.
And no, I never said that promises should be kept without qualification, and that's certainly not what I meant to suggest. I wouldn't make such a claim.
Quoting boethius
Sure there is, and lots of people would make that argument. I'm not even a Brexiteer, at least in the fullest sense, since I voted to remain. Try speaking to those on the other side of that vote. I guarantee you, you will find that lots of them will be of the opinion that a second referendum would be wrong and/or unfair, and should therefore not be permitted, at least not any time soon.
Quoting boethius
I've argued against some of those reasons. As I've said, the only circumstances in which I would accept a second referendum as a viable option is as a last resort if we were headed straight for a no deal Brexit.
Quoting boethius
The referendum results being treated as binding would mean that the government does everything in their power to follow through on them, i.e leave. It wouldn't just mean triggering article 50, because they have the power to revoke it. The promise wouldn't be fulfilled if the government did anything that risked undermining or effectively invalidating the results, like holding a second referendum.
And bypassing our representatives in parliament to consult the people directly over the current deal or the final deal isn't the only option or necessarily the best.
Quoting boethius
The scare quotes are appropriate. We can't know whether it truly is the final offer until the last minute. Both sides could be bluffing to some extent in order to put pressure on the other side. The media has today reported on new government plans for a no deal scenario, which could also be a tactical move to some degree.
Quoting boethius
It would render it meaningless fundamentally, even if not absolutely, i.e. in every respect.
Quoting boethius
But that wasn't how it was sold. I wouldn't expect to be given a second shot if I gambled away all of my chips in a casino.
Quoting boethius
Yes, there have been consequences, such as those you mention. I'm not denying that. But the whole shebang could become meaningless in the sense that it would've all been for nothing if we end up remaining.
Lots of political decisions have consequences, and people can feel differently about things over time, but that in itself is a fairly weak justification for going back to the public a mere two years later for a do over - and that's what it would be. If you just wanted confirmation of what people think, then you could look at the most recent polling data.
There were no doubt plenty of people who would've liked a do over of the referendum on Scottish independence in 2016, two years after the vote. There were also no doubt plenty of people who would've liked a do over of the 2010 general election two years after it was held. But that doesn't mean that they should get what they want. As a model, that would be both unworkable and undesirable. People want their decisions to mean more than that. If we could just potentially cancel any such decision after a short period of time, then making that initial decison would lose much of that importance. Furthermore, it could end up either wasting a lot of time, money and effort in the case of acting on the initial results, or just cause a pointless two year delay until there's a vote that actually counts.
I say again, the option of a second referendum should be taken as nothing other than a last resort in order to stand a chance of avoiding the unwanted disaster of a no deal scenario. It isn't in itself justified, nor should it be tolerable in light of anything other than the imminent danger of crashing out without a deal.
Quoting boethius
It would to some extent be an act of self-harm by the establishment within the political system [i]to[/I] that very system of which both they and we are a part. That political system is, by the way, a form of democracy. So, although it might not mean or want to be, it is in a sense anti-democratic. Just because a second referendum would be more directly democratic than alternatives, that doesn't mean that it wouldn't undermine the democracy of the United Kingdom; and if it risks doing that, then it's not so different to threats of an explicitly anti-democratic nature.
Quoting boethius
I agree.
Quoting boethius
I don't think that I could do so in good conscience at this stage. The priority should be working towards acquiring a deal good enough to gain a majority in parliament. There's a mandate to leave on good terms, to which I'd be duty bound to respect.
Quoting boethius
That interpretation is susceptible to the criticism that there was what was essentially a verbal contract - which was made public knowledge - which stipulated that the government would treat the results of the referendum as binding, even though the referendum was technically only advisory, and even though the ECJ has since ruled that the UK can revoke article 50. It certainly wasn't sold to us as advisory or as a preliminary indication. It could be further argued that if the government were to violate that verbal contract, then they should be held to account in some way. There should be repercussions.
Moreover, you mention a final say, yet there is already due to be a final say. It's due to happen in the House of Commons, and it's on whether or not to accept the deal that is due to be put to the members of that house: our representatives. You might favour a different - more direct - democratic system, but the reality is that that's not the system that we've got here. You might also favour there being more options than that, but the fact is that we already decided to leave, and it would take something big to happen for additional options to become more of a reality. We're not there yet.
I think that the real choice is - or will be - between striking a deal or cancellation. The former could be May's deal, an altered version, or a different deal. (And the deal [i]could[/I] change, even if there is signalling on either side that it won't). The latter could be with or without a referendum. And no deal is considered to be the least acceptable option by many, perhaps most, myself included, so I'm still not convinced that it'll actually come to that.
There are no independent nations these days. We live in a global economy, and all nations are linked by this into mutual dependence. :roll:
Yes I agree a referendum doesn't seem likely. The plan seems to be to go right to the edge of the "crash out" and so force accepting May's deal; or at least this seems May's plan. I don't know enough about UK politicians to guess what other factions maybe planning. However, if this plan doesn't work, I wager a referendum is more likely than no-deal Brexit and the EU would supply more time if that's needed. Parliament just cancelling Brexit is also in the running but seems less likely to me. A no-deal Brexit seems insane, but so was a vague Brexit vote with vague promises of the vague results being totally binding.
Yes, this is also what I'm arguing against. The principle "promises should be kept" is actually quite difficult to apply, even to just add weight among many other considerations.
The "we'll consider it binding" is only really meaningful to consider as referring to the individuals politicians that participated in this claim and not "all parliament", even at the time. There was no law passed explaining what "binding" meant and actually making it "binding" on the government (until repealed of course).
Parliament is not a singular cohesive moral agent, so just to establish who exactly made this promise to begin with is a complicated task. Obviously any new MP could say "hey, I didn't make this promise". Since there was an election in the meantime, any politician that was MP at the time could say their mandate has changed (any representative can always justify a change in position based on claiming their constituents have changed position; whether disingenuous or not, it's a sound argument); so even politicians that unequivocally participated in the promise could say "it was a promise of the previous parliamentary session", now there's a new sessions and it's our job to look at all the options. But I would wager most MP's could easily say they "didn't really back the promise", that they viewed it as a promise of the PM and cabinet at the time.
Then, what was "binding" referring too?, if it wasn't a mandate for a no-deal Brexit and the chaos that would follow, then the only alternative is that it's a mandate to "get a better deal with the EU by a negotiated exit" ... but then who's to say what's a better deal or not?
After doing this, there remains the possibility that the promise has been kept, that everyone understood it to be triggering article 50 which the government did, which at the time everyone understood would "lock in Brexit"; in other words, the "binding actions" have been carried out, that the resulting situation is not what people expected doesn't somehow extend the scope of the "binding promise" one way or another.
So even just establishing what the promise actually meant and who should still feel bound to it and to what extent it has been fulfilled is a complicated philosophical task requiring reviewing each MP's statements and even state of mind of what they believed "binding meant" when they made or were associated with the promise.
That's the problem with vague promises and why verbal contracts rarely get uphold in law. The purpose of a written contract isn't so much as to prove the agreement was struck (a easily forged signature isn't much proof, which is why there are notaries for when the proof is the essential part), but much more to actually spell out what people are agreeing to and why what seems like a simple agreement can be easily dozens or hundreds of pages.
Then, once all this is established there's all the further issues of under what conditions is it right to break the promise and do those conditions exist.
The more I think about it the more likely I find it that the article 50 notice will be revoked if there's no deal to be had. At least to me that seems the only sane options if the alternative is a no-deal Brexit since there won't be enough time for another referendum.
History teaches that sanity cannot be relied on.
Looks like I'm in agreement with Tory cabinet minister, Amber Rudd.
[quote=BBC News]"I have said I don't want a People's Vote or referendum in general but if parliament absolutely failed to reach a consensus I could see there would be a plausible argument for it," the work and pensions secretary told ITV's Robert Peston show.[/quote]
As well as Labour shadow cabinet minister, Angela Rayner.
[quote=BBC News]Speaking on the same programme, Labour's shadow education secretary Angela Rayner said talk of another referendum was "hypothetical" at this stage and would represent a "failure" by Parliament.
She accused the prime minister of trying to scare MPs into backing her deal by delaying the vote on it to the latest possible date.[/quote]
It's always been a matter of degree.
Indeed it has/is, but you commented that we are afeared of independence, when there is no longer independence to be had. Unless you suggest we should emulate N Korea in their isolation? And even they depend (heavily) on China, the only nation that will deal with them. Independence is only attractive in theory, in today's world.
Like I said, it's always been a matter of degree, which doesn't imply you have to accept the degree of autonomy that exists in N. Korea in order to be independent. The UK removing itself from the EU won't make it isolationist. I fully expect trade to continue, just under terms negotiated by Britain. I think there's a definition of "independent" that doesn't include being a hermit.
:chin:
Quoting Hanover
And how long (after Brexit) must we wait before these negotiations start, never mind bear fruit? At least one country has told us to 'get in line', as they're currently negotiating deals with bigger and more important trading partners than us. Meantime ... no imported food for us? :chin:
Quoting Hanover
A hermit chooses to live in isolation. We won't be choosing that, we'll be finding that it's the case because everyone else is too busy living their interconnected, dependent, lives to have anything to do with a very minor country unable to transcend (or even accept) the loss of its historic empire.... :roll:
But never mind the chaos, never mind the so-called decision, and whether anyone can or will make it or has made it, the important thing is that Jeremy Corbyn might have muttered to himself 'Stupid woman", when May was literally doing her pantomime routine in parliament. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-46628420/mps-accuse-corbyn-of-calling-may-stupid-woman
Not all of Europe is in the EU, like Switzerland, Norway, Iceland (to the extent that is part of Europe), to name a few. Why will Britain's departure spell such disaster if other nations have fared well without the EU association? Is there something distinct about Britain's dependence on the EU that doesn't affect these other nations? Maybe the rebel states could form their own confederacy.
No, we should seek a better one. There should be a no confidence vote on the government when the time is right. But if that fails, and it's either May's deal or no deal, then yes, we should take May's deal.
What basis do you have to think there's a better deal? The government has prioritised control of the UK borders, goods over services. If you want a better deal you need to adjust priorities or there's nothing better to be had.
That might be true, but a different government would have different priorities. There could be a change of government as a consequence of a successful vote of no confidence against the government. A government lead by someone other than Theresa May would have a different set of priorities, which would lead to seeking a different deal, and a different deal could arguably be a better deal.
You can say that that seems unlikely, but the same can be said of May's deal passing a vote. So if we're setting aside these kind of considerations in our talk of what should happen, then my preference is for an alternative deal.
Sure. And for any government to have enough time to negotiate a new deal will require revocation of the article 50 notice. Works for me.
I don't see what the contention is here. A referendum would happen if the Parliament voted for it to happen, so would satisfy the current system of democracy and simply be an extension of it.
Quoting S
I don't see how this works. Why would parliament calling a second referendum undermine UK democracy?
Quoting S
This seems to directly contradict your next statements:
Quoting S
If the referendum was a binding mandate to leave, "does everything in their power to follow through on them, i.e. leave", then there's basis to have a referendum nor a vote in parliament that could revoke article 50. Parliament could vote down the deal, but then there must be a no-deal Brexit.
It's not a principles position to say on the one had "the referendum was binding to leave" but on the other hand "I would accept a second referendum [...] if we were headed straight for a no deal Brexit". It may feel principles, but thee principles are no consistent. The refernedum wasn't a vote for "negotiate a good exit from the EU and if that doesn't work cancel it", so if you want to stick to the results of the referendum as binding to leave, then what follows from this principle is leaving the EU deal or no-deal.
If you accept revoking article 50, either by parliament directly or by parliament calling a second referendum that revokes it, is better than a no-deal Brexit, that is to accept either mandate of the referendum was not to leave deal or no-deal or then the situation has changed enough to warrant reviewing (by parliament or a referendum) the decision to leave.
Your position seems to be that sticking to a principle until it's too inconvenient and then abandoning it, is a more principled position than accepting the position can be abandoned on a more nuanced discussion of the many principles in play.
Quoting S
The problem, as I've mentioned, is that "parliament" nor "the government" is a single moral agent to begin with, so any MP can argue "they didn't make that promise". On-top of that "what exactly was the promise" is up for debate.
Quoting S
The available repercussions to levy are voting those responsible out of office.
Quoting S
This is the core problem in your position. If you accept the parliament can have a final say then that final say could be to hold a second referendum to have a "final-final" say (in other words it's not a final say). If you accept the parliament can decide vote one way or another, then they are legitimate in deferring whatever decision they might make to a second referendum.
You seem to be interpreting things already assuming that there won't be a second referendum and the parliament has the right to not-call a second referendum, and somehow that parliament could do this is justification in itself. I agree nothing is forcing UK parliament to call a second referendum, but that they have the power to decide not to call a second referendum implies that they have the power to call a second referendum. The main purpose of my arguments is to show a second referendum isn't somehow anti-democratic, and that parliament could base a decision to hold a second referendum on a wide range of reasonable and sound arguments (that doesn't make those argument true).
The process to extend the deadline isn't revoking article 50, nor even require any action on the part of the UK. The deadline is an imposition by the EU, and the EU states can vote to grant an extension; legally speaking they could do it unilaterally but I assume UK would need to ask.
There was an article the other day discussing exactly this, and that France and Spain may be motivated to block granting an extension.
However, I feel no one has any real principles to refer to in casting a veto against an extension for a second referendum to happen (although there's lot's of principled reasons to not grant the extension simply for the UK negotiate more), and it's very difficult to block a whole continent wide "almost consensus" for narrow self-interest (or just to spite the English). There's too much at stake and there would be too much pressure from Germany and the Nordic EU members and EU bureaucrats against a potential French veto for more time for a referendum.
I'm not saying it's guaranteed ... it would be a crazy irony that the French give UK time to have a second referendum, while dealing with the yellow-vests who have mostly consolidated around a demand to have more referendums in France. So it wouldn't be comfortable for France ... but the UK revoking article 50 is I think also sufficiently humiliating for the English political class and still weakens the UK's position within the EU for some time and simply revoking article 50 is a lot easier to deal with (French businesses don't want Brexit either).
All the options are bad now that the UK has verified that the EU won't give them a better deal (including not being willing to bend core EU principles to solve internal UK problems that any form or Brexit creates), but a second referendum seems to me the only way to really "settle" the issue and move on.
A no-deal Brexit would be an order of magnitude greater political suicide for the conservatives, potentially lead to large social unrest and serves no purpose.
If May's deal has no Parliament or public support (since it's clearly just a worse way to stay in the EU), then there's really no reason to pass it and even if they (whoever thinks it's a good idea, presumably May) managed to force it through it may result simply in wanting to get back in the EU later.
Parliament voting to revoke article 50 simply proves the Brexiters fear-mongering that the Parliament would never respect a leave vote and would just dilly-daddle and then cancel it. A second referendum is much easier to defend and provides some closure. The argument "it's not fair to vote again" simply doesn't holdup to scrutiny, and Brexiters holding on to this would eventually just be sulking in a corner.
Edit: Brexiters would probably still say it was dlli-daddling anyway, but there is actually a deal on the table and plausible basis to believe it's close to the best the EU would offer. More importantly, the prominent leavers are no where to be seen, so the "bad-faith" argument is much easier to throw at the leave campaign of not having a clue how to actually leave. For instance, UKIP hasn't been stumping everyday demanding that they should lead the negotiations since they would easily get so, so many concessions so easily from the EU and that a "better deal" would be this, this and that (the embarrassment of demonstrating their ignorance about what to do is worse than staying silent and implicitly accepting their bad-faith, but having the consolation prize of re-emerging after article 50 is reversed to accuse everyone else of bad-faith too). In other words, if Leave is A. better for the UK and B. the government was negotiating in bad faith, then certainly we'd hear about it from the Leavers: since we don't hear from them on how they would be easily doing it better, it's pretty easy to argue that they weren't of good faith to begin with (that their campaign was to build momentum for isolated aspects of their platform, such as anti-immigration, that they would have continued to beat on about when remain won the referendum, which everyone assumed, and their campaign was not some actual plan to leave the EU and resolve all the issues that creates).
It wouldn't necessarily lead to a general election. The Tory party would have a chance to form an alternative government. Either way, I don't think that it's impossible to obtain an alternative deal either in that in time or with an extension. I'm sure that contingency plans have been considered and discussed, and the opposition party has been in talks with the EU from the start, so it's not like there'd be starting from scratch. And a general election takes place over just a single day.
According to the guy who actually drafted article 50, who probably knows what he's talking about, you're wrong about a delay:
[quote=John Kerr, The Guardian]Almost certainly that will require some extension of the article 50 deadline beyond 29 March. The treaty is very clear about this – it can be done but requires unanimity among all EU states. If our purpose in asking for an extension was to allow time for a referendum, there is no doubt that all would agree. Brexit would be bad for everyone, though obviously worst for us.[/quote]
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/dec/06/drafted-article-50-brexit-referendum-eu-state
And there are other articles accessible online which confirm that it is possible for article 50 to be extended.
[quote=BBC News]One possible option would see Parliament having a role in deciding whether to extend the transition period or enter the backstop arrangement, if no trade deal has been reached by the end of December 2020.
The transition period is due to kick-in when the UK leaves the EU on 29 March. It can only be extended once for "up to one or two years" - but if the two sides have still not agreed a deal by the end of that second period, then the backstop will apply.
[...]
They could, as the agreement already suggests, just extend the "transition period", giving the two sides longer to come up with a free trade deal that would mean the dreaded backstop is never used.[/quote]
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-46472824
Corbyn has said that the earliest an election could take place is February - as a month needs to pass after a government has resigned before a vote can take place.
If Labour won, he said he would still want to pursue Brexit, and try to get a deal agreed before 29 March 2019 - the day the UK is set to leave the EU.
When asked about a second referendum, he offered no support, saying: "I think we should vote down this deal; we should then go back to the EU with a discussion about a customs union."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-46658335
I'm not banking on the support of the EU for a delay at this point.
And I've just seen this:
Quoting boethius
Which basically makes the same point. So, spot on? I don't think so. :snicker:
Quoting Benkei
Nevertheless, it could happen.
I don't really get your focus on unilateral options available to the UK. What's relevant is that article 50 can be extended if need be, whether you find that point interesting or otherwise. And it's relevant because it could pave the way for alternative paths.
Meanwhile I'm still waiting for that apology for not reading carefully what I wrote and insisting I was wrong where I wasn't (twice).
You may consider that rare admission of error and apology a Christmas present. :grin:
I'm not sure if the confusion has been cleared up already, but there are two extensions.
Extending the negotiation deadline is a EU decision, i.e. the EU could unilaterally decide to not impose border controls and tariffs and extend the article 50 deadline to some later date. For instance, if the UK is in parliament deadlock, vote of no-confidence the week before the deadline, and simply does nothing, the EU could decide to grant an extension (there is no set process that the UK must request a extension by some formal mechanism, the EU could decide it by themselves to; to avoid chaos for EU citizens and business for instance).
However, absent parliament deadlock and a collapsed government, presumably it would be a mutual thing to agree on an extension. I mention the EU could grant an extension unilaterally just to underline that article 50 is an EU law and changing it would require an EU decision process: The consensus of all the EU countries. So in theory a single EU country could block an extending of the article 50 deadline (apparently France and Spain would be the most motivated).
These are small details but could become suddenly relevant.
Extending the article 50 deadline is not the same as extending the transition period that is part of May's agreement. Once May's agreement is in place, the whole article 50 deadline goes away and a new bilateral treaty between the UK and EU is in place ... which basically keeps the UK functionally in the EU for a period that could be extended unilaterally by the UK for up to 80 years (expressed by using 20XX as date placeholder, which to me is a weird way of saying it).
Quoting Benkei
Quoting S
I agree here with Benkei that the EU would not help in the case of UK wanting to extend article 50 simply to negotiate more.
However, if the UK asked for a 1-2 month extension in order to do a referendum, in diplomatic parlance the EU would "look like a douche" for not granting that, so I think it would be likely. At the end of the day the EU still doesn't want the UK to remain and a referendum to remain would be the best way to put the issue behind to rest.
Given the cost of Brexit to the UK and that many issues still have no way to resolve (good Friday agreement) and that Brexit will supercharge Scottish independence and maybe Whales, and all the prominent Leavers jumped ship, I think the EU would be confident that the UK wouldn't start the whole thing over again any time soon.
Quoting Benkei
The more I think about this, the more tricky it becomes. At the moment it isn't official, just the recommendation of some top EU lawyer. But if it was official, any country could trigger article 50, try to get a better deal and if not revoke article 50; doing it whenever they want as much as they want. This may lead to the EU being forced to simply not negotiate whenever article 50 is triggered but offer only "crash-out or revoke"; not sure if this would be a good development or not, nor if the EU court would consider this scenario in a final decision to allow unilateral revoking (of course, revocation could always be bilateral).
Edit: Unilateral revoking of article 50 would even allow a group of countries to do it together, protesting this or that, and create one-sided brinkmanship since they can just cancel a minute before the deadline. Since all countries have to be treated equally within the EU, there's nothing the EU could do to disincentivise this sort of behaviour. As a contract lawyer, , I imagine you'd never accept a party able to cancel a deal, try to negotiate a better deal and shop around, and then be able to simply cancel the cancelling and go back the first deal if they don't find better.
Even under a late change of Prime Minister who was open to a deal seen as more attractive by both the EU and parliament? I guess they could try to force us into cancelling Brexit or leaving without a deal. If it was Corbyn in charge, maybe he'd fail to get a better deal and bow down to the pressure of having a second referendum. Or it could all backfire spectacularly and we end up leaving without a deal, with both sides ending up worse off than otherwise.
Yes, this is the EU's current position.
It could change of course, but Benkei and I both agree that it's very unlikely the EU would grant an extension simply to see if the UK could get a better deal.
Benkei finds it unlikely the EU would grant an extension even for a time to have a proper second referendum, whereas I think they would do that; but the decision would be up to EU governments. Without EU governments being unanimous in changing the treaty, EU technocrats in Brussels would be forced to eject UK from the EU, as that's the law as it stands.
Even UK's right to revoke article 50 (i.e. without all the EU governments agreeing) is not officially a law, just recommendation as I mentioned. It could be basically the EU trolling the UK (messing with May's ability to say "Brexit is locked in, it's deal or no-deal"), and they'd actually not give unilateral revocation rights (as it's a crazy precedent; an analogy would be the right to give your work 2 weeks notice, then just send an email the night of your last day and then just show up and keep working there if your other plans fell through; "no backsies" is a pretty well established legal precedent, so this whole "right to revoke article 50" doesn't have any legal foundation as far as I can see).
Quoting S
As it stands, the EU views a no-deal Brexit far more painful for the UK than the EU, whereas showing the EU red-lines (the so called "pillars") can be bent would undermine all further EU negotiations with both member states and trading partners as well as create a "UK trading backdoor".any country could exploit. This is why most experts say there simply is no better deal to be had, and May's deal is way better than they expected (expectation was UK would be punished in someway, whereas May's deal is pretty fair and allows UK to simply delay the real problems leaving entails until the end of the century; problem is there's no real basis to say the deal is better than staying in the EU, and 80 years of transition would basically be a diplomatic farce).
I'm not just talking about the UK getting a better deal, I'm talking about a better deal for both. But anyway, I don't think that I'm disagreeing with either yourself or Benkei to any great extent on this point. You may well be right that it's a long shot. But it's not impossible or absent of any incentive, and it's what I'd push for until I'd exhausted all of my efforts and concluded that it was necessary to turn to a Plan B.
Case law ECJ to revoke article 50
I haven't studied the decision in detail but a quick scan suggests that the article 50 notice is considered a declaration of intent to leave and not a formal notice. The distinction seems a bit silly so maybe someone who had more time can read the whole thing.
In any case, not just opinion.
In Britain, we are beset by waves of populism and a [url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p06hsc1d]resurgent far right[/URL] that thrives on fear, mistrust, and democratic crisis. Our institutions—from Parliament and the political parties to the media and civil society—are simply not fit to respond. The vote to leave the EU was a political earthquake, a clamour for change that has been a long time coming. As Abraham Lincoln put it, in no less a moment of historical rupture, “The dogmas of the quiet past are unfit for the stormy present.” That is the hard truth for our political system. We elected representatives cannot carry on divorced from an understanding of the sentiment out in the country. We either adapt and change, or we will be erased.[/quote]
By opinion I meant simply to differentiate with a ruling by the court. But I seem to be behind the times, I wasn't aware a court has made a ruling recently, previously I had only read about the ombudsman recommendation, or is this a separate thing?
Also, it says in this document "preliminary ruling", is there further steps to get to a final ruling, or this legaleze to say final ruling in this context for some reason?
Thanks for posting the link, it's an interesting read. They did indeed consider the crazy abuse unilateral revocation of article 50 would create:
This argument makes complete sense to me.
I can honestly not follow how the conclusion to grant unilateral revocation rights is reached. Basically they refer to the principle that a country cannot be forced to leave the union against their will ... but the purpose of triggering article 50 is exactly a willful exit. It seems (to me) pretty weak quibbling to say a "that Member State changes its mind and decides not to withdraw from the European Union" is now "forcing the member state to leave against their will".
So will be interesting if this isn't the final decision if it gets reversed, likewise if the ruling become final, or is already final, it's interesting how the EU would deal with future article 50 negotiation (or that they have to amend the treaty to make the "exit as a member state" immediate at the start of article 50 but a 2 year status quo agreement, or something along those lines).
It's a final decision. It's based on a request of another court on the interpretation of EU law, in this case a Scottish Court. People can appeal the decision of the Scottish Court but not the basis of that interpretation which is now established EU law.
Hasn't the EU already told us it's this deal or none? They are the biggest economic power bloc on the planet. Once we've left, we're just a third-world country struggling (and failing) to accept the end of our Empire. The position we occupy in the world, on the UN Security Council, and our privileged position in the EU, are all courtesy based on our history. We no longer rate that kind of respect, as we are about to find out when we leave our cosy seat in the EU....
Jesus Christ. How many more times? Yes, they have told us that. It's called playing hard ball.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
You are preaching to the choir. I voted to remain.
Firstly, do you believe everything you're told? Secondly, can I borrow your crystal ball? I would like to know whether I'll win the lottery.
Given that you are happy to pay £13billion in fees, £4billion in fish, £4billion in benefits to EU citizens, to sustain a £95billion deficit in traded goods, for whatever benefit you think you get in return, why does no other country pay the same?
I believe Project Fear has such a device, though it seems to be malfunctioning for the last couple of years.
You can cherry pick stats until the cows come home, but I'm siding with the economists on this one.
Quoting Inis
Sure, and you expect me to believe that you know better than the experts, I suppose? They've been wrong before, so we should just go ahead and disregard what they've been saying?
Sure, but why is UK expected to pay so much, when no other country does? Germany pays more in fees, but is vastly over compensated in surplus in trade of goods.
The customs union cannat be called "free-trade" when it costs the UK so much.
I don't know whether or not what you're saying is true, but if your purpose in saying it is to dissuade me from the notion that our membership of the European Union is the best thing since sliced bread, then there's no need for it. I just think that it's better than the available alternatives.
Being an open free-trading democracy, is always better than the alternatives.
No, it's a matter of priorities. When comparing an open free-trading democracy to alternative democracies, my priority is what makes us economically better off. I shouldn't end up economically worse off as a consequence of your fondness for the idea of open free-trade.
Many people prefer to live in a sovereign democracy than a undemocratic burgeoning police-state, even if that state invests a great deal of your money into propaganda.
The Brexit vote was proof that the British still value self-determination. Project Fear could not be ignored, and everyone believed that, while the Bank of England and Treasury predictions may have been slightly pessimistic, UK was in for some serious economic problems if the country voted Leave. I seem to recall the BoE predicted 600,000 immediate job losses.
If your only concern is your wallet, it might be worth noting that UK would be bankrupt if it were not for its profitable trade with the Rest of the World.
That's a false dichotomy.
Quoting Inis
It's not my only concern, but it's a primary concern. And prior to the referendum, we were not at risk of going bankrupt as a result of losing profitable trade with the rest of the world, so what you're saying is misleading. We would continue to profitably trade with the rest of the world in or out of the European Union.
Less than 8% of UK GDP has anything to do with selling goods to EU, according to the EU Commission. They don't want your stuff, they just want your money, your fish, and £4billion in benefits.
According to the office of national statistics, in 2016, the income from UK exports to the EU alone was worth almost as much as the income from UK exports to the rest of the world (£235.8 billion compared with £284.1 billion respectively). And almost half (48%) of UK goods exports went to the EU. So they most definitely want our stuff.
And, although I don't have the number at hand, given these statistics, the percentage of UK GDP which has to do with selling goods to the rest of the world can't be much higher, so again, you're cherry picking.
Also, you should know that UK services, and financial services in particular, make up a significant portion of our exports. So why focus exclusively on UK goods?
Because very few countries are as rich as we are? Only five countries in the whole world (which boasts hundreds of countries) have more than we do. And besides, I thought Germany paid more than we do, and maybe other members too? :chin:
Of these "hundreds of countries", how many of them give away a £4billion fishing industry, pay £4billion in benefits to citizens of neighbouring countries, suffer a £95billion deficit in traded goods, and pay £13billion for the privilege?
Why would any sane country do that?
You're doing it wrong, and I suspect that you're doing it wrong on purpose to try to make the situation look worse than it is, and I'm going to keep exposing you every time that you do this. You need to look at net profit, not just expenses, and you need to compare that to what it is estimated to be after leaving. Economists, who know what they're doing a lot more than you, have done these kind of calculations and worked out that we'll likely be worse off, i.e. lower net profit.
The £95billion figure is not the overall trade deficit figure, which is actually the lower figure of £67billion. And the comparative figure for your £95billion for non-EU countries is a trade deficit of £42billion. (Source).
Here is a fact check on the UK's trade deficit with the EU. By the way, note that about 80% of the UK economy comes from providing services, and we have a trade surplus with the EU in services.
:up:
https://blog.supplysideliberal.com/post/143465789704/david-pagnucco-the-eurozone-and-the-impossible
Democracy is a catastrophe for those whose plans don't support it.
Unfortunately, the exotic spresm that is Brexit can't be unspressed without consequence.
Can’t be followed through without consequence either. And as I’ve said before, my crystal ball is telling me that the consequences of Brexit - especially a No Deal Brexit - would be worse than the consequences of revoking Article 50.
This is strange, because paying £13billion in fees annually, £4billion in fish, £4billion in benefits to EU citizens, to maintain a £95billion deficit in traded goods seems pretty catastrophic already.
Less than 8% of UK GDP depends on selling goods to EU.
A no deal Brexit will simply mean that things carry on as they are (as WTO rules demand) but the UK is free to trade openly with the rest of the world, rekindle it economic links with the Commonwealth, and become a functioning democracy once more. Oh, and it saves £39billion and gets its fishing industry back.
UK is a signatory to WTO, and trades with the rest of the world on those terms. UK actually runs a trade surplus under WTO.
According to WTO rules, trade between UK and EU will continue under current arrangements for 10 years or until a trade deal is agreed.
I think people are seriously misjudging the mood of the British.
The British are desperate and angry. Unfortunately at entirely the wrong people. That something is popular does not prevent it from being a disaster. But you miss the point as usual. The WTO is an international governing body like the EU. We could leave, and take back control. It would be another really bad idea.
Trump: US will quit World Trade Organization unless it 'shapes up ...
As I said, UK already trades under WTO (where the EU will allow). In fact, Germany's single largest trading partner is China, with which it trades mostly under WTO.
UK's single most profitable trading partner is USA, with whom it will have a free trade agreement soon after Brexit, so whether USA is in WTO or not is irrelevant to UK.
Trade deals are being offered to UK from across the globe. WTO is merely a fall-back where no deal exists, like with China or USA.
UK citizens already have to register their residence in Finland, and demonstrate they have sufficient funds to support themselves and their family. Same applies across the EU.
Except Britain, of course, which has to put up with hordes of Finns coming here to take advantage of the wonderful happy life that we all lead here with our super-generous benefits system and state of the art health service.
UK is only managing a net immigration from EU of 74,000 per anum at the moment. The 248,000 from elsewhere will help take up the slack.
I don't think there is a large Finnish population in UK, but there are a million Poles, and approaching four million EU citizens in total.
Gosh, 4 million is a lot, I don't think my spare bedroom is big enough. But back to the WTO, that unaccountable undemocratic overwhelmingly foreign organisation imposing its trade rules on us. Let's take back control, Leave the WTO!
I find it rather amusing that the UK has more representation on the WTO than it does on the EU Commission.
I also find it deeply amusing that UK is forced to be a member of WTO by the EU, yet still manages to have more representation on WTO than the EU Commission.
After Brexit, UK will effectively have to re-join WTO as an independent member.
Looking at the timid plea asking people to register, I'm not so sure how adamant the authorities have been of this with Britons as members of the EU. You see, in our small northern country, Britons make only a tiny community. It was earlier reported that there are 4 000 Britons living here. Then the figure climbed to 4 500 and now the number has gone up to 5 000. A 25% increase tells that the numbers weren't so exact in the first place.
Quoting unenlightened
Of course! In your Island Kingdom there are 20 000 of our lazy freeriders with Finnish passports enjoying your benefits and just idling around and drinking beer. Just like my best friend, who works there in a managerial position at BP. Hope you throw all those bums out and among them my friend, who then perhaps has to take the job offer from the Norwegian Statoil. He just dismisses the whole Brexit thing as a non-event, so rudeness from his country of residency would be good for his cocky attitude.
And as the EU messes up everything (where the EU, there a problem) and your politicians seem not to be better, a total fiasko is possible. Looking at it positively, it would be nice that we would go back to old time travelling days when not only did you need a passport, but also a visa to enter a country. And what else to get people more happy than to make a huge immigration chaos and demand people to apply for residence permits everywhere. I can imagine all those over one million Britons living in the continent and those millions of EU citizens in your country waiting in line in overcrowded immigration centers along with the Iraqis, Syrians and Afghanis.
Here the applications from Britons for Finnish citizenship has gone up over +200%. Yet what better thing to do than create a problem for a group of foreigners that really in no way have been a problem here. Here's one story:
Unfortunately, my friend might be correct that not much if anything happens with a no-deal Brexit on the surface. Even the EU Comission has urged to take easy with Andrew Frankton and with other Britons here.
Well, I agree with your first sentence, and like I said, a No Deal Brexit is the worst case scenario, so yes, revoke Article 50 if it's a last resort to prevent a No Deal Brexit. I still don't think that we'll end up in with a No Deal Brexit, though.
And then some civil unrest, economic collapse, the break up of the Union and we'll all wake up, those that survive, to find ourselves serfs on the Rees-Mog estate and grateful for it M'lud.
Have you seen her wiggling ability? I don't believe she could wiggle her way out of a cornfield.
Brexit can be delayed with EU permission, but there are mixed signals from EU whether they would give permission and for how long. They have already allocated some of the UK MEP seats to other countries, and are unlikely to want their parliament turned into a farce if UK returns a load of eurosceptic MEPs in the May EU elections.
If May wants to stop Brexit altogether, she is going to need primary legislation, and I'm unaware of any on the horizon.
The EU has offered a free trade deal in return for Northern Ireland.
She wiggled her way out of supporting a hard Brexit by dumping her red lines in the Irish sea. As a consequence there was a leadership challenge which she wiggled her way out of losing by promising to step down at the next election. Then she wiggled her way out of having to support the soft Brexit she didn't really want either by conspiring to lose the vote on it by a record margin. Next she'll wiggle out of no-deal by extending the deadline or some other such maneuver by getting the moderates in her party to rebel against her. And finally she'll find a way to wiggle out of any Brexit at all by getting Labour or some cross-party alliance to leave her no other choice. That's a lot of wiggling for someone stuck in a cornfield.
Well, call me a Pollyanna, but I still reckon Jacob Mouse-Mugg is more likely to get eggs Benedict all over his face rather than the Bulldog's breakfast of Brexit he so covets.
How can Brexit be stopped? By law, EU treaties cease to apply to UK on 29th March.
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/eu-could-extend-brexit-deadline-if-london-provides-good-reason-11130682
There is provision for extending the A50 notice in the Withdrawal Act. But how long would the EU be willing to grant the extension for? And, as far as I can ascertain, such an extension can only happen once.
Would make the EU elections in May very interesting.
I don't know, but a no-deal is not inevitable nor is any Brexit at all (though some kind of Brexit is more likely than a no-deal imo). And I don't expect a no-deal because I expect economic concerns will trump ideological ones.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/sunday/brexit-ireland-empire.html?fbclid=IwAR2sgBKxor3h21jsmofR6fnFF4RcMyMPY8neibY5MITliUbf6mKOYxsZLOk
Hysterical claptrap. UK trades profitably with the rest of the world under WTO, and many countries lining up for a trade deal, including USA, Japan, and Commonwealth countries. UK's problem is its £95billion deficit in traded goods with EU. An economic disaster.
Under UK Law, a no-deal Brexit is the default, and will happen, unless something better is agreed. 700,000 German jobs depend on selling goods to UK.
A knock down argument as always.
https://www.predictit.org/markets/5/World
Chances of official Brexit by the deadline currently hovering at around 25% according to those with skin (i.e. hard cash) in the game. Even that's generous, I'd say. Read a bit more about parliament's power to thwart Brexit and anti-Brexit Tory rebels like Oliver Letwin and you'll see why.
E.g. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/08/cross-party-alliance-of-mps-tells-may-we-will-stop-no-deal-brexit
How do you think Brexit might be stopped?
Cameron was a eurosceptic who sabotaged his credibility, and lost on purpose for Remain.
He cancelled an EU-ID card scheme in 2010, and his Home Secretary Theresa May presented the bill to Parliament. The same year he made a bizarre immigration pledge - adding, "or vote me out" - which Theresa May failed to deliver in spectacular fashion.
Cameron announced there would be a referendum in 2013, in defiance of the expressed will of Parliament in 2011, who rejected a referendum by 485/111. Cameron then made it a manifesto commitment the Commons could not block, and the Lords could not amend. So Cameron DICTATED there would be an in/out referendum on the EU.
The EUID card could have given UK government exact numbers on who came and went, how long they stayed, and - as allowed under EU law, remove them if not employed after three months.
Instead, 330,000 EU immigrants in 2015, figures published during the campaign period.
Add to that Cameron's "renegotiation" weeks before the vote - that was predestined to fail because it asked for things that would require EU treaty change. It served to educate the public - with all the coverage it got in the media, but had no genuine purpose.
As soon as he touched back down on UK soil, he appointed himself chief advocate for Remain - and appointed his aide, Craig Oliver, to oversee the Remain campaign.
When Cameron resigned, Craig Oliver was recommended for a knighthood. May was promoted to Prime Minister - and is pushing on with brexit based on a crooked referendum, a marginal vote, rejected by MP's, and rejected by the House of Lords, regardless!
It's a criminal conspiracy.
How would you characterise the Soros funded campaign by the elites to undermine democracy?
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/comment/can-mps-actually-stop-a-no-deal-brexit-from-happening/
I just can't see Parliament getting its head far enough out of its arse to manage any of this. I think 2 would require 3 for definite, and 3a has been ruled out by the EU. 1 would require a climb-down of huge proportions that seems very unlikely -115 MPs changing their minds.
The chances of settling on a referendum seem small at the moment, a general election might be more attractive, but it's hard to see how it can be arrived at.
4. Is simple enough to be doable, but since the whole thing is about the mismatch between politicians and electorate MPs will be much frit.
So I conclude that No deal is the most likely result because politicians are weak, irresponsible and incompetent.
Brexit would very likely lead to breaking of UK, Scotland preferring EU as independent and Northern Ireland preferring EU as member of Ireland. Tory leadership (unlike Tory and UKIP voters) most likely considers EU membership as lesser evil that UK breaking up and only England and Wales remaining. This, most likely, is the decisive, fundamental calculation.
Next, tactical question for Tory leadership, how to avoid Brexit and put the political blame of remaining on the opposition? As it seems, the tactic seems to be to botch up the "deal" on purpose, and leave it to majority of House of Commons to take initiative to last minute revoke of article 50 nominally "against" the May government, to avoid threat of no deal Brexit, but de facto doing exactly as planned. And majority of the public opinion wrath goes against Labour.
I'd have to ask - when you say "democracy" what on earth are you referring to?
Well, in the specific case of Brexit, democracy is embodied in the referendum, its result. and the government's promise to implement the result. This culminated in the EU (Withdrawal) Act which became law in June 2018.
The well-funded attempts by the Establishment, the Elites, and Corporatists to undermine the democratic process, will have repercussions far beyond Brexit, if they succeed.
Yes, regarding a no-deal, I'm actually looking forward to the "I told ya so!" moment. But if it ends up being another scenario like the last presidential election, I'm going to be pissed. Hopefully the world hasn't gone [i]completely[/I] mad.
Thus far, I like the way that the opposition parties and rebels within the governing party have forced the [i]weak and unstable[/I] government's hand on a number of Brexit related issues. Theresa May threatens a no-deal, but would she actually go through with it? She was a Remainer, and doing that would turn a lot of people against her and potentially ruin her career, which is already hanging on the edge of a knife.
Yes, she does a very amusing wiggle to the tune of 'Dancing Queen'. :rofl:
Grab your tin foil hats, folks! (It's incompetence, not conspiracy. You're giving Cameron & Co. too much credit).
The 2016 referendum was corrupt and anti democratic in about six...teen different ways. As already stated, Cameron was a long term eurosceptic who defied the expressed will of Parliament to provide for a referendum entirely on his own recog - as a manifesto commitment no-one could obstruct. I've explained how his immigration pledge and renegotiation sabotaged his credibility, even as he appointed himself chief spokesman for Remain. And that's saying nothing of the rumour he once fucked a pig!
But take your pick from a menu of other anti-democratic elements:
Take the fact Cameron told the public, the result of a legally advisory referendum would be implemented, thereby forcing the hand of Parliament, in relation to the chaos caused by a screeching racist and absurdly false propaganda campaign, stolen facebook data, Russian interference, financial corruption. And that's to say nothing of the brutal murder of an MP during the campaign - threats to march on Parliament, and judges declared "enemies of the people" in the media. Add to that the fact that the official Leave campaign was outsourced to an unaccountable rabid right wing economic policy pressure group called the Tax Payer's Alliance, while the Remain campaign was kept in house, and controlled by Cameron and his aide, Craig Oliver.
Skip forward to today, and Cameron's Home Secretary - who cancelled the EU-ID card scheme that would have given the UK control, sacked the head of the borders agency, Brodie Clarke, and allowed 660,000 immigrants into the country in 2015, and published those figures in the campaign period - is now pressing on with brexit based on a corrupt referendum, a marginal 52%/48% vote, rejected by MP's, rejected by the House of Lords - then I fail to see how the term "democracy" applies.
Too much credit? Credit is given where it's due. Cameron has a first class degree in politics from Oxford, and cut his teeth in politics as advisor to eurosceptic MP Micheal Howard. In 2005, Cameron wrote a manifesto for Howard, that contains Leave campaign rhetoric word for word, relating immigration and EU membership - and demanding an in/out referendum.
Cameron provided for that referendum 10 years later - but we are supposed to believe he didn't really want to. People are led to believe he was forced into it by the rise of UKIP - a tiny anti immigrant party who were absolutely nowhere until Cameron's absurd immigration pledge, and who were never a threat to Cameron because we vote in constituencies - not nationally. Given that's factually wrong - why do people believe it? And how can anyone imagine Cameron believed his immigration pledge - to which he added, "or vote me out."
Credit where credit is due - Cameron worked all his political life for this, and he got what he wanted. The idea a man with a first in PPE from Oxford, who rose like a rocket through the ranks of the Conservative Party to become PM, 'fell out of the EU by accident' is absurd on the face of it. It's not incompetence, it's genius. Only, criminal genius.
p.s. check youtube, Cameron, 2009, Lisbon Treaty
Who represents you on the EU Commission?
Lord Hill resigned if I recall correctly. But in fact, national appointees to the EU Commission represent the EU. Nation state governments are represented in the Council of Ministers, and the people are represented in the EU Parliament.
Contrary to common misconceptions, while the EU Commission alone proposes legislation, legislative proposals are developed in coordination with the Council and Parliament. Proposals are then voted on by the Council and the Parliament, but the Commission has no voting rights whatsoever. It's actually a very transparent and elegantly democratic system.
He didn't want Brexit. He was playing with fire and got burnt.
My informed and well worth reading posts have disappeared up the page under this progression of mindless pro brexit nonsense.
You must be referring to Inis's posts. If you think that this is bad, you should see his posts in the Trump discussion.
Quoting karl stone
and:
Quoting karl stone
You note correctly, that you have no representation on the EU body with monopoly on legislative initiative, monopoly on fiscal initiative, and which enforces EU treaties. You seem to be happy with this anti-democratic arrangement, yet complain that when people actually vote, the process is undemocratic.
This makes no sense, unless you really don't care for democracy, but are happy to smear your opponents as undemocratic, because you know they care about such things.
Speak of the Devil... :lol:
Quoting Inis
Why did you respond to me with a subject entirely unrelated to anything I wrote? If you don't recall, I said this:
Quoting karl stone
Do I bore you?
You mean pro-Democracy nonsense, surely.
The UK cancelled their referendum on EU membership in 2006 because it was clear that the people would vote the same way as France and the Netherlands. At that point the idea that a referendum should be ignored, as they did on the continent, was anathema to even the Europhiles. How things change.
But we agree that it's nonsense either way, so let's not quibble over what kind of nonsense it is.
Again, you seem to be sidestepping the issues raised in my posts. The 2016 referendum was undemocratic and corrupt, and a valid democratic result cannot follow from an undemocratic and corrupt process. The vote should be ignored. It was a split decision in an advisory referendum. Despite rampant corruption, leave won by a nose. It's not the will of the people. There's no plan that commands a majority in the House of Commons, or the Lords, and the policy is a failed policy - certain to result in a damaging no-deal exit. Absolutely it should be ...set aside.
If UK abandons democracy, it will be like France on a Saturday, except it will be every day.
Great comment mate. Compared my comments:
Quoting karl stone
That's a very compelling argument. Thanks for that!
And had Remain won, I'm sure you would be complaining about the corruption.
A hypothetical scenario? Do you expect me to respond to that? Something dredged from your fevered brexiteer imagination - when you won't respond to the facts laid out before you? So let's get this straight - your position is: brexit no matter what. Yes? So now you can STFU. You have nothing else to say.
You haven't laid out a single fact though.
Another from the "brexit no matter what" club? The facts don't matter to you. Nothing else does. You have nothing to say, so STFU. Or engage with the facts:
The 2016 referendum was corrupt and anti democratic in about six...teen different ways. As already stated, Cameron was a long term eurosceptic who defied the expressed will of Parliament to provide for a referendum entirely on his own recog - as a manifesto commitment no-one could obstruct. I've explained how his immigration pledge and renegotiation sabotaged his credibility, even as he appointed himself chief spokesman for Remain. And that's saying nothing of the rumour he once fucked a pig!
But take your pick from a menu of other anti-democratic elements:
Take the fact Cameron told the public, the result of a legally advisory referendum would be implemented, thereby forcing the hand of Parliament, in relation to the chaos caused by a screeching racist and absurdly false propaganda campaign, stolen facebook data, Russian interference, financial corruption. And that's to say nothing of the brutal murder of an MP during the campaign - threats to march on Parliament, and judges declared "enemies of the people" in the media. Add to that the fact that the official Leave campaign was outsourced to an unaccountable rabid right wing economic policy pressure group called the Tax Payer's Alliance, while the Remain campaign was kept in house, and controlled by Cameron and his aide, Craig Oliver.
Skip forward to today, and Cameron's Home Secretary - who cancelled the EU-ID card scheme that would have given the UK control, sacked the head of the borders agency, Brodie Clarke, and allowed 660,000 immigrants into the country in 2015, and published those figures in the campaign period - is now pressing on with brexit based on a corrupt referendum, a marginal 52%/48% vote, rejected by MP's, rejected by the House of Lords - then I fail to see how the term "democracy" applies.
and:
Too much credit? Credit is given where it's due. Cameron has a first class degree in politics from Oxford, and cut his teeth in politics as advisor to eurosceptic MP Micheal Howard. In 2005, Cameron wrote a manifesto for Howard, that contains Leave campaign rhetoric word for word, relating immigration and EU membership - and demanding an in/out referendum.
Cameron provided for that referendum 10 years later - but we are supposed to believe he didn't really want to. People are led to believe he was forced into it by the rise of UKIP - a tiny anti immigrant party who were absolutely nowhere until Cameron's absurd immigration pledge, and who were never a threat to Cameron because we vote in constituencies - not nationally. Given that's factually wrong - why do people believe it? And how can anyone imagine Cameron believed his immigration pledge - to which he added, "or vote me out."
Credit where credit is due - Cameron worked all his political life for this, and he got what he wanted. The idea a man with a first in PPE from Oxford, who rose like a rocket through the ranks of the Conservative Party to become PM, 'fell out of the EU by accident' is absurd on the face of it. It's not incompetence, it's genius. Only, criminal genius.
We'll still have our democracy though, so your premise is flawed. It's far from ideal that we've got ourselves in such a mess that one possible resolution which needs to be considered is going back on the results of a democratic vote. A democratic vote the result of which both main parties committed to honouring. But a no-deal Brexit is not a price worth paying for that. Not out of my wallet, anyway. On the other hand, if we little people are going to be financially compensated by the richest of bastards, then go for it. But there's a greater chance of hell freezing over than that happening, so...
Cue the pro-Brexit propaganda, cherry picking, etc.
By the way, remind me, how did the French feel about having less money in their pockets as a result of decisions implemented by the political elite? The very political elites that they, as a majority, themselves democratically voted into power. I could've sworn that they've been out on the streets in their droves causing a ruckus for precisely that reason.
It wasn't democratic, for the reasons stated, at length, repeatedly above - and let's face it, probably below! The fact the referendum was well attended is not in dispute. The fact people had their reasons, is also not in dispute. The idea the myriad of reasons people voted Leave relate directly and solely to EU membership is a far more dubious proposition. To funnel all that generalized discontent into a specific policy that would disadvantage those very people most, is the rotten cherry atop the huge shit sundae that is brexit.
You're wrong on that point, as I've also argued throughout this discussion. The referendum was indeed democratic, and not only was it democratic, if it wasn't democratic for the stated reasons, then many other votes that have been held would be likewise undemocratic. It's all or nothing, as I see it. But that's hogwash. I can't think of a single undemocratic referendum or general election in the U.K. unless, for example, you go way back to the days when women and poor people couldn't vote, rotten boroughs, and the like. Baden tried to argue that the referendum is a unique situation which warrants exceptional and unprecedented treatment. I don't buy that argument. It ain't [i]that[/I] unique.
I'm really not wrong though. That's the sad thing. You're only saying that, not actually challenging the facts as I've set them out. Because you can't. Am I right?
The 2016 referendum was utterly corrupt, and brexit is a bad idea. It really is a bad idea. It serves merely to empower a group of people who opted out of the Social Chapter of the Maastricht Treaty to create a low wage, low regulation jobs market, while selling off all the council housing, and selling off the utilities for peanuts to their city slicker pals, who failed to put accession controls in place on the 2007 expansion of the EU, so all those immigrants came to Britain to work in that low wage, low regulation jobs market, who refused to build council housing while subsidizing shitty wages with tax payers money, starving public services of funding. None of which is the EU's fault. So yes, people had their reasons - but to funnel their discontent into a policy that will give those Thatcherite Tory bastards a clean slate and absolute power is the very worst thing those with real grievances could possibly do.
Why don't you list the 16 different corruptions?
Quoting karl stone
Both the Conservatives and the Greens had manifesto commitments for an EU referendum. Cameron was never a eurosceptic, and campaigned strongly for Remain. The claim of yours that Cameron was a eurosceptic is entirely fictional.
Quoting karl stone
Now you're being hysterical.
Quoting karl stone
Fiction again.
The EU Referendum Act 2015 was passed by 544-53 votes in the Commons, and laid the legal foundation for holding a referendum.
The EU (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017 passed in the Commons by 494-122.
So, it took two pieces of primary legislation, passed by overwhelming majority of MPs to hold a referendum, and to give power to the prime minister to implement the result. Cameron wasn't even around for the second part.
What do you think you get for £13billion membership fee, £4billion in fish, £4billion in benefits to EU citizens, and a £95billion deficit in traded goods?
Nice try. Maybe leave the goading to the experts. I'm not challenging any facts. I'm challenging your evaluation of them. And I've already been there, done that.
Right on cue! :clap:
There never is an answer though.
You must have a short memory. Perhaps a look back through the pages of this discussion will refresh it.
If UK received anything of value in return approaching that huge financial burden, then why does no other EU country pay a similar penalty?
That's a separate issue. I am not required to explain that. It is known that the UK [i]does[/I] receive substantial economic value from our relationship with the EU, as many credibly sourced statistics indicate. And many credible and authoritative sources have concluded that we'll be better off in than out. Like I told you before, you can cherry pick all you like, but I'm not foolish enough to be tricked like that.
Less than 8% of UK GDP depends on selling goods to EU, according to the EU Commission.
The 2016 referendum was corrupt and anti democratic in about six...teen different ways. As already stated, Cameron was a long term eurosceptic who defied the expressed will of Parliament to provide for a referendum entirely on his own recog - as a manifesto commitment no-one could obstruct. I've explained how his immigration pledge and renegotiation sabotaged his credibility, even as he appointed himself chief spokesman for Remain. And that's saying nothing of the rumour he once fucked a pig!
But take your pick from a menu of other anti-democratic elements:
Take the fact Cameron told the public, the result of a legally advisory referendum would be implemented, thereby forcing the hand of Parliament, in relation to the chaos caused by a screeching racist and absurdly false propaganda campaign, stolen facebook data, Russian interference, financial corruption. And that's to say nothing of the brutal murder of an MP during the campaign - threats to march on Parliament, and judges declared "enemies of the people" in the media. Add to that the fact that the official Leave campaign was outsourced to an unaccountable rabid right wing economic policy pressure group called the Tax Payer's Alliance, while the Remain campaign was kept in house, and controlled by Cameron and his aide, Craig Oliver.
Skip forward to today, and Cameron's Home Secretary - who cancelled the EU-ID card scheme that would have given the UK control, sacked the head of the borders agency, Brodie Clarke, and allowed 660,000 immigrants into the country in 2015, and published those figures in the campaign period - is now pressing on with brexit based on a corrupt referendum, a marginal 52%/48% vote, rejected by MP's, rejected by the House of Lords - then I fail to see how the term "democracy" applies.
and:
Too much credit? Credit is given where it's due. Cameron has a first class degree in politics from Oxford, and cut his teeth in politics as advisor to eurosceptic MP Micheal Howard. In 2005, Cameron wrote a manifesto for Howard, that contains Leave campaign rhetoric word for word, relating immigration and EU membership - and demanding an in/out referendum.
Cameron provided for that referendum 10 years later - but we are supposed to believe he didn't really want to. People are led to believe he was forced into it by the rise of UKIP - a tiny anti immigrant party who were absolutely nowhere until Cameron's absurd immigration pledge, and who were never a threat to Cameron because we vote in constituencies - not nationally. Given that's factually wrong - why do people believe it? And how can anyone imagine Cameron believed his immigration pledge - to which he added, "or vote me out."
Credit where credit is due - Cameron worked all his political life for this, and he got what he wanted. The idea a man with a first in PPE from Oxford, who rose like a rocket through the ranks of the Conservative Party to become PM, 'fell out of the EU by accident' is absurd on the face of it. It's not incompetence, it's genius. Only, criminal genius.
Ah yes, those six...teen mysterious ways.
That's a lovely cherry. Where did you pick it? I think you've shown it to me before. Is your plan to keep showing me it until I'm brainwashed?
From page 1:
Quoting S
Baden did a better job of arguing that the referendum was invalid or undemocratic or however it's to be worded, and I don't agree with him, so I definitely don't agree with you. I do accept that there were lies, campaign overspending, a [I]relatively[/I] close result (Leave actually got 1,269,501 more votes), but I don't think that that's a sufficient reason, so I reach a different conclusion, and that's that.
It's a petty small figure isn't it. Definitely cherry rather than pineapple. Perhaps it reflects the fact that a lot of The UK GDP is for local consumption. I think this indicates that the peasants still have far too much money to spend.
So...? About half of the UK's total trade is with the EU:
https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7851
The EU Commission, but there are plenty of sources, e.g:
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Intra-EU_trade_in_goods_-_recent_trends
Now all you need to do is calculate the percentage of UK GDP this represents. The number you will get is less than 8%.
So it looks very small in isolation, so that's how he's going to present it, and he's just going to keep repeating this stuff, and doing stuff like this, as he has continually been doing, despite objections, because he's here to spread propaganda, and so he should be banned or at least given a warning if he hasn't already.
Total trade with the EU sits at about 44% of GDP and falling, but that is irrelevant. UK pays money to the EU, gives up its fish and pays £4billion in benefits to EU Citizens, in return for access to the Common Market in traded goods. There is effectively no Common Market in services.
I suppose it's possible that like Terrapin he thinks we're all morons, in which case maybe both of them should get a room and work at repopulating the world with geniuses.
Terrapin is worth [i]at least[/I] about a hundred of this guy. He's no where near as bad as him.
UK runs a surplus in traded goods with the rest of the world, and its most profitable trading partner is the USA, with which the UK returns a trade surplus of £34billion.
When the UK can trade with who it wants, under the terms it agrees, the economic growth will be phenomenal. Open free-trading democracies always beat protectionist customs unions.
[quote=Office for National Statistics][A]s a union of 27 other countries, the EU still had a much greater share of UK exports than the US in 2016 (43% compared with 18%). A report in the FT showed how for almost every category of goods exported, the EU was by far a bigger market than the US.[/quote]
From an article titled, 'Who does the UK trade with?', 3rd January 2018.
Quoting Inis
Growth is important, but so are other factors, including and especially net profit. You don't give a credible overall assessment. You either don't have the skill set or the level of skills required, or you're just choosing to avoid it and be purposefully selective instead. When it comes to overall economic forecasts, it will be Inis vs. most economic authorities. I know who I'm siding with.
UK trades more with the rest of the World than the EU. This is obvious since UK trade with EU accounts for 44% of GDP, despite the paltry 8% of GDP in traded goods.
Trade with USA accounts for the greatest trade with any other country, and it is massively profitable. With every EU country, UK runs a trade deficit, apart from Ireland. In fact UK deficit with Germany is totally offset by UK trade with USA.
However, Uk does not have to pay £13billion to trade with USA.
You cherry-picked the statistics again. 44% represents exports only. 53% of all imports come from the EU.
No.
According to the Office for National Statistics, UK total trade with the EU was £622billion in 2017, which includes imports, exports, goods and services.
Trade with the Rest of the Words was £650billion, which includes exports, imports, goods and services.
650+622=1272
622/1272=0.49
Therefore 49% of UK trade is with the EU not 44%.
If you don't even understand your own figures or can't read:
"The EU, taken as a whole is the UK’s largest trading partner. In 2017, UK exports to the EU were £274 billion (44% of all UK exports). UK imports from the EU were £341 billion (53% of all UK imports)."
https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7851
You are not adding anything to this conversation.
As I pointed out before, he also quotes statistics relating to goods only, which excludes services. I wonder why this could be?
[U]1. Main points[/u]
[B]4. Around half of UK trade in services in 2016 was with Europe[/b]
Europe has traditionally been a major destination for UK exports of services, accounting for slightly below half of total services exports in 2016. The value of UK exports (excluding the travel, transport and banking sectors) to Europe have followed an upward trend in recent years and showed record growth in 2016 of 17.8%, rising by £10,567 million to a peak of £70,085 million.
Growth in UK exports to Europe has been more subdued in recent years, with annual increases of 2.7% (2014) and 1.4% (2015). Most of the increase in 2016 was attributable to the European Union (EU), where UK exports rose by £9,169 million to a level of £53,267 million. In terms of individual countries, the increase in exports was driven by three main countries: Germany, the Republic of Ireland and France.
The Americas and Asia were the second- and third-largest destinations for UK services exports in 2016, accounting for 28% and 17% respectively. Both regions experienced increases in 2016, with the Americas rising by £5,622 million to £39,675 million and Asia rising by £3,326 million to £24,778 million.
Similarly to exports, Europe is also a major source of UK services imports, accounting for above half of the total value in 2016. The value of UK imports of services originating from Europe increased by £5,227 million to £36,710 million in 2016. The increase was driven by a rise in imports from the EU, which rose by £5,013 million to £30,879 million. Germany, the Netherlands and the Republic of Ireland were the main individual countries driving the increase.
Other important regions for UK services imports were the Americas and Asia, which accounted for 27% and 16% of the total value respectively in 2016. UK imports from the Americas saw a £3,237 million rise to £18,650 million in 2016, while imports from Asia rose by £1,597 million to £10,662 million.
From an article titled, 'International trade in services, UK, 2016', released 31st January 2018.
Well, figures go up and down. ONS reported 43% for 2016, the BBC claims 44% is the 2015 figure. The fact remains that UK trades more with the rest of the world, and it trades profitably with them. It does not have to pay £13billion to do this, give away £4billion in fish, or pay £4billion in benefits for the privilage.
I was using your figures. According to which you are wrong. Which is an odd position to be in.
It is the government that reports that trade with EU accounted for 43% of UK economy in 2016.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/internationaltrade/articles/whodoestheuktradewith/2017-02-21
They aren't my figures. Latest reporting from the government indicates that only 43% of UK trade, and falling, is with EU.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/businessindustryandtrade/internationaltrade/articles/whodoestheuktradewith/2017-02-21
My point was that the figure you quote, that 8% (although it's actually 7.4%) is relating to goods only, at the exclusion of services, and I've also pointed out that you don't quote the equivalent statistic for non-EU countries, leaving us with nothing to compare it to. That is cherry picking, another informal logical fallacy.
Do you not care that you're committing informal logical fallacies? You only care about spreading propaganda? If so, I think that it's about time that you were banned.
No, that's not what that says. It says exports were 43% in 2016. We've been through this already:
Quoting Baden
You see total trade involves imports and exports. Do you understand that now? I don't think we can really make progress until you can wrap your head around the basics of what the words we're using mean.
I suppose his dodgy tactics [i]have[/I] given us an incentive to look at the bigger picture, which then exposes the economic disadvantages to Brexit.
That works in our favour, not his. He needs to find a more gullible audience to gain the upper hand. The number one philosophy forum was perhaps not the wisest of choices.
There is no Common Market in services. There is no Customs Union in services. The UK pays what it does in return for access to the Common Market in goods. £13billion in return for a £95billion deficit is unsustainable.
There is no Common Market in Services.
A [url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-46358120]BBC News article[/URL] from 28th November 2018 says that the government has published its official economic analysis of the impact of its Brexit deal. And that it suggests that the government's version of Brexit could leave the size of the UK economy up to 3.9% smaller after 15 years, compared with staying in the EU. But a no-deal Brexit could deliver a 9.3% hit - according to the forecast.
Interesting. If everything is going to be just as good, if not better, then why isn't that reflected in this economic forecast?
What do you think I'll find if I go searching for more economic forecasts from other credible sources?
I defer to Project Fear for economic fore casts, but nevertheless, as part of basic economic theory, open free-trading democracies always prevail.
Brexit was nothing to do with money.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca-v9rGE4-o
And the EU is the largest free trade block...
But it's not about money and all those fish... its about taking back control from those faceless bureaucrats and giving it to a bunch of [s]incompetent mendacious sleeze-bags[/s] proper representatives of the people in Westminster, who cannot even agree amongst themselves how to run their own parliament, never mind the country, because if we don't want to be run by a bunch of toffs and tossers from Eton and Oxford, We can just vote them out. Any time, really, and we will, quite soon, it's easy, we just haven't got around to it yet... but compared to leaving the EU, it'll be a doddle, especially with all that extra power we're giving them - I mean ourselves...
For instance, the possibility for UK based financial institutions to act as a gateway for third country persons to access the EU financial market will be largely lost after Brexit. No number of bilateral trade deals with third countries is going to reopen the EU market for UK based financial firms. This fragmentation is bad for both the EU and the UK but more so for the UK - just have a look at where the UK platforms are relocating (mostly the Netherlands) and the UK banks (mostly Frankfurt) that are opening EU27 offices and relocating personnel.
In fact, the recent exemption to continue to allow EU institutions to meet their clearing obligations by clearing at LCH, while again good for those EU institutions, would've spelled disaster for a number of large UK-based swap dealers. I expect it will be phased out in the long run, moving euro-denominated swap business to the EU27. That's a business at LCH with a present value of that swap portfolio of around 100 billion euros - and if a chunk of it moves to EUREX, jobs are sure to follow.
False, Single Market for Services
What about services, though? Particularly financial services. Many of them have already departed for Europe, I believe.
Well I'll list the exclusions from that EU directive, and then we'll see if a single market in services exists:
[b]
Financial services,
banking,
credit,
insurance,
reinsurance,
occupational pensions,
personal pensions,
securities,
investment funds,
payments,
investment advice.[/b]
Also excluded are:
[b]
telecoms,
healthcare,
audiovisual,
taxation,
transportation.
[/b]
So no single market in services exists. The most that can be said is that a single market in some services exists.
There exists separate EU legislation to deal with many of the areas above, but much of it, particularly in the area of financial services, is achieved via mutual recognition agreements between individual member states.
It's one of the four pillars of the EU after all, freedom of movement, capital, goods and services.
Quoting Pattern-chaser
44% of all British exports (that is products and services) went to the EU. Of the imports the UK got over half of them from the EU.
From one statistic, UK trade-to-GDP ratio is 28,1%. That would give that trade is about 12% of GDP, a bit higher than 8%, but roughly in the same ballpark (as the statistics, exact time and measurement can differ).
Hence, that 8% or 12% might sound little, but if there are huge changes, the effects are big. Let's not forget that a -2% GDP change one calls a severe recession.
Naturally if City would lose it status as an European financial hub, that would have dramatic consequences. I assume it won't, the British aren't so crazy, and simply the EU isn't as determined to really challenge London's position.
Your claim makes more sense than most conspiracy theories; do you have any more than circumstantial evidence for it?
Yes, plenty. Cameron was a long term eurosceptic who wrote a manifesto for Micheal Howard in 2005 - that related eu membership and immigration, calling for a referendum, and does so using leave campaign rhetoric word for word. There's the youtube video from 2009 of Cameron calling for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. He called again for a referendum in the 2010 manifesto - at the same time he canclled an EU ID card scheme that would have given the UK that control over immigration, while making a non-credible promise to reduce immigration. In Europe, Cameron took the UK out of the centrist federalist alliance in the EU Parliament, and joined right wing nationalists. Once you start looking it just goes on and on - he was absolutely not a Remainer.
If you'll permit me to add my previous remarks here:
David Cameron alone decided we would have a referendum, against the expressed will of Parliament in 2011 - who voted against holding a referendum by 485/111. Cameron announced there would be a referendum in 2013, then made it a manifesto commitment that couldn't be blocked by Parliament or amended by the Lords. Cameron pledged to reduce immigration then failed spectacularly to do so. He tried to renegotiate a long list of complaints - published in the media, that couldn't be renegotiated because they would have required treaty change. Cameron appointed himself chief spokesman for Remain, while farming out the Leave campaign to an unaccountable right wing economic policy pressure group,. Cameron carried vast amounts of baggage with him into the referendum, baggage of his own creation - and made economic threats that did nothing to counter the egregious lies and racist propaganda of the Leave campaign. Cameron told obvious lies by which he further sabotaged any residual credibility he brought to the Remain cause. Cameron lost on purpose for Remain - in a referendum he alone decided would happen.?
It's really rather obvious that Cameron was a false advocate for Remain. And the kicker is that the Leave campaign lied outrageously, incited racial hatred, stole facebook data to target people directly with propaganda - and still only won by a hair's breadth. Brexit is not the will of the people. It's a scam.
p.s. to say nothing of the rumour released in 2015 alleging he once .... a dead pig's head!
It would be a violation of my prime directive to defend Cameron, but there's very little here to distinguish Cameron the machiavellian conspirator from Cameron the amoral advocate-whatever's-convenient smug incompetent.
I do have a general principle, Occam's blunt penknife, that states that other things being equal, a cock-up is a better theory than a conspiracy - and a cock up a pig is certainly not evidence of cunning planning ability.
So, you're saying that a man with a first class degree in philosophy, politics and economics from Oxford University genuinely believed he could reduce immigration to the tens of thousands - adding 'or vote me out' - and that it was merely a coincidence he found himself on the wrong side that pledge in the referendum that he provided for, and on which he failed deliver in spectacular fashion?
You're saying it's just coincidental incompetence that his Home Secretary Theresa May was the longest serving Home Secretary in living memory, who also cancelled the EU ID scheme six years before the referendum, sacked the longstanding head of the Borders Agency, Brodie Clarke, allowed 660,000 immigrants into Britain in 2015, and published those figures during the campaign period? It's similarly coincidental she then became Prime Minister pursuing brexit with an absolute determination, and was not criticized or sacked as Home Secretary for her spectacular failure on immigration, despite the fact Cameron had said tens of thousands 'or vote me out'?
You're saying that people were led to believe that UKIP forced Cameron into a referendum he didn't want - when the facts show, quite clearly that UKIP were nowhere until Cameron made that silly immigration pledge - and also that Cameron wanted a referendum for many years before, because... of smug incompetence or something?
I am generally in agreement with Hanlon's Razor, the aphorism being: Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
But it's not adequately explained, and Cameron is not stupid. He had a first class degree in PPE from Oxford and rose through the ranks of the Conservative Party like a rocket to the pinnacle of his profession - and you're saying he was a bumbling incompetent who fell out of the EU by accident?
If you look at the manifesto's and youtube video - they are evidence of clear premeditation of something he then actually did: call a referendum. He wasn't forced into by UKIP, because they were nowhere before Cameron, and because we vote in 650 constituencies - not nationally. UKIP's narrow policy platform may gain a lot of votes nationally, 11 million at the peak, but very rarely - a sufficient number in any one constituency. 11 million votes = 1 MP. And mostly Labour votes in the North. UKIP were never a threat to Cameron. So why have people been led to believe UKIP pressured Cameron into something he didn't want, that he clearly did want?
It's the fact he championed Remain in the referendum that is inconsistent with the facts. It just doesn't tally, and frankly - the cash for access scandal, proves his dishonesty. Would it be a surprise to find leading Leave campaign donors were among those who paid for access? Not to me!
Having a degree from a highly respected university and being a rising star in the ranks of a political party doesn't mean you have a grasp of political reality at all. Stupidity here doesn't mean that the person would score low in an IQ test. Stupidity here means that you go with the thinking of the power elite and being blind to your own hubris without actually realizing what you are doing and only in hindsight realizing how bad decisions you have made.
Just think about another example: Blair supporting Dubya's invasion of Iraq. How much applause and popularity did he get in hindsight for that? How crucial was it for the UK, really? The French passed that one and yes, Americans had their cry baby tantrum with "freedom fries" as a result... and forgot the whole thing later as they usually do.
And then when Obama wanted the UK to join a similar endeavour with bombing Syria, the UK did pass. Result: Obama didn't do anything, in fact he didn't start a war which he had promised. How worse did the relations got after that?
"Talented stars" in the political arena can make quite easily bad decisions they regret later.
Your principle is sound, but does not apply in this case.
Quoting S
:lol:
Why so?
How couldn't the rulers be oblivious to the fact that what they are proposing could go wrong? To think that fine, we have the support for EU membership, perhaps we can silence the opposition with a referendum that we will win?
If there was evidence showing a long and contentious relationship between two neighbors, and one of them was recorded on video telling the other 'I'm going to kill you' - and was then later discovered standing over the body with a bloody knife in hand, his claiming 'it was an accident' is not a defense. Clear evidence of premeditation renders false any such claim.
What you are asking me to believe is that a man who said he wanted a referendum, and who provided for a referendum, didn't in fact want the referendum he provided for. That's not credible. Yet people have been led to believe that Cameron didn't want a referendum, but was forced into it by the rise of UKIP. When you look at the voting statistics, that's clearly not the case. UKIP followed in Cameron's wake, only making significant gains from 2013 onward.
If you say you will do something and then you do it - it is a fact that you intended it. Cameron intended to have a referendum, and he provided for one as a manifesto commitment, such that it could not be blocked by Parliament or amended by the Lords. He could easily have brought forward a bill in the normal way - and discharged any obligation he felt, knowing it would be rejected by Parliament as it was in 2011 by a massive majority of 485/111.
I could go on. I've stated the facts above - and there are a great long list of other things that cannot be explained in any other terms than that Cameron deliberately sabotaged his own credibility on key issues in the referendum campaign - which he provided for by undemocratic means, not least immigration, and adopted the Remain position in order to lose on purpose.
Strong and stable, 'nother fable. Maybe not the best of sources. But we agree that there are credible sources out there which confirm what I'm saying. Unlike Inis, I don't think that I know better than the experts.
I have a friend in fintech, in a pretty senior position, and she disagrees with you. Many major players have already purchased new offices in Europe, and departed.
Then why the heck have you been quoting figures relating to trade and profit? Have you completely lost your mind?
This guy...
For many, it was ideological. That's the problem. My vote to remain definitely had a lot to do with money. The Brexit voting public, a considerable portion of whom won't even be around that much longer for the consequences, have fucked me and my generation over if this goes through, and if the economic forecasts turn out to be fairly accurate. Thanks for putting my cost of living at risk, and thanks putting a shit ton of jobs at risk, and thank you David Cameron. Thank you also Boris Johnson for spreading misleading figures which must've tricked at least a few people into voting for the side which ended up winning, thank you to Nigel Farage for his usual dirty tricks, and thank you to the Vote Leave campaign for breaking the law by overspending. Thank you to all of the mindless nationalists, and thank you to all of the racists and xenophobes. Mother fuckers, the lot of you. Maybe Plato was right: we need a wise philosopher king in charge. Someone like me. :grin:
Not at all. I'm saying that a man with a first class degree in philosophy politics and economics has no beliefs, no principles and no morals. I'm saying that neither Cameron or May give a fig about anything but their own position and their own power and status.
I'm saying Cameron wanted a referendum because he was losing support to Ukip, not because he had an opinion about the EU. I'm saying that hatred of the EU has been manufactured over years to divert attention from the real causes of the social degradation that has been taking place. We got a bad deal over fishing, because the people negotiating for us cared more about banking and insurance, and for them fish was a price worth paying. The British government has presided over regional decline, and impoverishment, and blamed it on the EU and Johnny foreigner. They really don't care about in or out, deal or no deal, because their world is tucked away on the Cayman Islands and won't be affected.
Quoting S
Bears repeating.
The Brexit vote was about sovereignty and democracy. Everyone expected an immediate economic hit. This was assured by the government, Bank of England, and even Barack Obama.
Well, the economic catastrophe didn't happen. Rather than an immediate loss of 500,000 - 800,000 jobs on voting Leave, as Mark Carney promised, instead UK enjoys the highest rate of employment since before entering the EEC. Rather than economic collapse, UK is now projected to be the fastest growing European G7 country after Brexit. The ONS has just released very encouraging economic figures on job, wages, and borrowing.
Nevertheless #ProjectFear continues to rumble on, so I choose to confront it with reality.
Furthermore, it's hard to compare a counterfactual with reality but whatever the UK economy is doing now (during a general worldwide economic upswing) we don't know what it would've done if it hadn't voted in favour of Brexit. Expectations is it would've done better, which is why you see GBP currency pairs with major currencies such as EUR and USD trade consistently at lower exchange rates as it expresses the expectation that interest rates in Britain will rise in order to stimulate the economy and avoid deflation. The benefit is of course that exports will be cheaper but despite that the UK lags in GDP growth compared to its now "more expensive" EU members.
Meanwhile, a lot of companies in the UK have effectuated their contigency planning, which doesn't bode well for the economy either. http://www.cbi.org.uk/news/8-out-of-10-businesses-say-brexit-hits-investment-as-speed-of-talks-outpaced-by-reality-firms-face-on-ground/
The IMF is fairly upbeat about UK GDP growth.
https://order-order.com/2019/01/21/imf-uk-will-fastest-growing-european-g7-country-brexit/
Your opinion makes more sense than most unenlightened views; do you have any more than circumstantial evidence for it?
No.
Well I could probably muster some evidence that the EU is not responsible for the woes it is credited with, because - well it just isn't a monolith by design, but a common bureaucracy controlled by the negotiations and agreements between nations. The democratic deficit is put there to restrict its power, not to augment it. If you look at what the UK has accepted, and what it has rejected, I think you will find support for it being the UK government's concern to protect its financial powers more than its industrial; Hull can die as long as London thrives is UK policy, not EU.
You sound like you know what you're talking about, so you must be part of "Project Fear".
And that's despite a depreciated currency...
Meanwhile, spreads and volatility in UK equities have increased as well, reflecting the risks market participants perceive. Rating agencies have downgraded UK debt as well.
From an economic point of view Brexit sucks for every party involved. For instance, for the Netherlands, where I live, it can have an effect of up to 1.2% of GDP. That's 10 billion EUR in costs.
— karl stone
Quoting unenlightened
I studied the EU as part of a politics degree, and I'd like to see a United States of Europe. The 'us and them' dynamic underlying Leave campaign rhetoric and opinions is, as you suggest here - fundamentally false. We are the EU in as much as other member states are the EU. So where you said above: 'We got a bad deal over fishing, because...' That's just not how it is. The common fisheries policy has serious flaws - but it was a policy developed in coordination with member states represented in Council and the Parliament.
In my own view, fishing is barbaric and should be scrapped. A United States of Europe would allow us to develop and apply the technology to farm fish on an industrial scale (pun not intended). But anything smacking of federalism has been automatically resisted by the UK. In as much as Leavers have been denied a referendum, so have those who desire a US of Europe. It's what the UK signed up to - an explicit ambition to promote 'ever closer union among the people's of Europe' - a commitment with regard to which the UK government have unilaterally acted in bad faith since 1973.
So now, when I hear 'us and them' - when I hear 'sovereignty' trumpeted as an unquestionable good, I have to ask myself, to what purposes has that sovereignty been put, and the assumption that 'ever closer union' is resisted in defense of the interests of the British people is somewhere between dubious and ludicrous. They sold off all the council housing and haven't built any social housing in 40 years, sold off the utilities to their pals in the city for peanuts, they opted out of EU legislation designed to protect workers - the Social Chapter of the Maastricht Treaty - to create a low wage low regulation jobs market, attractive to immigration, and subsidized shitty wages with tax payers money, starving public services of funding.
And so on and on. But to get back to the point, a brexit referendum sold on an 'us and them' dynamic, that simply presumes government employs sovereign powers in the interests of the British people, that blames the EU - for problems created by acting in bad faith toward the EU, and when you add in the corrupt nature of the referendum, and the fact that brexit will disadvantage the very people fooled into voting for it the most - to protect a sovereignty that has been protected at their expense, creating the very discontent upon which the Leave campaign preyed, I'm rendered speechless with anger. Suffice to say, brexit is the very worst remedy imaginable.
Quoting karl stone
This, conspiracy or mere tragedy, is the heart of the matter. And here is the connection with the US. Who knew til the shutdown that middle class Americans were just one pay check away from penury and food banks? And their 'take back control' hero was Trump!
Wouldn't you say though that the real problem is that the game of monopoly has reached its end, the winners have taken all, and the game is over.
I have a scientific conception of reality that recognizes religious, political and economic ideological concepts as conventions and traditions arising from our evolutionary history - and in those terms, this is but a moment after dawn for humankind. An awkward moment to be sure, but entirely negotiable. The very dynamics I criticize - I criticize as absolutes that exclude a scientific understanding of reality, but in acceptance of scientific truth they are cultural treasures, science can easily afford to protect and celebrate - while providing for a long and prosperous future.
2012. https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/jcb-boss-sir-anthony-bamford-named-in-cash-for-cameron-scandal/8628352.article
2019. https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/24/jcb-paid-boris-johnson-10000-three-days-before-speech?CMP=fb_gu&fbclid=IwAR0I6CGObVxEOWvnFCOQN1q-Z8dUWrdiIYzutOkT0KOv3vjOUpwaZHoyff8
The same fellow supporting remain and leave champions is a bit suspicious...
It is rather odd how that chap seems intent on giving all his money to the Tory party. I rather suspect however, there's a PIIC covering up the whole rotten saga - so it will never come out in the British press.
I get it. Uk must pay £13billion membership fee, £4billion in fish, £4billion in benefits to EU citizens, and suffer a £95billion deficit in traded goods, so your country can benefit to the tune of EUR10billion?
Anything else you want?
Meanwhile Dalia Grybauskait? hints she might veto Brexit notice period extension. She wants no-deal.
I cannot equate defrauding of the politically ignorant with the idea of 'the foolhardy masses.' I have a long term fascination with politics - but don't ask me anything about football. Is that foolhardy? No. You could easily deceive me into believing the ball was in - or offside, or whatever. It's just ignorance. And the Leave campaign played upon real grievances and concerns. The lie was that those real issues are the fault of the EU, and can be resolved by brexit. Those who voted Leave, the vast majority of them knew little or nothing about politics - and they were deceived. This isn't a matter of 'the foolhardy masses' - this is a matter of political corruption.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/articles/theukcontributiontotheeubudget/2017-10-31
Meanwhile, based on figures from 2005 to 2015 the Netherlands, Germany, Sweden, Belgium, Luxemburg, Denmark, France and Austria all contributed more to the EU as percentage of their GDP. This still excludes the Fontainebleau Abatement, which probably puts the UK net contribution even belowthan Italy's.
https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2016/50/netherlands-largest-net-contributor-eu-this-century
The economic benefits of being part of the EU are nevertheless clear (it costs us 230 EUR a year per person and results in a 1,500 EUR benefit). And of course a Nexit is discussed in the Netherlands but that's a matter of EU bureacracy, sovereignty and local autonomy and a perceived democratic deficit. The EU, by the way, is in its structure less democratic than the Dutch structure but more democratic than the UK structure. So "taking back control" in the UK is quite misleading as it is mostly about taking back control for a specific elite in the UK. But whatever, don't let actual facts get in your way.
Then the trade deficit.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/nationalaccounts/balanceofpayments/bulletins/uktrade/january2018
The trade deficit in the UK widened from 3.4 billion GDP to 8.7 billion GBP during a time the pound depreciated in respect of the EUR. The 95 billion is not a familiar figure. Have you decided to take an arbitrary time period and added all the yearly deficits together?
Finally, the EU can hardly be blamed for UK citizens wanting to import non-UK manufactured goods and retain non-UK services. That's a consequence of free trade markets that UK citizens have access to those goods.
It is unknown whether the trade deficit will improve due to Brexit. Any economists claiming one way or the other is just guessing. The depreciated GBP should lead to a reduced purchasing power abroad, so less imports. UK goods would be relatively cheaper for foreign bowers, so more exports. But, there's a barrier to trade now as the EU negotiated trade deals with third countries are lost and the "trade deal" of the EU is lost as well. Where the UK has no real alternative to buy abroad what it cannot provide itself, all other EU countries can avoid the hassle of dealing with UK customs by turning to any other country in the EU for that product or service. That will obviously lead to less exports for the UK to EU countries.
Finally, capital flows are significantly larger than trade flows. Where it used to be that trade deficits would correct themselves in a floating exchange rate environment the exchange rate nowadays is set by capital flows and trade flows have a neglible effect. It's therefore unclear what the GBP currency pairs will trade at in the future, which will be the main driver in the long run as to what happens with the trade deficit. A strong GBP will continue the trade deficit, a weaker one can reduce it or lead to a surplus. I doubt (as in when hell freezes over), however, the UK government is prepared introduce capital controls.
OK So the membership fee is closer to £14billion.
The deficit in traded goods is still £95billion.
EU still takes £4billion in fish from UK waters.
EU citizens still take £4billion in benefits.
And UK is still on track to leave the burgeoning fascist state that is the EU on 29th March.
The people who voted Leave did so because they want to live in a functioning democracy.
Also, there was not a single argument to Remain, other than fear mongering, and that's not really an argument.
When the UK can chart its own destiny, make its own trade deals, set its own taxes and regulations, escape the protectionist tariff barriers, it will once again become an economic powerhouse and a bulwark against the burgeoning totalitarianism engulfing Europe.
How do you know this? Fact is, you don't.
Quoting Inis
There was no Remain campaign. Cameron was a brexiteer - who sabotaged his credibility and lost on purpose for Remain.
Quoting Inis
I know by the very fact you say that, you have no real idea what it means. You stand as proof that:
Quoting karl stone
I know it because I know many people who voted Leave, and through the extensive research done by polling organisations. e.g.
http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/
Quoting karl stone
That is the opposite of the truth. Cameron was a staunch Remainer, campaigned strongly for remain, and there are literally 100s of videos on youtube that captured the historical record. e.g.
British people don't want to be part of a burgeoning fascist state with its own army.
— Inis
How do you know this? Fact is, you don't.
— karl stone
Quoting Inis
No mention of a 'functioning democracy.' And what's the sample size of this poll? It's says - "nearly half of leave voters' - but that's misleading. They didn't interview all leave voters, or half of them. Further, the questions asked now - about why people voted leave, very likely have little to do with why people voted at the time. They are responding to a list of choices - categories into which the survey must place them for the purposes of the report. Reality isn't like that.
There was no Remain campaign. Cameron was a brexiteer - who sabotaged his credibility and lost on purpose for Remain
— karl stone
Quoting Inis
Try this video from 2009, and tell me Cameron didn't want a referendum but was forced into it by UKIP!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca-v9rGE4-o
Quoting Inis
I assume you think that describes the EU - but it just doesn't. The EU is an elegantly democratic institution - with human rights, workers rights, consumer and environmental protection built into the founding treaties. Those values are the very antithesis of fascism. I can't imagine you even know what the word fascism means. You're making it more and more difficult to maintain the idea that you are not foolhardy, but were merely misled.
A handy list of Brexit campaign lies to awaken you from your delusions.
"£4300 cost to families/households" if UK votes Leave. This was concocted by dividing a fictitious GDP reduction by the number of households. Even the method is a lie.
https://www.strongerin.co.uk/4300_the_cost_of_brexit_to_uk_households#pq4TJxSsT3135rzx.97
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36073201
Cameron threatened refugee camps in South East of England.
https://www.itv.com/news/2016-02-08/prime-minister-warns-brexit-could-see-refugee-camps-in-south-east-england/
https://inews.co.uk/news/long-reads/le-touquet-treaty-affects-refugees-calais/
Leaving the Single Market would mean UK would have no access to it.
https://www.strongerin.co.uk/brexit_campaigners_have_conceded_uk_outside_the_eu_wouldn_t_have_access_to_the_single_market#SGf4kJiDzB9huysh.97
If UK voted Leave there would be an "instant DIY recession" according to Osbourne. The recession would be precipitated by just the vote!
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/brexit-to-create-instant-diy-recession-warns-george-osborne-a7042886.html
If the UK votes Leave there will be an immediate Emergency Budget with £30 billion in new taxes and spending cuts.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/14/osborne-predicts-30bn-hole-in-public-finance-if-uk-votes-to-leave-eu
UK would be "Back of the Queue" for a trade deal with USA.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/22/barack-obama-brexit-uk-back-of-queue-for-trade-talks
In Obama's defence, it was Cameron who requested he say it.
https://news.sky.com/story/cameron-personally-requested-obamas-back-of-the-queue-brexit-warning-11423669
The possibility of an EU Army is a dangerous fantasy, the UK was told.
100,000 Banking jobs to be lost.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/brexit-would-lead-to-loss-of-100000-bank-jobs-says-city-a3124661.html
Cameron claims Turkey joining EU "not remotely on the cards". Not until the year 3000 anyway.
Cameron, in order to instil fear, said he would invoke Article 50 on 28th June, if he lost the referendum.
Risk of interest rate rises, according to Mark Carney.
https://www.itv.com/news/2016-01-26/carney-warns-brexit-could-lead-to-interest-rate-rise/
David Cameron campaigned for Remain.
Minus the rebate, minus the expenditures of the EU in the UK, you get around 9 billion GDP. In return for which you have access to the largest free trade block in the world. Effectively each UK citizen pays 135 GBP, or 155 EUR, per year. The Dutch pay 230 per capita but make more than up for it in the benefits it generates (somewhere between 1500 to 2000 per year per capita). And here the CBI explains to you why it was a benefit to the UK as well: http://www.cbi.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/our-global-future/factsheets/factsheet-2-benefits-of-eu-membership-outweigh-costs/
But of course people actually running a business don't know what they're talking about. :rofl:
In any case, the UK paid and is paying far less than the other most-developed European countries. So the complaint about the membership fee is just pathetic. If youthink being part of a free trading block can be a free lunch then you don't understand the complexities of having to maintain a functioning and integrated market. Just have a look at the total public expenditures in the UK as a whole.
Quoting Inis
And the UK fishes in Irish, Norwegian, Dutch and other waters and is and was in any case a negotiated deal the UK agreed to.
Quoting Inis
Ah, it's cherry picking again and a blatant attempt at misrepresentation. The trade balance is the total of goods and services. The most recent numbers from November 2017 to November 2018 is 28.6 billion GBP compared to 4.1 billion GDP as of end 2017. A strong rise compared to before which is driven by falling foreign direct investment in the UK due to the uncertainty of Brexit. Something you can blame your politicians for.
Quoting Inis
Based on what information because the "data on migrants and benefits is incomplete, fragmented and not routinely available"? When people voted on Brexit no information was available on the costs of benefits paid by the UK government to EU citizens. The estimates I found in the House of Commons Library were from March 2017 on data in 2013/2014 at results in 1.7 billion GBP over 2 years for non-UK EU citizens. An important point as well: non-UK nationals were far less likely to receive benefits than UK nationals. Since the system is such that the working populace carries the costs of those receiving benefits, the non-UK citizens not only pay for all non-UK people receiving benefits but also a part of UK citizens receiving benefits. E.g., they make social security cheaper for everyone in the UK.
UK citizens working in the EU have the same rights to benefits as well that the UK wouldn't have to pay if they were unemployed in the UK (1.3 million UK citizens live in the EU) but I imagine that they similarly have a lower unemployment rate and less need for benefits as the local populace and as group are a net contributor.
The £14 billion includes the rebate.
David Cameron pretended to campaign for Remain - but was in fact a brexiteer. He lost on purpose.
Ah yes, the mercantilist whining about a trade deficit. This is a Basic problem: people don't know or understand international trade and how beneficial it actually is. You only have to say that a) there's a trade deficit and b) foreigners are taking the jobs, and people go straight into believing the lies that trade barriers and "protection" of your domestic industry is the way to go.
Besides, the Dutch pay per capita (that means per person) a lot more to the EU than the British do (Benkei has explained), so again a questionmark on your crying about payments to EU.
After all, before the EU payments were simply a method of transferring money to the agricultural sector: in the 1980's like 70% of the EU budget went to agriculture and even now about 41% go there.
You have zero evidence for your baseless fantastical claim.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/21/donald-tusk-warned-david-cameron-about-stupid-eu-referendum-bbc
Cameron was a long term eurosceptic who wrote a manifesto for Micheal Howard in 2005 - that related eu membership and immigration, calling for a referendum, and does so using leave campaign rhetoric word for word. There's the youtube video from 2009 of Cameron calling for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. He called again for a referendum in the 2010 manifesto - at the same time he canclled an EU ID card scheme that would have given the UK that control over immigration, while making a non-credible promise to reduce immigration. In Europe, Cameron took the UK out of the centrist federalist alliance in the EU Parliament, and joined right wing nationalists. Once you start looking it just goes on and on - he was absolutely not a Remainer.
David Cameron alone decided we would have a referendum, against the expressed will of Parliament in 2011 - who voted against holding a referendum by 485/111. Cameron announced there would be a referendum in 2013, then made it a manifesto commitment that couldn't be blocked by Parliament or amended by the Lords. Cameron pledged to reduce immigration then failed spectacularly to do so. He tried to renegotiate a long list of complaints - published in the media, that couldn't be renegotiated because they would have required treaty change. Cameron appointed himself chief spokesman for Remain, while farming out the Leave campaign to an unaccountable right wing economic policy pressure group,. Cameron carried vast amounts of baggage with him into the referendum, baggage of his own creation - and made economic threats that did nothing to counter the egregious lies and racist propaganda of the Leave campaign. Cameron told obvious lies by which he further sabotaged any residual credibility he brought to the Remain cause. Cameron lost on purpose for Remain - in a referendum he alone decided would happen.?
It's really rather obvious that Cameron was a false advocate for Remain. And the kicker is that the Leave campaign lied outrageously, incited racial hatred, stole facebook data to target people directly with propaganda - and still only won by a hair's breadth. Brexit is not the will of the people. It's a scam.
Quoting karl stone
Karl, you're not making a great case here. Leave won by lying; but remain deliberately lost by lying.
— karl stone
did nothing to counter the egregious lies and racist propaganda of the Leave campaign.
— karl stone
Quoting unenlightened
The different constituencies of the vote are marked by educational attainment and socio-economic class. What was credible to one group was not credible to the other.
Leave told lies to the uneducated - provocative lies, like the EU is a foreign dictatorship, and responsible for mass immigration. Cameron did nothing to challenge those lies.
You and I know that's not true, because the EU is a democratic system, and the UK government failed to put accession controls in place from 2007 - as allowed under EU law, and then failed to remove jobless migrants - as allowed under EU law.
Inis doesn't know it's not true. He thinks he's giving Cameron the black eye he deserves for failing to meet his silly 'tens of thousands' immigration pledge - "or vote me out."
So Inis does.
Sounds similar to when we had the join EU debate in this country.
The "Join" crowd painted a picture of the gates of paradise opening with EU membership and the "Don't join" crowd painted a picture of utter doom, perdition with the end of our independence. Back then the old politicians with warm ties to Russia dominated the "Don't join" crowd (so things have some continuity at least here).
Neither side was anywhere near being correct, but their lies live on. The realistic prediction that "things actually won't change so much for the ordinary person and from the viewpoint of the ordinary person" would have been far better, but who would campaign with that kind of slogan?
Let's not bother then, eh?
You never had a "join EU debate" and your 2006 referendum was cancelled because the result would have been the same as in France and Netherlands.
And in return the Dutch enjoy a surplus in trade of EUR 200 billion with the EU.
The UK pays vast amounts to maintain a deficit.
Blameworthy ignorance. You shouldn't be so gullible as to allow yourself to be easily deceived, and if you're going to get involved in the game, then you should at least do your homework.
Many people were motivated to vote leave because of their own nationalist and anti-establishment sentiment. Some people don't listen to reason. Some people block it out. Some people believe what they want to believe.
Trade deficits are not necessarily a bad thing - but there isn't a brexiteer alive who's heard of Riccardo, less yet understands the doctrine of comparative advantage. I urge you to try - just for laughs, but I assure you - you'd be wasting your time.
From On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation by David Ricardo.
London: John Murray, 1821.
To produce the wine in Portugal, might require only the
labour of 80 men for one year, and to produce the cloth in the
same country, might require the labour of 90 men for the same
time. It would therefore be advantageous for her to export wine
in exchange for cloth. This exchange might even take place,
notwithstanding that the commodity imported by Portugal could be
produced there with less labour than in England. Though she could
make the cloth with the labour of 90 men, she would import it
from a country where it required the labour of 100 men to produce
it, because it would be advantageous to her rather to employ her
capital in the production of wine, for which she would obtain
more cloth from England, than she could produce by diverting a
portion of her capital from the cultivation of vines to the
manufacture of cloth.
You mean "they" shouldn't be so ignorant... but I say, an unplanned, uncosted policy failure should not have been put to the people in a referendum in the first place. The desire for this referendum does not originate with the people. It originates within the Tory Party. Whether you accept that Cameron was a brexiteer or continue in ignorance of the fact, a Tory disease has been inflicted on the whole country.
And what do they care? Their money is having a tax break in Panama - while they crash the economy into brexit mountain, giving them a clean slate for 40 years of Thatcherite betrayal, and an excuse for austerity forever. That's why an obviously crooked referendum 'must be respected' - why a marginal vote is an absolute mandate, and why May is wasting time on a deal no-one supports - while the clock runs out on Article 50.
And just think about all the bargain empty houses and bankrupt businesses they'll be able to snap up at rock bottom prices.
Actually, the campaign for an EU referendum can be traced back to 2011 when the cross-party People's Pledge group was formed. They took no position on EU membership, other than it should be put to the people.
In 2011 a petition of 100,000 signatures calling for an EU referendum was handed into Downing Street.
And what happened? Parliament debated it - and voted against holding a referendum by 485/111. So why did Cameron promise a referendum in 2013, and make it a manifesto commitment in 2015 that could not be blocked by Parliament, or amended by the Lords? Do you call that democracy? It's a clear abuse of democratic process.
No, I meant you, following on from your football analogy. But yes, them too. It's an analogy after all.
I love how you deny foolhardiness, then in the very next sentence talk about being easily deceived, seemingly intended as a counterexample. It's foolish to be easily deceived and it's foolhardy to act rashly as a result.
Ah, okay - I see what you did there. No, I don't get involved in football. I don't play football, and I don't talk about it - because I don't know the first thing about it. Could you imagine me in the pub, shouting the odds at a crowd of football fans who have followed the game all their lives. That's what brexiteers are like.
The common Brexiteer is living proof that Neanderthals didn't go extinct all those years ago.
— karl stone
Quoting S
You seem to be ignoring Her Majesty's plea to find common ground. That can't be achieved by calling brexiteers stupid. Ignorance is not the same as stupidity. Being misled into voting for an unplanned, uncosted policy failure by corrupt politicians is not their fault.
It becomes harder to maintain that position when they are the guy in the pub who knows nothing, telling die hard fans how football should be played - but then, like Micheal Gove told them, "we've had enough of experts." It's not their fault!
Cameron voted against a referendum in 2011.
Quoting karl stone
Because UKIP were at 10% in the polls.
Is Riccardo suggesting that countries cooperate in order to maximise the total output?
If by 'cooperate' you mean trade, then yes. Trade is supposed to maximize total output - and make everyone better off. I brought it up, and only now I'm reminded I don't like all the implications, particularly with regard to skills and employment. But still, where capital would otherwise be left idle it can promote inward investment and create new opportunities, I guess. It's so easy to dismiss an issue like trade deficits using a concept like this, and the supposition that everyone is better off, then when asked to explain - it's a whole can of worms - that last time, were the economics professor's problem. But I do remember he would caution against getting hung up on any one idea like that were a comprehensive explanation of how economies work. Worms everywhere! Can we move on?
That's not true. Cameron had been agitating for a referendum since he wrote the 2005 Conservative Party manifesto for Micheal Howard - using leave campaign rhetoric, word for word. UKIP were nowhere at that time. In a 2009 youtube video Cameron again demanded a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, and made the same demand again in his 2010 manifesto - alongside his non-credible tens of thousands immigration pledge.
Only afterward did UKIP begin making electoral gains - largely due to courting the BNP, and organizing far right groups to vote in low turnout EU elections. Parliament debated and rejected a call for a referendum in 2011, by 485/111. Yet Cameron announced there would be a referendum in 2013, and then made it a manifesto commitment in 2015 that could not be blocked by Parliament nor amended by the Lords.
It's simply untrue that Cameron was forced into a referendum he didn't want. So why do people believe it? The pertinent question is - how did Cameron end up on the wrong side of his own ridiculous immigration pledge in a referendum he alone provided for, that was all about immigration??
Your constant fabrications have become tedious.
Cameron voted against an EU referendum in 2011.
https://www.theyworkforyou.com/divisions/pw-2011-10-24-372-commons/mp/10777
What fabrication? What have I fabricated? Everything I said is a checkable fact:
Cameron had been agitating for a referendum since he wrote the 2005 Conservative Party manifesto for Micheal Howard - using leave campaign rhetoric, word for word. UKIP were nowhere at that time. In a 2009 youtube video Cameron again demanded a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, and made the same demand again in his 2010 manifesto - alongside his non-credible tens of thousands immigration pledge.
Only afterward did UKIP begin making electoral gains - largely due to courting the BNP, and organizing far right groups to vote in low turnout EU elections. Parliament debated and rejected a call for a referendum in 2011, by 485/111. Yet Cameron announced there would be a referendum in 2013, and then made it a manifesto commitment in 2015 that could not be blocked by Parliament nor amended by the Lords.
It's simply untrue that Cameron was forced into a referendum he didn't want. So why do people believe it? The pertinent question is - how did Cameron end up on the wrong side of his own ridiculous immigration pledge in a referendum he alone provided for, that was all about immigration??
The David Cameron is a cunning political creature, though not infallible. He was just being a chameleon out of self-interest. He was working for Michael Howard, someone who is well-known to be a strong Eurosceptic. Then, given his prior role in producing this kind of politics, and given his now vindicated belief that an EU referendum would be popular enough as a pledge to contribute towards his party winning the general election, which they did under him in 2010, he was just latching on to what he judged to be a winning strategy. Likewise with his pledge on reducing immigration to the tens of thousands. The more plausible explanation is that he simply judged making such pledges to be winning strategies, not your criminal conspiracy ramblings.
Cameron didn't win the 2010 election though. It was a hung Parliament. The Tories were in coalition with the pro-eu Lib Dems. Think about that in relation to Cameron's 2010 silly immigration pledge - and the fact that Theresa May was the longest serving Home Secretary in living memory.
May and Cameron immediately cancelled an EU ID card scheme that would have given the UK control over EU immigration. May sacked the head of the Borders Agency, Brodie Clark, and allowed 660,000 immigrants into the UK in 2015, and published those figures during the 2016 referendum campaign period.
Meanwhile, by championing Remain, Cameron put himself on the wrong side of his own failure on immigration - in a referendum he alone decided would happen, and forced on an unwilling Parliament!
Oh, don't be so predictable. You know what I meant. He basically did, he just needed a little help from the Lib Dems. The Tories, led by Dave, won the largest number of votes and seats, but fell 20 seats short of an overall majority. He ended up in the driving seat as Prime Minister. Nicky got the passenger seat as Deputy. The Lib Dems caved in on key pledges which subsequently obliterated them, and they have yet to recover. The Tories went on to win the next general election, again under Dave, but this time with an outright majority.
Quoting karl stone
Blah blah blah... yes, his tactics eventually backfired. It happens. It's not uncommon in politics. No need for tinfoil hats.
The facts are the facts. But as you speak of predictability - is there any possibility at all that you would not dismiss an argument that suggested the 2016 referendum was corrupt - and agree that a legitimate democratic result cannot follow from a corrupt process?
If not the fact that Cameron was a brexiteer who campaigned dishonestly and lost on purpose for Remain, how about stolen facebook data used to target propaganda that incited racial hatred, or how about financial corruption and Russian interference?
My prediction is, that wouldn't change your mind either!
Yes, and pedantry is pedantry. If you think that I didn't know the outcome, and that I meant that the Tories won an overall majority in 2010, instead of it resulting in a hung parliament, then you're an idiot. Do I have to word everything I say as though I'm speaking to an idiot when I'm speaking with you?
Quoting karl stone
Yes, if a convincing enough case was made.
Quoting karl stone
You're confusing your own dubious assessment for a fact. Or maybe you're just calling it a fact to make it sound like a sure thing.
Quoting karl stone
How about I'm naturally wary of what conspiracy nuts say, but if I care to, I'll look into things further and make my own further assessment? You and Inis are almost as bad as each other, just in different ways. He's a shameless propagandist and you're a conspiracy nut.
Quoting karl stone
Depends whether it amounts to a load of crap or whether it's convincing enough or somewhere in between.
Welcome to The Philosophy Forum. :party:
Not at all. I know very well you can't pack every fact into every sentence. I meant to indicate that it's a significant fact that Cameron was in coalition from 2010. It scuppered his plans, and that's why he voted against the referendum petition in 2011 - because he didn't have a majority in the HoC, and that's why Theresa May was Home Secretary for a world record six years - while failing dramatically to deliver on an absurd immigration pledge on which Cameron had staked his political career! i.e. tens of thousands "or vote me out!"
As for your other comments, ad hominem attacks are not valid arguments. Stop being so sensitive. I don't know you. I'm commenting on your arguments... your myopic crazed arguments!
Okay, but you should try to recognise that this doesn't support your explanation over and above mine, and you should try to recognise that a conspiracy theory is obviously not a fact, and therefore you shouldn't refer to it as factual as you have done. I'm absolutely fine with genuine facts, but the way that you're connecting the dots and exclaiming, "Ah ha!", is something else entirely.
Quoting karl stone
:grin:
So let me ask you a question - why did Cameron pledge to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands, adding "or vote me out" while simultaneously cancelling an EU ID card scheme that would have given the UK control over immigration? Why did Cameron keep Theresa May in post for six years - without a word of criticism as she failed to deliver on that pledge?
Also, take into consideration that Cameron made the referendum a manifesto commitment that couldn't be blocked by Parliament, that he took to UK out of a centrist coalition in the EU, and joined right wing nationalists, and ultimately, put himself on the wrong side of his impossible, failed immigration pledge championing the Remain cause?
You keep calling it a conspiracy theory - but if you believed Cameron, you'd have voted Remain. He threatened WWIII - for goodness sake. Why would he do that if not to further sabotage his credibility and damage the Remain cause? Did he believe he could deliver tens of thousands? Did he believe WWIII would break out in the event of a Leave vote? Did you believe him? If not then, why now?
Great! Meanwhile, the currency falls, the deadline draws closer, the WTO paradise is exposed for a myth, and sensible Brexiteers are moving their money, their headquarters and their residences out of the country. This is called "taking back control".
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/30/brexit-political-class-politicians?CMP=fb_gu&fbclid=IwAR31xBjTa-_n30718XDfwE0lYczvwEeen9z_-cGSM01MN586OvImz2acuos
Here's the headline,
MPs have voted for a fantasy. It’s an indictment of our entire political class
Jonathan Freedland
but the byline is more interesting:
History will damn the architects of Brexit – and the politicians on both sides whose delusions are leading us to disaster
If they can identify them!
Cameron hid his part in stoking anti-immigrant rhetoric and pushing for a referendum from 2005 - behind fake advocacy of Remain, and May obliged him by cancelling the EU ID card scheme in 2010, sacking the long term head of the borders agency Brodie Clark, screeching from the Home Office about the Human Rights Act as it relates to immigration, anti-immigrant billboard vans driving round the streets, while doing nothing to fulfill Cameron's unbelievable tens of thousands pledge on immigration - allowing 660,000 immigrants into the UK in 2015, and publishing those figures during the 2016 referendum campaign period, in which both Cameron and May declared themselves Remainers.
So now, the Tories can blame the whole thing on EU intransigence and "the will of the people" - while their money is taking a tax break in Panama, the economy crashes and they come back relatively richer, and with an excuse for further deregulation and austerity forever after!
Those are the facts - and they are entirely absent from the UK media.
UK: So, how about we renegotiate the backstop?
EU: The backstop is non-negotiable.
UK: I get it. We'll renogotiate the backstop.
EU: The backstop is non-negotiable.
UK: Ok, I suppose the only solution left then is to renegotiate the backstop. We'll make that clear in Parliament and take it from there.
EU: The backstop is non-negotiable.
UK: Right, well let's deal with that as soon as we're finished renegotiating the backstop.
Let's fund the NHS instead!
The idea that Ireland would agree to something that transgresses the good Friday agreement is fanciful at best. And Ireland has a veto. And the EU rather than make them use it and alienate one of the most willing members of its club will stand by and watch Britain flush itself down the toilet if that's what Britain would rather do than drop the red lines that got them into their present pickle.
Although hopefully they change their minds before it's too late.
If I hadn't a bank account with a significant amount of sterling in it, I'd probably be more sanguine about the whole thing. Anyway, I'm also less optimistic than yesterday but still betting on non-craziness to take hold in time.
How can parliament veto primary legislation, without an Act of Parliament?
Parliament cannot revoke Article 50, it is part of the EU treaty. The notice period could be extended with unanimous agreement of the EU Council, by the government.
Quoting Michael
Hopefully the unelected bureaucrats in the EU change their mind. It is projected that a no-deal Brexit will throw Germany into recession.
I meant pass an Act of Parliament to revoke Article 50 if a deal is not approved.
The ECJ ruled that:
Hopefully the Government and Parliament change their minds. It is projected that a no-deal Brexit will throw the UK into recession.
May already blinked and gave in on the backstop. There are no new negotiations only a charade by the British PM to please the crazy-wing of her party while highlighting their craziness as a precursor to her giving in and accepting the soft Brexit she's always wanted.
*Puts 'Vietnamese Dong' into Google... thinks a second... *puts Vietnamese currency into Google*...huh, is that so.
:lol:
Quoting Kippo
If she is, she is misreading the situation. The EU cannot afford a border hole in the Customs Union. It's an agreement to no border, or no agreement and a border.
Same thing that the Scottish wanted from the UK: nice independence, but all things good for business to stay as it was in the union. It's called cherry picking.
The Northern Ireland assembly is currently suspended, but even if it hadn't been, it's a Westminster issue. Complicating matters, Sinn Fein, who are the major opposition to the DUP, boycott Westminster and so don't participate in any votes that could influence Brexit.
Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I meant more specifically with regard to the "alternative arrangements" to the backstop, what do they want?
They're looking for a time-limit and/or a legal guarantee they can unilaterally leave it. Both of which would make it pointless. It's like an insurance company asking if they can not pay you if you have an accident.
The United Kingdom remains committed to protecting North-South cooperation and to its guarantee of avoiding a hard border. Any future arrangements must be compatible with these overarching requirements. The United Kingdom's intention is to achieve these objectives through the overall EU-UK relationship. Should this not be possible, the United Kingdom will propose specific solutions to address the unique circumstances of the island of Ireland. In the absence of agreed solutions, the United Kingdom will maintain full alignment with those rules of the Internal Market and the Customs Union which, now or in the future, support North-South cooperation, the all island economy and the protection of the 1998 Agreement.
They want to be able to leave the Customs Union even if Ireland and the EU don't agree to their solutions.
I actually think the EU has been very considerate of UK interests so far in particular where it concerns the financial services industry. EU entities can continue to meet their clearing obligations by clearing at LCH. If it had been me, I would've said that's fine with regard to your historic portfolio but for any new financial instruments it needs to be cleared at a clearing house in the EU.
Exactly. But again it's managed capitulation from May. She must cave but the crazy wing of her party won't let her until the walls are falling in around them.
Sure, it would require an Act to revoke A50 notice. (You can't revoke A50 BTW, it's a treaty). I think this is impossible for a couple of reasons. Firstly it would never pass, and secondly there simply is not enough time.
Under UK Law, there is already a deal approved. UK pays nothing to EU and simply leaves on 29th March. Under EU treaty, A24 would then apply, which means UK/EU trade, travel etc. would continue under current arrangements for 2 years.
Quoting Michael
You are confusing A50, which is a treaty, and thus cannot be revoked, with the Notice to leave, which can be revoked, if there is an Act of Parliament allowing the government to do so, which there isn't.
Also, note that the Notice cannot be revoked in order to hold another referendum.
This simply isn't true. IMF projects UK will be equally fastest European G7 growing economy.
I doubt anyone here wants to have to explain to you what the words "no-deal Brexit mean". So, I suggest you Google it. In the meantime, this is what the IMF actually has to say.
https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2018/11/13/na111418-uk-economic-outlook-in-six-charts
"The UK is set to exit the EU in March 2019. It is now in the process of negotiating its future relationship with the EU. Growth has moderated since the 2016 referendum, moving the UK from the top to near the bottom of the Group of Seven growth tables. "
"...reverting to WTO trade rules, even in an orderly manner, would lead to long-run output losses for the UK of around 5 to 8 percent of GDP compared to a no-Brexit scenario."
"A worst-case scenario would be a disorderly exit without a transition period. Such an outcome would lead to a sharp fall in confidence and reversal of capital flows, which would affect asset prices and the value of sterling."
Meanwhile, Germany is in technical recession, Italy is in recession, the whole Euro zone teetering on the brink with Q4 GDP growth of only 0.2%.
Sure, if growth slows down in the EU, everyone should just leave it. Actually, everyone should just leave their country when growth slows down and come back during the next boom. The IMF projects that that will definitely work.
That's why 3.7 million EU Citizens live in UK, that and the £4billion in benefits they take.
That's why net migration from EU is still 100,000 p.a. despite Brexit.
Quoting Inis
How many EU countries are there? How many are in the G7? Spoiler, 28 and 3. That IMF paper also shows the UK will underperform compared to the EU average. In other news, the EC forecasts UK GDP growth at 1.2% tying it with Italy for last place. Both forecasts assume a soft Brexit by the way.
And that's despite a depreciated currency...
Meanwhile, spreads and volatility in UK equities have increased as well, reflecting the risks market participants perceive. Rating agencies have downgraded UK debt as well.
From an economic point of view Brexit sucks for every party involved.
Quoting Inis
Based on what information because the "data on migrants and benefits is incomplete, fragmented and not routinely available"? When people voted on Brexit no information was available on the costs of benefits paid by the UK government to EU citizens. The estimates I found in the House of Commons Library were from March 2017 on data in 2013/2014 at results in 1.7 billion GBP over 2 years for non-UK EU citizens. An important point as well: non-UK nationals were far less likely to receive benefits than UK nationals. Since the system is such that the working populace carries the costs of those receiving benefits, the non-UK citizens not only paid for all non-UK people receiving benefits but also a part of UK citizens receiving benefits. E.g., they make social security cheaper for everyone in the UK.
UK citizens working in the EU have the same rights to benefits as well that the UK wouldn't have to pay if they were unemployed in the UK (1.3 million UK citizens live in the EU) but I imagine that they similarly have a lower unemployment rate and less need for benefits as the local populace and as group are a net contributor.
Meanwhile, Germany is in technical recession, Italy is in recession, and France is in flames.
Eurozone growth is estimated at 0.2% Q4.
Quoting Benkei
The data was eventually extracted from HMRC and the Treasury by Iain Duncan Smith, ex Work and Pensions Secretary, and is for 2013/14.
Really???
Here's your latest official statistic (Nov 2018) on this issue:
• There were 2.25 million EU nationals working in the UK, 132,000 fewer than for a year earlier (the largest annual fall since comparable records began in 1997).
See Office for National Statistics, latest release
Yeah, the largest fall since the records began. Good job getting the data right, Inis!
The same data I used with totally different figures. Do you have a reading disability that I need to take into account when communicating with you?
Of course. EU migrant workers are a different breed from Third World migrants, that's the ugly truth.
Interestingly, the British statistical office did give earlier employment figures (for 16-64 year olds) about EU nationals, UK nationals on other nationals living in the UK.
The stats were (last May):
81.9% EU nationals employed
75,6% UK nationals employed
63% non-EU nationals employed.
Now the British statisticians divide the group just to UK and non-UK residence, which then shows that non-UK residence have a slightly lower employment level. More politically correct, than the statistic that other EU nationals are better employed in the UK than the aboriginals.
More lies. Germany is expected to do best of the three you mentioned with 1.7%. France is expected to outperform Italy (1.6%), the UK will now no longer outperform Italy (1.2%) (still assuming soft Brexit), Italy is still growing (1.3%). So technically you don't know what you're talking about.
EDIT: Those were the 2020 figures. Here's 2019:
Germany: 1.8%
France: 1.6%
Italy: 1.2%
UK: 1.2%
Of course, immigrant workers are a sign of a strong economy. Them leaving is similarly a sign of bad times.
I stand corrected. From the "latest figures"
Net immigration from EU was only 74,000 last year, despite Brexit.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/migrationstatisticsquarterlyreport/november2018
If there are fewer EU nationals working, yet more arriving, draw your own conclusions.
Did you use the data from here?
https://www.iainduncansmith.org.uk/sites/www.iainduncansmith.org.uk/files/attachments/Freedom_of_Movement_08082018.pdf
Germany is in or close to technical recession:
https://deutschewealth.com/content/deutschewealth/en/our_perspective/cio-memo-germany-technical-recession-not-inconceivable.html
Italy is in recession:
https://news.sky.com/story/italy-falls-into-recession-as-quarterly-gdp-drops-11623135
Eurozone Q4 growth is 0.2% according to Eurostat.
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/9539637/2-31012019-AP-EN.pdf/fead6e91-cd7f-4654-b5d7-81fef584772d
France is ablaze:
Spain jails politicians.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/02/spanish-court-question-catalonia-separatists-except-puigdemont
I could go on.
The topic is Brexit not anti-Macron protests in Paris or a downturn in the Eurozone economy (economic growth occurs in cycles, you know that right?). So, what is the relevance of this?
Well, the EU turning into a fascist police-state, with an army, expansionist aims, and antagonism of Russia, is relevant. The fact that it has encouraged mas migration, yet maintains mass youth unemployment in the South does matter. The fact that not one person in the whole of Europe ever voted for these policies matters.
https://www.ft.com/content/6bd24218-248f-11e9-8ce6-5db4543da632
Do you know what those words mean?
Quoting Inis
Apparently not. The reference to Russia is telling though.
Who represents you on the EU Commission?
Phil Hogan. Why? I mean, judging by his girth he has expansionist aims, but is he antagonistic towards Russia too?
Because you have just revealed to anyone who understands how the EU is governed, that you are typically clueless.
No, Phil Hogan does not represent you.
Fascinating.
"Phil Hogan (born 4 July 1960) is an Irish politician who currently serves as European Commissioner for Agriculture and Rural Development since November 2014. "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Hogan
Yes, you are that clueless.
Which is typical.
Fascinating.
Anyway @Inis if you're finished doing your very incompetent Russian troll anti-EU thing, please run along, you have convinced no-one of anything except your own foolishness. And it's getting boring.
According to the Lisbon Treaty, you have no representation on the EU Commission. This is a verifiable fact.
So you asked me who Ireland's representative on the EU commission was knowing I'd answer Phil Hogan because he is the Irish commissioner, so that you could then contradict me on the basis that Phil Hogan represents the interests of all the EU not just Ireland. Fascinating. Now beyond trolling, do you have an actual point to make?
Here's a nice overview even if I don't agree with every point : https://eu-rope.ideasoneurope.eu/2018/10/21/which-is-more-democratic-uk-or-eu/
The basic difficult here is to understand that the EU, however it wants to be a federation, is still what you would call a confederation. In fact if someone argues that the EU has a lack of democracy because the EU Parliament doesn't have much say, I beg to differ. Strengthening the EU Parliament would just lead to taking power away from the parliaments of the member countries. I myself am far more happy with EU being an assortment of independent states rather than something else.
There's definitely a benefit to this sort of decentralisation. For one, if you want to lobby for something, you need to lobby in different countries, making the EU less suspectible to inappropriate lobbying efforts as we see in the USA (obviously, it still happens). I also prefer there not to be a single EU army for similar reasons that I don't think a powerful, centrally governed military-industrial complex is useful.
Also, when it mentions oligarchs, who is it specifically referring to?
I fear one of the lessons of the 2 world wars is that populism has a momentum that can only be dissipated by a monumental level of horror, and not always then. Folks are as we speak crawling around the ruins clutching their dying babies in one hand and their weapons in the other and reciting 'God is great'.
There's strength in that different countries can handle things differently and everybody isn't pushed into the same mold. Historically large centralized states have not created an innovative environment, but have just given rise to bureaucracy and in the end stagnation.
Quoting Benkei
This is one of the most stupid ideas out there, which a) won't work, b) won't get the benefits visioned about it and c) there is already a NATO that does work... President Trumpov won't have the US resign from it (so NATO is here to stay).
We've seen on and on how ludicrous it comes when a Typhoon fighter is shipped around Europe to be made and how difficult it is for different countries to agree on what specifications their weapons have to have. In reality it doesn't improve much the European military industrial complex.
And the most simple nail to the coffin of a "single EU army" is that it will be nothing else but a hodgepodge assortment of units from various countries. That's the only thing some politicians want as NATO naturally goes the way the US wants.
There is absolutely no intention to truly create an interstate armed forces that would replace the national armed forces. Nobody truly has an idea that lets get rid of the national departments of defence have just one interstate department of defence and one single armed forces. It's as whacky as an idea that all police forces of EU member states would be merged into one organization lead from Brussels. Who would command it? How would it be financed?
The very first words out of Nigel Farage's mouth are a lie. David Cameron had wanted a referendum since he wrote the 2005 Tory manifesto for Micheal Howard. He again pushed for a referendum in the 2010 Tory manifesto, and finally made it a manifesto commitment in 2015 - that could not be blocked by Parliament or amended by the Lords.
UKIP were nowhere in 2005. They didn't make significant electoral gains until the 2013 EU elections, and 2014 Local government elections. That was after Cameron's 2010, absurd tens of thousands immigration pledge, and after Cameron had promised a referendum in January 2013. At the height of their powers, UKIP had one MP. They were never a threat to Cameron.
Cameron raised expectations on immigration with his tens of thousands pledge - adding, "or vote me out" - while Theresa May as Home Secretary spectacularly failed to deliver. Nonetheless, May remained in post as Home Secretary for six years - longest tenure in living memory; while Cameron provided for the referendum he had wanted for a long time. (See the youtube video on Cameron, Lisbon Treaty, 2009, below.) May allowed 660,000 migrants into Britain in 2015, and published those figures during the referendum campaign, and Cameron put himself on the wrong side of that manufactured failure as champion of Remain.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNoJr0rqq54?
The main thing for Ireland is that they'll have a border but it won't feel like one because they'll have a technical implementation to do the border control that people can move up and down between Northern-Ireland and Ireland without any delay.
Correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't that mean there is a border? So what happens if the technical implementation fails or doesn't deliver? Who's going to pay for it? What if it's too expensive? etc. etc.
I wonder how the EU will react to it.
This is just a rehash of rejected ideas that Ireland and the EU consider unworkable. There was already a real compromise, which was the backstop, and that hasn't been reopened for negotiation. This 'compromise' is an attempt at keeping the warring factions of the Tory party together. The EU is likely to view it as irrelevant internal politics.
If these Brexiteers think it's like "not having a border" it should be fine to implement it between Northern Ireland and the rest of the UK when the backstop comes into effect.
Tax Justice Network agrees.
It's pretty sad that we have more love for fishing territory than third generation (AKA natives with not-white grandparents) Pakistani immigrants.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-47121225
Taking back control of our borders!
Ireland's not going to get into a kerfuffle with the EU. And it won't have to, seeing as a no-deal would pretty much ensure the Tories lose the next election. Self-preservation will rule and the UK will cave.
I don't know what you're saying here - or how this is a response to my post. The UK is planning to wave lorries, and presumably illegal immigrants through customs at the Dover/Calais crossing - as a consequence of a referendum sold on the idea of taking back control of our borders, and reducing immigration. The whole thing is a lie.
The Irish border is another issue entirely - one there's nothing much to say on, because currently Theresa May is going back to Brussels, again... supposedly to negotiate on an issue, that from the EU's point of view, is very firmly decided. It's utterly bizarre. Brexit does not work for anyone but disaster capitalists. It needs to stop.
I agree. Unfortunately, about 45% of the UK public don't. (I'm allowing 5-10% more for law-of-the-jungle capitalists). The problem is to refute the simplistic 'take back control' justifications for Brexit. Those of us with sense know they're illusory, but many others are swayed by historical notions of Brittania ruling the waves, and anything that appeals to that jingoism gets their vote. The Leave campaign long ago figured this out and exploited it for all it's worth. Pity Remainers didn't, and Cameron fought an inept referendum campaign instead, refusing to engage with the histrionic rubbish talked about immigration and snatching defeat from the jaws of victory...
Our best hope is that as MPs are more sensible than the voters, they will ignore pressure to parrot their constituents' simplistic ideas and vote out May's plan. Then the Commons can vote for a more moderate Brexit, at least forcing a delay - or a general election.
This fantasy scenario is based on what? Ireland has been in lockstep with the EU from day one and will continue to be. Over 90% of the Irish want to remain in the EU and the relationship is rock solid. So this idea that it would ever get to the point where Ireland would break from the EU and basically join the UK by having a soft border with them instead of the EU shows a serious lack of understanding of the relationship between Ireland and the UK, and Ireland and the EU (the latter two of which will quietly go behind doors and hammer out an agreement in the worst case no-deal scenario).
But yes, the UK are already signalling there is nowhere for them to go on this and they'll back down.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/02/05/brexit-latest-newsmay-promises-deal-honours-commitments-northern/
More like which direction you're coming from. I'm still not sure. Saying something like "Brussels will not negotiate further. UK will be brought to heal or be cast out." plays right into the idea of the EU as a dictatorial foreign government that underlies brexiteer opinion. You're not, by any chance a Leave voter who's changed their mind, are you?
Quoting Evola
I agree that Brussels is unlikely to make further changes to the backstop. But for me, the implication is that brexit doesn't work - it's a failed policy proposal that should never have been offered to the British public in a referendum in the first place. Kicking Ireland out of the EU, likely or otherwise - presupposes brexit goes ahead. I don't think it can, or should, or will.
Quoting Evola
Ultimately, Theresa May has the ability to revoke Article 50 at any time - and that makes her alone responsible. There's all the reason in the world to revoke A50 - from the corrupt referendum, to the situation in Ireland, to the lack of preparedness on so many fronts, to the catastrophic economic consequences of a no-deal brexit. May has a choice, and if she walks this country off a cliff - it will be on purpose.
Immaterial if you can blame someone else.
The old adage, "we are only ever three meals from revolution" is always worth keeping in mind. May can revoke Article 50, and she should. If she doesn't, and people are losing their jobs and businesses, their homes are being repossessed, and so on - blaming it on the EU and the will of the people isn't going to hold up to scrutiny - particularly when "the will of the people" was so obviously manufactured in 2016, and has changed dramatically since.
Cameron and May were brexiteers - who sabotaged Remain with impossible pledges, and a vast deliberate failure on immigration, while providing for a referendum that was all about immigration. They played a central and duplicitous part in manufacturing consent for an unplanned, uncosted, unplan - that two years later, still doesn't work. She alone has the power to stop brexit by revoking Article 50. If she doesn't - it's entirely on her shoulders.
I think there's 0 chance the UK will revoke the article 50 notice as there's no majority support for it in Parliament. There's no democratic legitimacy for the government to revoke it without that support and as such would be political suicide for the already estranged, English political elite if they did do it. The result of the referendum cannot be ignored like that.
Since the parties are shying away from even a second referendum for fear of being branded enemies of the people in the next election, I'd say that analysis is right on.
Really shows the folly of holding a referendum with no provision on how the decision is going to be implemented or how binding it is for how long.
Can the British vote to rejoin the EU immediately after Brexit? On the face of it, this would not be contrary to the earlier vote, but that won't stop people from claiming it's antidemocratic.
She could always use Royal Prerogative!
I can't speak for most people. I can only speak to the facts. It's amazing you can tell what most people think. There's a lot of people claiming to speak for a lot of people, and the the only people not getting a say are the people themselves. They were lied to, incited, cajoled, seduced, deceived, manipulated and harried into voting Leave in 2016 - and only did so by the narrowest of margins. There's no genuine democratic consent for brexit.
Quoting Benkei
It seems to me they're trying to walk off the no deal cliff, while pretending it's someone else's fault. The will of the people, the EU, Remoaners - they'll blame anyone but themselves for what they are doing - because they know damn well the consequences will be catastrophic for a great many people.
Quoting Benkei
I don't agree, but we'll see. There's no good way forward from here. Someone is going to end up very much put out, and bear mind that 3/4 of people didn't vote Leave. This bitterness will drag on and on - if Article 50 isn't revoked, the economy crashes and people lose jobs, homes, businesses - because 26% of the population got conned by corrupt billionaire tax dodgers.
Yes, I think you might be right. Although strictly speaking:
"Revocation of Article 50 would require repeal of the Withdrawal Act."
...it's the Notification of Withdrawal Act (2017). The Withdrawal Act is something else, and follows from the Withdrawal Agreement in a given set of circumstances.
It is a negotiating tactic, but whether or not they'll relent is much less certain. Now more than ever, in this world of Brexit and Trump, it isn't safe to assume that politics will be in tune with what's sensible. But I'm more confident that there will be relenting from someone somewhere in order to avoid a no deal Brexit.
Again, we have to just wait and see.
Nope. It's the Notification of Withdrawal Act (2017) that prevents May from unilaterally revoking Article 50. It's the Notification of Withdrawal Act (2017) that followed from the Gina Miller case.
The European Union Withdrawal Act (2018) is something else entirely, and only comes into force after successful ratification of the Withdrawal Agreement. (i.e. the deal....that isn't in fact a deal.)
Yes, don't let facts get in your way of feeling righteous about how stupid all the politicians and Brexiters are.
https://www.npr.org/2013/04/23/178616215/stumbling-into-world-war-i-like-sleepwalkers?t=1549475941500
The point at issue is a minor one, hidden in the comparison of two lengthy legal documents - and it's just not worth the effort. I haven't called anyone stupid. But don't let that fact get in the way of your inferiority complex.
Or perhaps you can not be so opiniated about matters you don't know the details of.
I don't think that's likely. I'll gladly run the risk of being wrong on such a minor point of fact. It's almost inescapable. Can you tell me off the top of your head how the EU court's decision, that Article 50 can be revoked, plays out with regard to the specific powers afforded Theresa May in the Notification of Withdrawal Bill - not to be confused with the Withdrawal Bill, or the Withdrawal Agreement? Would you spend two days researching it, just to make some minor point on an obscure forum? No? Well, neither would I.
Not only is it winter, but even so, this is a bit too dramatic.
Perhaps the no-deal-Brexit is something equivalent to the Y2K scare? Not something to get hysterical about.
Perhaps. Do you live in the UK? My experience is that there are a lot of people living on the edge already. I dare say we can survive the death of a few hundred thousand, and that's nothing to the millions of WW1. But the similarity is in the predictable yet somehow unavoidable nature of the thing, the mindset rather than the extent.
Or you can try not taking a position on a minor point you're running a risk of being wrong on and instead try to find out the answer by asking a question. Just taking a position whichever one strikes your fancy in the moment just makes you sound like a loudmouth that thinks his opinion is relevant on every (minor) topic. Just a tip, eh!
These myopic references to the "Y2K scare" are a pet peeve of mine. If people didn't get hysterical about it and didn't spend hundreds of billions of dollars and untold hours working overtime on fixing the problem, the story would have had a different ending. But since the threat was successfully averted, a lot of people somehow came to the conclusion that it was nothing to worry about. And now it's a cautionary story about how when experts tell you about an imminent threat, you can just tell them to go where the sun don't shine.
Thanks ever so much for the tip - only to bring you up to speed, I'm not wrong. I'm in dispute with someone who thinks I'm wrong, but I'm not. ...probably. It would take vast amounts of research to settle the matter. I'm not doing that. You all caught up? Good.
You don't know and it would behove you to act accordingly. If you don't know for certain and argue the way you did then you're not doing philosophy but you're just bluffing.
What Brexit seems to mean is that a lot of people are going to get totally screwed.
It's behoove. And as you raise the idea, does it behoove you to wade into the middle of someone else's disagreement? What's it got to do with you? Are you saying you know how the EU court's decision that Article 50 can be revoked, interacts with the powers provided by the Notification of Withdrawal Bill? If you don't know, for certain, then by your own standards - does it not behoove you to mind your own business?
http://www.worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-beh1.htm
As a forum participant it behoves you to act in good fate which you're not when you're bluffing. I call it out. And you can pretend it was just a discussion between you and another person but it wasn't as you posted it in a forum which is a free for all for anybody to react to anything.
Edit: anyway, I've made my point. You can expect another reaction to your next unsubstantiated claim posited as fact.
It's good faith. And as you raise the idea, do you think wading into someone else's disagreement without a clue what it's about, like a troll - trying to get a rise, is acting in good faith? If it's not acting in good faith, and if you don't know, for certain - what the answer to the disagreement is, by both your own standards, should you not shut up now?
Written by: Matt Foster Posted On: 7th February 2019
Backing Brexit would be more damaging to Labour's electoral fortunes than the Iraq war, a stark poll handed to Jeremy Corbyn's top team has warned.
ITV News and the Guardian report that the confidential document was sent to pro-Corbyn pressure group Momentum by the TSSA union, and has been circulating among Shadow Cabinet ministers.
It warns Labour that backing Brexit will cost the party 45 seats at a snap election, compared with 11 for opposing Britain's departure. "There can be no disguising the sense of disappointment and disillusionment with Labour if it fails to oppose Brexit and there is every indication that it will be far more damaging to the party’s electoral fortunes than the Iraq war," it says.
“Labour would especially lose the support of people below the age of 35, which could make this issue comparable to the impact the tuition fees and involvement in the coalition had on Lib Dem support.”
The party would also risk losing five of its seven MPs in Remain-supporting Scotland if it supports Brexit, the study says.
Amid calls for Mr Corbyn to back a second referendum, the poll claims that three-quarters of Labour voters would vote to 'Remain' if one were called.
It also suggests any new centrist party vowing to oppose Brexit could hoover up Labour voters, with 17% of Jeremy Corbyn's 2017 supporters saying they would be "very likely" to back a new party that came out against Britain's EU exit.
https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/news/101666/backing-brexit-will-cost-labour-more-votes-iraq
It is. See? Not so hard to admit you're wrong is it?
Yes, it's precisely because this is a forum it is in good faith to take issue with someone pretending to know the answer when in fact they don't. That doesn't require me to know the answer to the discussion but here it is any way: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2017-2019/0306/cbill_2017-20190306_en_2.htm#l1g3
You're welcome.
You tell me. What are you admitting you're wrong about? Is it just just the 'good fate' thing? Because to my mind, that's the least of the things you're wrong about. I think you should apologize for your behavior, and stop trolling people - don't you?
Quoting Benkei
To begin with, your link doesn't answer the question. The question concerns the EU court's decision that Article 50 can be revoked, by whom - given the powers conferred by the Notification of Withdrawal Act. Your link has many of the same words in it - but is a Bill, concerned with a possible referendum, that provides, in the event of a Remain vote, for automatic repeal of all the Withdrawal Acts.
You've shed absolutely zero light on the subject, behaved like a complete idiot, gone out of your way to offend me repeatedly, and you presume thanks are due! You're not welcome. Not in the least. Stop trolling.
If the duty of the Prime Minister under either section 1(1) or section 2(3) is
25e ngaged the following Acts are repealed-
European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act 2017;
European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018;
Haulage Permit and Trailer Registration Act 2018;
Taxation (Cross-Border Trade) Act 2018;
30Nuclear Safeguards Act 2018;
Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018.
Quoting karl stone
It sets out which acts need to be repealed, clarifying you were both wrong. Parliament gets to vote. It's not that difficult.
By the way, well done on playing victim.
Your link is a Bill - not an Act. It's not law. It's a proposal - the validity of which has not been examined by Parliament. A bill can say anything. Bills are often amended because they're not structured legally. Further, it proposes a course of action in the event of a referendum. That's not the question.
In the simplest possible terms the question is: Could Theresa May revoke Article 50 if she wanted to?
I say she could. Although not explicitly provided for, because the EU Court's decision only came after A50 had been invoked, I believe it follows from the grant of powers to invoke Article 50 - that there's an implied power to revoke Article 50 - given the EU Court's decision.
It's a theoretical question. I think I'm right, and it's quite likely I am.
Oh great, now you're being purposefully obtuse. The Bill sets out which Acts need to be repealed to give effect to revoking the Article 50 Notice. Hence, both you and Evola were wrong to mention only one Act when there are several that need to be repealed, among them both the Acts you both mentioned.
Parliamentary vote is necessary. It's called parliamentary sovereignty.
[quote=SCUK]... ministers cannot frustrate the purpose of a statute or a statutory provision, for example by emptying it of content or preventing its effectual operation. ... rather than the Secretary of State being able to rely on the absence in the 1972 Act of any exclusion of the prerogative power to withdraw from the EU Treaties, the proper analysis is that, unless that Act positively created such a power in relation to those Treaties, it does not exist. [/quote]
Unless all those Acts mentioned in the Bill positively created the power for the government to repeal them, there is no royal prerogative to do so. Since those Acts do not positively create such power, May cannot revoke the article 50 notice.
"Following (from) the decision and the will of the UK authorities."
It's the third such intervention I'm aware of, in which he's speaking over the shoulders of our government to the British people. Another was saying recently, both in a speech and on twitter:
"There's a special place in hell for no deal brexiteers."
And the other, was relayed on BBC Two's "Inside Europe: Ten Years of Turmoil" - when Tusk said:
"I told David Cameron, there's no appetite for revolution in Europe. He told me he felt really safe, because he thought at the same time that there's no risk of a referendum, because his coalition partner, the Liberals, would block this idea."
What Mr Tusk is making clear with these comments, is that the UK government, particularly Cameron and May, were complicit in the corrupt 2016 referendum. I have been saying this for some time now - and it's really very clear when one examines the facts.
Cameron took the UK out a centrist alliance in the EU, and joined right wing anti federalists, cancelled an EU ID card scheme in 2010 - while promising tens of thousands - or vote me out, then dictated a referendum by making it a manifesto commitment, that could not be blocked.
Cameron was a brexiteer, who sabotaged his credibility with false promises and a huge, deliberate failure on immigration, and with a renegotiation that educated the public, but was predestined to fail - before appointing himself chief spokesman for Remain, and losing on purpose.?
I would have thought those on this site were above absurd conspiracy theories.
I'd have thought those in government were above absurd conspiracies - but we are where we are!
The Government has responded to the petition you signed – “Grant a People's Vote if Parliament rejects the EU Withdrawal Agreement”.
Government responded:
The Government is clear we will not have a second referendum. We continue to approach cross-party meetings in a constructive spirit, with a commitment to deliver the referendum result.
The Government is clear that we will not have a second referendum, it’s mandate is to implement the result of the previous referendum. Following the outcome of the Meaningful Vote, the Government will approach cross-party meetings in a constructive spirit and with a commitment to deliver on the instruction given to us by the British people in 2016. We are focused on delivering an outcome which betters the lives of British people - whether they voted to Leave or to Remain.
Almost three quarters of the electorate participated, with 17.4 million voting to leave the European Union. This is the highest number of votes cast for anything in UK electoral history, and the biggest democratic mandate for a course of action ever directed at any UK Government.
Parliament then overwhelmingly confirmed the result of the referendum by voting with clear and convincing majorities in both of its Houses for the European Union (Notification of Withdrawal) Act.
In last year’s General Election, over 80% of people voted for parties committing to respect the result of the referendum. It was the stated policy of both major parties that the decision of the people would be respected. The Government is clear that it is its duty to implement the will of the British people, and the democratic process which delivered the referendum result.
The British people must be able to trust in its Government both to effect their will, and to deliver the best outcome for them. As the Prime Minister has said: “This is about more than the decision to leave the EU; it is about whether the public can trust their politicians to put in place the decision they took.” In upholding that directive to withdraw from the European Union, the Government is delivering on that promise.
The deal we have negotiated takes back control of our borders, laws and money. It protects jobs, security and the integrity of the United Kingdom. It protects the rights of more than three million EU citizens living in the UK and around one million UK nationals living in the EU and provides a fair financial settlement for UK taxpayers estimated to be between £35-39bn, resolving our obligations.
We will not hold a second referendum, and second-guess the clear instruction given to us by the British people, but instead we will continue to focus on holding meetings with colleagues across the House, looking to identify what is required to secure the support of Parliament and ensure that we leave in an orderly way on the 29 March 2019.
Department for Exiting the European Union
This petition has over 100,000 signatures. The Petitions Committee will consider it for a debate. They can also gather further evidence and press the government for action.
The Committee is made up of 11 MPs, from political parties in government and in opposition. It is entirely independent of the Government. Find out more about the Committee: https://petition.parliament.uk/help#petitions-committee
Thanks,
The Petitions team
UK Government and Parliament
The same David Cameron who cancelled an EU ID card scheme in 2010, while pledging to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands - "or vote me out" - who announced there would be a referendum in 2013, and made it a manifesto commitment in 2015 - that couldn't be blocked by Parliament or amended by the Lords.
The same David Cameron who launched highly publicized "renegotiation" weeks before the vote - that was doomed to fail because his demands required treaty change, and who - upon arriving back in Britain, with his failure still fresh in the air, appointed himself chief spokesman for Remain.
The same David Cameron who kept Theresa May in position as Home Secretary for six years, while she screeched about the Human Rights Act, sacked the long term head of the Borders Agency, Brodie Clark, let 660,000 migrants into the UK in 2015, and published those figures during the 2016 referendum.
The same David Cameron who appointed his aide Craig Oliver to oversee the Remain campaign, and recommended Oliver for a knighthood on leaving office, having made a pig's fucking ear of the case for Remain!
...thinks Donald Tusk's remarks are bizarre!?
I guess the UK government does not know how representative democracy functions?
Quoting karl stone
It begs the question, if the instruction was so clear, why doesn't anyone seem to know how this is supposed to work.
Just to be clear, those are the government's words, not mine. I would point out the assumption that people voted for reasons related solely to the proposition on the ballot paper, is patently false. The Leave campaign lied egregiously, and incited discontent on many fronts, and then funneled all that discontent into a vote to leave the EU, in the most crooked ever episode in British political history.
Quoting Echarmion
I'd have to disagree. To manipulate democratic processes in this way requires an exquisite understanding of how things work. For example, consider Cameron making the referendum a manifesto commitment, that could not be blocked by Parliament or amended by the Lords.
We will not hold a second referendum, and second-guess the clear instruction given to us by the British people,
— Government response to the petition – “Grant a People's Vote if Parliament rejects the EU Withdrawal Agreement”. (see above)
Quoting Echarmion
Have no illusions, they know brexit doesn't work. A catastrophic no deal brexit was the plan all along. Remember, this is the party that opted out of the Social Chapter of the Maastricht Treaty to create a low wage/low regulation jobs market attractive to immigration, that sold off council housing and refused to build more, that sold off all the utilities at knock down prices to their pals in the city, that subsidized low wages and high rents with tax payer's money - starving local councils and public services of funding, and refused to remove jobless migrants as allowed under EU law.
This is the Party that blamed Labour for the 2008 financial crash - that was actually caused by banking deregulation under Thatcher, and imposed 10 years of unnecessary and counter productive austerity. This is the Party that provided for the referendum, that had one foot in each campaign, and is pursuing a no deal brexit for the excuse it will provide to do the same thing all over again, only worse.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/feb/08/heathrow-stockpiling-rubber-gloves-from-eu-for-post-brexit-searches?CMP=fb_gu&fbclid=IwAR3NgOn5doKGabRsHuvh2U_ETNxkAZEcFFxE6XVqOvmswsgpOaINP_6zAOQ
I kinda like Donald Tusk. And that Jean-Claude Drunker geezer, too. This was a funny moment.
I'm kinda disappointed to get your post. Are we chatting now? Sharing funny youtube clips? Are you and I - like, girlfriends?
Yes, sweetie, but I'm the alpha, and as long you don't you forget that, we'll get along just peachy. :sparkle:
Great, well, that so, I'm assuming you agree with everything I've said, and can't think of anything to add or question.
The alpha thing, like iron and spinach turned out not to be true. Unfortunately both became popular and well cited enough to enter popular culture.
Interesting hypothesis, but I think it's flawed, in that - there's a natural individual interest in academia and science in upsetting the applecart of accepted wisdom; and here we enter a hall of conceptual mirrors, because it's something this paper does - while under-estimating the tendency in others. And now, it's something I'm doing to this paper. Vertigo!
I think the crux of the matter is that, few are talented enough to upset the applecart, and the less talented majority are not merely put out when it happens, but unqualified to judge.
I'm watching this Ted talk on the origins of language - and wondering why memetic theory, does not explain the apparent disparity between the views of archaeologists and anthropologists on the one hand, and biologists on the other - (12:20) that there was a sudden event at the dawn of human intellect - biologists reject on the basis of rate of genetic change and no obvious increase in cranial capacity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nd5cklw6d6Q
To my mind, a sort of conceptual evolution seems an obvious candidate to explain behavioural change evidenced in human artifacts, that has no obvious biological corollary.
The study that hypothesised alpha wolves based on wolf behaviour only used captive wolves. Wild wolves don't actually have the same social stratification. Even the person that came up with it has since rejected it.
There's a social scientist called Levi Strauss. He's a structuralist - and while he talks about ape and human societies, he similarly describes vertical and horizontal kinship structures - as opposed to mere dominance hierarchies. Jordan Peterson fans - take note!
I didn't say what I said to undermine all notions of hierarchical organisation, I said it to undermine ones involving, even analogically, an outdated idea about wolves.
— karl stone
Quoting fdrake
Okay. Wolves - take note!
Noted. Besides, the idea of the alpha was just another criminal conspiracy started by David Cameron. Or was it the lizard people? I forget.
Petition: 'Scroungers' Cameron should not be receiving a final salary pension after costing this country untold billions with a corrupt referendum for a failed policy. He must not be allowed to draw upon the public purse for the rest of his life.
Right on!
I do admire your ability to address a really serious issue like brexit; something I maintain will permanently disable our ability to address global scale threats like climate change by promoting a deregulated race to the bottom, that could re-ignite the fires of sectarian violence in Ireland, cause Scotland to declare independence, permanently alienate our nearest and largest trading partners - a policy that was forced on the country by the corruption of democratic process, and manipulation of the electorate's perceptions with a concerted campaign of lies and incitement to xenophobia bordering on racism, and do so without ever getting serious? How do you dance on the edge of the abyss like that? How do you just not care?
Perhaps there are chat forums you could use instead of trolling a philosophy forum with your inappropriately inane line of, what I presume aspires to wit?
I see. So it's appropriate for you to spam a philosophy forum, but it's inappropriate of me to criticise your spamming of a philosophy forum, on that same philosophy forum, in a comical manner susceptible to accusations of trolling?
Sorry, please continue.
You're not going to hell. What bad could happen to you?
I dare say we will survive, but the UK is losing influence, losing money, losing jobs, losing trade. We already have gone back to folks dying of malnutrition, rising inequality, rising homelessness, a loss of human rights and political accountability, increasing crime and quite a deal of despair and desperation. Plenty more bad stuff could happen.
Are you serious?
You know, I've thought about starting a thread on this British (or should I say English) gloominess and persistent self-flagellation, that only seldom is interrupted by some brief upbeat monent. Yes, one could argue that it's the loss of the Empire, but it has to be something more. Now some might find this quite rude and I surely don't want to be insulting, but there is a difference in attitude especially when comparing Britain to France. Even if France humiliatingly lost to the Third Reich, was occupied and also lost it's colonies too (which there were fewer) the attitude of the French is still different.
For me the perfect example of this, which might sound very odd at first, is the British Space program. In the 1970's the British government came to the conclusion that having a British Space program was far too costly (even if it had a shoe-string budget compared to the Superpowers), the program didn't have a purpose and somehow it would be a far better idea buying the ICBM rockets from the US. So, in the very British manner, the (few) people of the British Space program got the news that the program was terminated while in Australia when they were preparing finally to launch a rocket with a satellite. Not knowing what to do with a completed rocket and satellite, they then unceremoniously launched the rocket (that btw differed a lot from other rockets as it had been made by unique British technology). The rocket performed well and put the satellite into orbit. The satellite performed also well and kept flying around the World for the time planned for a government that didn't need it. And this happened just on the cusp of the era of commercial satellite launches, which has turned out to be quite lucrative to the French with their Arianne rocket-family. I don't know how many Britons nowdays even know that their country did have a space program with British built rockets.
Then there's the aviation industry, which created the jet engine with Frank Whittle, which today only manufactures parts of aircraft. By the way Whittles career reinforces this sad story of British government not using the talented people that worked for it. With more investment earlier the Battle of Britain could have been fought with Meteor jet aircraft. Or the car industry, which apart from few tiny sport car manufacturers is owned by foreigners. Now compare all this to France and the French counterparts in industry (Groupe PSA, Dassault group). Note the difference? Why is this?
I've really thought about what would be the reason of this, and the only answer that I come to is that people serving in the British government and British politicians simply don't believe in their country. Things are problems for the British industry, not opportunities to be seized. Their (the governments) role is to protect British industries from foreign competition, not for British industries to gain success. This dismal narrow mindedness of the politicians and government officials is the basic problem. Even if Thatcher had a bit of Churchill in her (which other British politician would have dared to send the Royal Navy to fight for some far off islands with more sheep than people?), she surely wasn't anything like general Petain.
Could be interesting. I lived in France for a few years.One of the historic differences is the revolution. It may seem extravagant, but the class divisions in England especially play an important role. Most of the government went to the same school, and the same university. That's only slightly an exaggeration.
You even have a different language among the classes. Above all, the British are very class conscious in a totally different way than others.
And I should note here that I referred to the French politicians and officials, not the ordinary French people. The French do a long history of revolting against their officials, while with the English, your civil war was ages ago. And that in my view was more of a struggle between the King and the aristocracy.
Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear. Let's be clear.
I am not sure that the differences in class consciousness that you perceived have much to do with the French revolution. Here is Proust writing at the turn of the (last) century:
In today's world, existence is a communal, global, thing. Our country, in isolation, is less than half the story. Perhaps the politicians know this? :chin:
It's Ok, no-one is listening. Most likely outcome now is a delay followed by UK capitulating further to customs union arrangement or final say referendum.
Brexit, IMHO, was a bad idea to begin with, and it isn't improving with time.
That would be interesting.
To continue our previous conversation on this Brexit thread, do you feel a second referendum is still unlikely and in any case a bad option? I'm curious if your thinking has changed.
I am just curious as to whether this looking crisis will benefit global stability in the long run or hamstring the poorer fast growing countries?
A referendum would be easier I think but at the same time the current sitting members of Parliament have lost a lot of legitimacy by not resolving Brexit so a general election would be better. I haven't read any recent statements on these issues to have a sense what's more likely at the moment.
Any referendum should be remain or the brexit deal. A three way option (deal - no deal - remain) would skew the results in favour of an exit; basically a loaded question.
Yes, the referendum option most likely hinged on an extension, which I found likely the EU would give for the purposes of a referendum. I thought a referendum was more likely, whereas from what I understood you thought a deal would be more likely. Of course all positions were fairly speculative at the time.
It seems a deal is off the table now, so it's either no-deal or a referendum ... or some cockamamie situation where parliament has no position, there's no general election, they're forced to unilaterally cancel Brexit somehow in the name of continuing Brexit.
In other words, there seems to me now no alternative to a second referendum (which of course implies extension). Do you agree with this, or do you think there's another option?
So far, there have been no signs of sufficient parliamentary support for a referendum. This may change if it looks like supporting a referendum is the only way to avoid a no deal situation. I am not holding my breath though, the second referendum is very dangerous to the individual careers of politicians.
That's correct, I thought a referendum would've been impossible in the given time frame before March 29.
Quoting boethius
I think the second and better option would be to have a general election. The current MPs should be shipped to Madagascar for being unable to keep the common good on their radars and working towards a solution that has broad support and would've been in the best interest of UK citizens within the boundaries necessarily resulting from any negotiation.
Sorry for the bad news.
Yes, I completely agree with this sentiment. The danger to careers is grave indeed; however, disorderly Brexit would be dangerous for the conservative party as a whole and at some point the interests of the country do override careerism.
At the end of the day (in my view) a second referendum is the only way to have some sort of closure to the situation (now that a soft-Brexit deal is dead).
Quoting Benkei
Though the official time-frames seem unfeasible, the EU is at the end of the day a democratic institution and there's no realistic way for bureaucrats (or the leaders of the other countries) to not acquiesce to giving more time for a referendum if Britain requests it.
Quoting Benkei
Though I agree a general election would be a good idea, it would likely be a disaster for the Tories so they will do everything to avoid it (and thus make concession to the DUP necessary). I feel strategically, the only reasonable option is to about face and call a second referendum now that the deal is defeated in parliament and there can be a binary "hard Brexit or reverse Brexit" vote. This would provide closure to the situation as well as time for the Tories to reorganize post-massive-ridicule.
... Of course the whole point of the first referendum was to resolve internal Tory differences, and that didn't work out so well for them. However, the basic logic that a referendum can provide fairly long term closure to an issue remains sound. Not that reversing Brexit with a referendum wouldn't cause high levels of consternation and lingering bitterness and division, just seems the least bad option of only bad options at this point.
Come at me @S.
I relented ages ago. Better that then making a pig's ear of everything. Or rather, [I]even more[/I] of a pig's ear.
Yes, the other option is to resolve the issue in parliament.
However, the vote was for a "no-deal Brexit" in the context of Brexit still supposedly happening. It's not yet a vote to cancel Brexit.
I agree that parliament can just cancel Brexit, but that's simply not good democratic principles for parliament to override a referendum that they said they wouldn't override. A referendum to overturn a referendum resolves that issue.
In my opinion, the Tory leadership likely knew there was no way the deal would pass the first or second time (though they needed to advance like they didn't know that, to successfully complete a negotiation with the EU, to both say they tried and for the EU to say it's the best deal available), and so, knowing it wouldn't pass because presumably they know the position of their own members, the strategy was to wind down the clock to be able to push through a resolution of the situation without a general election. Once the solution emerges, either parliament or calling a referendum, the Tories will be all "sorwy, no time for a general election, we're really, truly sorwy". After the situation is resolved, the Tories can then try to outlast the embittering stench of the whole thing and focus the nation on other issues for the next general election. Whereas a general election in the midst of the consequences of your party's total incompetence is bad timing. Also the reason calling a snap election before starting the negotiation, before the impossibility of the task was clear, also helps avoid an election during the deed.
Wait, they voted against a "no-deal Brexit" right?
I think your assessment of the Tory strategy is unfortunately quite accurate. We'll see today I suppose.
NEITHER, roars the house.
Perhaps the British Parliament chooses this very postmodern choice and simply insists that it hasn't decided on the issue when May brings it the third time to vote.
If the EU thinks this is simply a no-deal Brexit, perhaps the British will say otherwise.
Yes, I meant to say voted for no "no-deal-Brexit".
Yes, I don't see any other interpretation available. The idea that May didn't see losing by the largest margin ever, doesn't stand muster. Their strategy has worked surprisingly well so far, but there still has to be some definitive action at some point, so it will be interesting how they do that and what the fallout will be. Will the whole Brexit thing just be a bad memory that everyone wants to forget? Or will the Brexiters come roaring back? Of course, presuming Brexit is now dead, which I think it is.
That really would be the thing. If now, some 15 days before Brexit should happen somehow the UK would say "Nah. Forget it. I won't leave" it would be... I don't know what it would be. What has then the UK government done for a long time? Months of agony for nothing?
I would though want to see the faces of Brexiteers then.
What (democratic) alternative is there?
Yes, this is more-or-less the position I've been debating with, mostly @Benkei. A more or less standard governing principle is that things can only be overturned by an equally authoritative process. A duke cannot overturn the ruling of a king etc. A lower court cannot overturn a higher court. In this framework, then we'd normally conclude only a referendum could overturn the results of a referendum. If government represents the will of the people, then their can be no higher authoritative deliberation process than a vote that directly represents that will. One can argue it's the will of the people to not be consulted directly in referenda (including a will to not have a referendum about having referendums), but once a referendum is held it's difficult to argue less direct expressions of the people's will, such as representatives, can overturn that vote.
So, this is why I think this logic can ultimately not be escaped and without a second referendum there can be no closure (in a no-Brexit scenario, which seems very likely due to the parliament votes against and for reasons discussed below), and why I think it's ultimately likely (that the EU will give whatever time is needed to have another referendum, so the "running out of time" issue is not a fundamental obstacle.
The problem is that referendum aren't a real thing in the UK (unwritten) constitution, so technically it was an advisory referendum to just poll the sentiments of the people .... but, the conservative government promised they'd treat it as final (presumably thinking Brexit would lose and they could declare the issue final).
So the situation is unprecedented and has no firm legal basis; what does the verbal promise of the last prime-minister to treat the results of an advisory referendum as more than what it is legally mean? No one knows. The situation is also unprecedented because a government who's official policy was to stay in the EU called am unnecessary referendum on a thing that if passed they had no plan to achieve. Normally referendum are called when the party that promotes the policy is in office and has either an actual plan to carry the policy through or the will to deal with the chaotic fallout (for instance, the Quebec referendum happened when the separatist party of Quebec was in government in Quebec, so there was no doubt what would happen if the separatist party won a referendum on separation). In the case of Brexit, the conservative party believed in the democratic right of a referendum and promised one to appeal to voters on the far right anti-EU (stem vote-bleed to UKIP) as well as settle any internal debate within their own party.
The result of this is total ambiguity of what the referendum meant legally, but as importantly a political situation for the governing conservatives that has no solution. Their brand isn't "screw the EU, economy be damned", but rather "fiscal responsibility" (of course, their fiscal policies of privatization and lowering social investments of all kinds, in particular immigration integration while being tough of immigrants but also letting in as many as possible to drive down wages, and support of the oil industry, arms manufacturers and banks at all costs, leads directly to the economic dislocations that inspired people to vote Brexit, but usually over a longer period of time that goes unnoticed by an uneducated population which is achieved through low social investments, closing the circle of ignorance that the conservatives need to prosper). Suffice to say, making a swift work of impoverishing people is noticeably off-brand. An analogy would be that you're a sadistic bus driver trying to drive some clueless voyagers of a cliff; but on the way you run into a tree and people lose confidence in your bus riding skills and start to question the whole project of going to cloud-world (like, cloud-world sounds great, especially if you just need to just enjoy the ride to get there without doing anything but trust the leaders ... or maybe cloud world is a mirage and the leaders are just pocketing your fair and bringing you to drown in a flood of poverty): point is, rock your own boat and you maybe out of a job and you don't get to destroy society, it's bad for business. So an actual Brexit isn't an acceptable solution (for the conservatives interested in keeping a job); "soft-Brexit" that carries all the costs of staying in the EU but less benefit and no say in its governance no sane politician would vote for (it's like a restaurant running low on supplies that decides to deliver rotten food to their impatient clients; the joy of being served is short-lived); and reversing Brexit would re-ignite (with much added fuel) the internal debates and vote-bleed to UKIP and demonstrate total incompetence in every way imaginable.
As I mentioned in my last post, the only viable strategy is to run-down the clock and then have a referendum (the least bad option, as at least you can hide behind "the will of the people"), then manufacture other crisii before the next general election, probably war and violence and fear.
If the goal is to avoid a no deal brexit. The EU should offer a 2 year extension, no strings attached but that the UK continues to meet all its obligations towards the EU during that period. That offer is mutually beneficial and can be done based on the friendship that exists and is Brexiteers' worst fear because a lot can happen in 2 years.
Oh God. This nuisance just pushed forward for 2 years and then started again.
Yes, that would be so typical EU.
Let's get it over with it. Let's have a no-deal Brexit. It's not a big deal.
And while we are at it, lets demand visas from British coming here and similar immigration procedures from those British citizens living in the EU as we demand from others non-EU citizens, like Afghans, Syrians and Somalis or Americans living here. This actually would help the Brexiteers to get the backbone to enforce their objective in a similar fashion to deport all the EU migrant worker scum, all those Poles and Lithuanians, that the for-Brexit people didn't want in their country anyway. When the EU would do it first, they would have a clean conscience of having been forced to do the same.
Fucking hell our country is a mess.
https://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2019/03/27/the-obscene-moral-spectacle-of-theresa-may-s-resignation?fbclid=IwAR1jwnk0EvV_Y-bBhi1U6ovwDGVa19fSrDK6jNWasXzY2QBRnWTucdDkSgI
Yeah, but don't hold back, tell us what you really think. :razz:
Yes. And sublime hypocrisy that the rejection of a second referendum (in favour of repeated attempts to get this through) is based on the idea that you shouldn't get to keep asking the same question until you get the answer you want.
Thanks for pointing this out, it's the icing on the Brexit crumpet.
I have to admit that a second referendum, which I have been arguing as more probable (though far from guaranteed), seems less likely now, and that May's strategy of "my deal" or chaos may work out for the conservative party. But, it will be interesting if the deal fails to pass again. Likewise it will be interesting if it passes, what leaving out the political declaration part will mean down the road; will it lead to some sort of eternal brimbo, a brexitory of lost souls?
[i]The Union and the United Kingdom shall use their best endeavours, in good faith and in full respect
of their respective legal orders, to take the necessary steps to negotiate expeditiously the agreements
governing their future relationship referred to in the political declaration of 25/11/ 2018 and to
conduct the relevant procedures for the ratification or conclusion of those agreements, with a view
to ensuring that those agreements apply, to the extent possible, as from the end of the transition
period.[/i]
The exact agreements implementing the future relationship still need to stay within the boundaries of the political declaration. So a vote for the withdrawal agreement is a vote for the political declaration as well; especially when read in light of the considerations prefacing the withdrawal agreement.
Brevolution?
Does the human rights act include the right to Marmite?
https://www.jumbo.com/marmite-yeast-extract-125g/235881POT/
Those are the two largest supermarket chains in the Netherlands and they both sell it. Whether it will remain in stock is another question but the product is owned by Unilever, which has a co-headquarter in Rotterdam so they'll probably move production somewhere that has a trade deal with the EU to avoid tariffs. That will be the case until such time the UK gets with the program and agrees to some sort of deal after first crashing out without one.
And the real barometer for UK's long term economic performance will be what happens to foreign direct investment, which has enabled the UK to run a year-on-year trade deficit without it affecting wealth in the UK. If the FDI goes down significantly, it will be the main driver for less wealth in the UK in the long run. Whether that will happen is anyone's guess and depends in large part to what extent FDI is the result of investors seeing the UK as a convenient and efficient gateway into Europe or not. If that share is significant, then FDI will drop, if it isn't the UK will be fine in 10 years time despite short term losses.
Oh god. I'm not remotely superstitious, but just in case, please don't tempt fate. We don't want a repeat of what happened across the pond. Trump and Boris... can you imagine? :scream:
Quoting Benkei
Oh fuck. Theresa, please don't go! :monkey:
Unfortunately, yes, great allies entwined by locks of bad hair.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47752017
Failed again... Maybe there can be a people's vote now?
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-news-live-vote-result-theresa-may-deal-withdrawal-agreement-a8844831.html
So no mini-deal on marmite then. You know this means war, don't you?
Absolute deadlock in a Parliament which is against everything and for nothing, so the only way out looks to be a general election or a people's vote. In the meantime, expect more extensions.
Surely, yes! :up:
Quoting unenlightened
:up:
"Breu" and "breuroin".
We're idiots, babe...
MV4, apparently. :roll:
I love it! Pure genius! :rofl: :up:
You know what's funny? I'm on brextasy right now.
My hope is 'withdrawal of Article 50'.
Ah, the break up of the United Kingdom! People formerly know as 'the British', be ready to rip your clothes, hide yourself in a closet and sprinkle ash on yourself while mourning there about the unfathomable that happened.
Actually, if it would happen, I would love just hearing the utter gloom and the overwhelming sorrow, the effusive misery and the absolute destitution of optimism that the now ex-British born-again English would have to say, delivered hopefully in their affluent yet meticulous Oxford English, about the break up of the UK. Losing the Empire was one thing, but losing the British Isles? Not only that, losing the island where England lies, broken to what it was last time in the Middle Ages? Yes, and don't forget the Welsh. Move over, Oswald Sprengler.
And I can say that I would love this… because it's not going to happen.
But perhaps I can walk in your moccasins and have similar anxiety. In my case it's about the next elections just around the corner..and the "fear in what country I will wake up some day". The Green Party is purposing giving automatically every Iraqi a residence permit that comes here. So I guess, wellcome former ISIS fighters here. :razz:
Don't worry, us Canadians will always be part of your Kingdom -- well at least until we have a referendum, then bye bye.
Quoting Baden
Get some advise from the Québécois they know how to change the question to avoid the accusation of asking the same question. They also know a lot of other tricks which best be kept out of Trump's hands.
Therefore, questions of nationhood cannot be decided democratically, though folks like to pretend they can. Likewise, by what voting system is the voting system to be decided? Boundaries and systems of governance are necessarily prior to democracy, and cannot be settled democratically.
One must have recourse to tradition, to geography, to force majeure, to sentiment, to something or other fundamentally morally indefensible. 'We, the people' are of a certain age, a certain race and gender, speak a certain language, live within certain lines. These are decisions that have to be made on the streets, before decisions can be made at the ballot box.
This is why populism is destructive of democracy.
Quoting iolo
So there are immigrants and natives? And which group gets to count that 30%? Am I native if I am born here, or my parents were born here, or my skin is white? Who decides, and then who decides what the decision means?
"Better death!" - when that becomes the will of the people, it is time to leave.
Alas, the answer you might choose to give, or someone else might choose to give, or the dictionary definition or the legal definition, none of these are what I am asking. Who decided, (was there a discussion or a vote,) that place of birth was of any importance?
To put it in context, when Scotland didn't vote for independence, the line was already drawn that defined Scotland, and only those living north of that line got to vote. Perhaps if Northumberland had been included, the vote would have gone the other way... And when the UK voted to leave the EU, the line was already drawn between those deciding to leave or not, and those being left or not. We (the UK) decided one way. We (Scotland) decided the other way - but for this vote, that line does not exist because... no reason.
Next week, the line of birthplace may supersede the line of citizenship and naturalisation. 'We' could decide that after all immigrants (your definition) shouldn't get to vote. And that can be a democratic decision to eliminate those 30% of votes, but whose vote counts in deciding whose vote counts?
It seems a moot point now (though perhaps 4th times the charm), but explicitly excluding something in a negotiation is generally basis to argue that it creates a wide birth around what would otherwise be implied (i.e. compared to had the thing in question not been proposed and removed, it may very well have been part of the agreement by implication of other language present); I do this all the time in negotiations. There's a latin expression for it, but I can't remember. So, in this case, removing the political declaration would be the basis for the next PM to argue that political declaration and everything implied by it was not agreed to, even if remaining language would otherwise imply the entire thing.
Even apart from the implications you're getting at, the extent of the people in this case (eligible voters in the UK) have a rather big impact on the ability to discern the will of the people. 51.9% voted in favour of leave with a turn out of 72%. We can ask whether that's significant. Luckily someone did and the answer is, no it isn't. So the will of the people is basically not known.
What is known is that Tories know what's good for themselves.
It's bad sportsmanship to complain about a contest after it is over and you've lost. We could do this with countless cases. I bet, for example, you don't give supporters of UKIP any credence when they complain about the fact that UKIP didn't end up with 83 seats after the 2015 general election as they would have under proportional representation, as opposed to the 1 seat they secured under first-past-the-past, so stop with the double standard. You're finding problems to fit your political motive.
I really don't like these sort of attacks. It's bad enough that we will be financially worse off in the case of Brexit. That's reason enough to be against it. There's no need to attack the referendum itself or the results.
There's nothing wrong with having a referendum on membership of the European Union after 40 years, setting rules, voting, counting votes, and declaring a winner based on the agreed upon rules. That's just democracy in action.
1) The vote was close
2) There are many ways to leave, but that was barely an issue at the time, so vague was the wording.
3) Leaders of the winning side announced before the result that they would be seekinganother referendum if they lost
4)the 52-48 has become 47-53 ... and decreasing
Democratic honour does need to be satisfied, but it is not clear where the honour lies. I guess a very soft Brexit would be fairest, but I can certainly see that a second referendum would be almost as fair, with the added bonus of the possibility of remaining - which would be a far better economic outrcome.
Perhaps a second referendum would have to be STV from 3 or 4 options ranging from no deal to remain. I am sure there is a cognitive bias to select a non-extreme option so this second referendum would be a little biased against remain (and no deal), but this could be seen as a "fair" compensation to leavers given that the first referendum did produce a win for "leave" (whatever that means!)
You seem to be unable to understand the distinction between criticism of the method of democratic process, (which was also shit as most referenda are), and criticism of drawing the wrong conclusions based on the result of that process. It was basically a tie so interpreting the result as "the will of the people" is simply political expediency and nothing more. That's a criticism of your political class and media.
So no, that isn't democracy in action. It's a lack of understanding how referenda work to begin with and a subsequent abuse of the result because of it.
Lol?
What are you on? The article is dumbed down for a broader audience and you take issue with it. It's not spin, it's actual statistical methodology. Here have fun with this then : https://arxiv.org/abs/1608.06552
And since you browsed it but didn't read it we can rest assured you don't know what you're talking about.
Different places have different rules concerning referendum votes. I've heard sometimes it takes a 70% vote on a referendum for change to a country's constitution. Sometimes it might be stated that 50% of the eligible voters is required for change, such that not voting is a vote for no change. Whether such rules are "democratic" is debatable. But governments in office have the power to, and been known to play tricks on voters in an attempt to get the vote they want, and that is not democratic. Referendums in general are tricky business.
:roll:
[I]Nothing[/I] about the rules for what was required for either leave or remain to win the referendum was inconsistent with the political system of the United Kingdom, which is a form of representative democracy. It was all perfectly legitimate. Leave won, remain lost. Maybe some people would rather the rules had been different. Well, that's too bad. For that to really stand any chance of counting, then you would have needed to be in a position to have done something about it at the relevant time. Benkei isn't even a citizen of the United Kingdom: he rightfully has no say, except to express his opinion of course. The electorate had the chance to vote for a party other than the Tories under David Cameron. The electorate had the chance to vote to remain. The majority was against. Thems the rules, like it or lump it. And this is coming from a Labour supporting Remainer.
I thought we already went through this. S and and Benkei are just pointing out that votes do not necessarily entail "will of the people" or democracy. If you don't view first past the post as democratic, but a sort of managed aristocracy, then the rules setup are likewise undemocratic. Though this is another part of the debate.
For the matter at hand, "dem's the rules" is also an overstretch. The promise was to trigger article 50, which has been done, so the PM's and government can claim they already fulfilled the mandate of the referendum. The fact that it was presumed to be irreversible and this assumption turned out to be false, we can say is "tough titties" for the leavers, and given this new information it's the responsibility of the house and government to review whether revoking article 50 is the best course of action today including putting it to another referendum vote. Likewise, even ignoring new information as the "dirty tricks" of remainers, it's entirely consistent with the "rules" you describe of putting the form of Brexit to another referendum and including in that vote the option of reversing it; as any deliberating body always has the option to change their mind, whether a king, cabinet, MP's or the electorate as a whole.
Likewise, it would be consistent with "the rules" to argue MP's must push Brexit through as it's of practical importance to not make Britain look like a total farce and their responsibility as first-past-the-post MP's is to make these tough decisions even if a majority are against it now. Criticizing this position reduces to criticizing the first-past-the-post system itself, not the particulars of Brexit proceedings within the system as it is.
However, that it is in principle undemocratic to use a democratic process to make a decision, because that decision might contradict the result of a previous democratic decision, is not consistent. Decisions can change, even in a democracy.
Now, one can argue there should not be a second referendum, but that argument does not follow from democratic first principles but from practical constraints (i.e. we can't have a referendum or general elections about everything all the time, and a second Brexit referendum falls on the other side of the line we must draw).
I'd say, perhaps go for three referendums. Two wins out of three ought to be fair.
"Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it". - Marx.
That was essentially my point. You either work from within the system, or you work towards revolution. I assumed the former in my criticism.
From within the system, there were options for a different outcome. I haven't said anything about the "will of the people" in any of my most recent comments. The majority of voters voted for leave. That's a fact. The rule was such that this meant that leave won the referendum. That's a fact. David Cameron pledged an in/out referendum and his party was subsequently voted into government by a majority of voters. That's a fact. These were opportunities for change from within.
As for change from without, clearly that hasn't worked so far either, although I didn't take them to be arguing that in any case. It just looked like attempts to trivialise the result or complain that a different set of rules, like a higher threshold for a winner, would've been better. That's merely theoretical and complacent. In reality, it simply didn't go down that way. You can make a case to handle things like this differently going forward, but there seems little point in crying over spilt milk.
If not, surely that alone is sufficient reason to have a second vote, as it would be reasonable to assume that many people were not aware of that very significant consequence when they cast their first vote.
Boris Johnson: Brexit would not affect Irish border (29 February 2016)
Quoting andrewk
As I've said before, I think the prospect of a hard border is a reason to simply cancel Brexit. Maintaining the GFA is more important than "respecting" the referendum result.
Good, accurate, and adequate information ought be a cornerstone; the necessary pre-requisite of anything meant to resemble self-governance.
It's definitely an extremely important issue, and it definitely seems to have been neglected. It's only a risk at this stage, although that in itself is very serious. But I hope with all of my heart that it remains nothing worse than a risk. I hope with all of my heart that it doesn't become a reality. This is actually the sort of thing which could spurn me into protest: the prospect of undoing the work that went into achieving relative peace.
And what, exactly, is in that box?
The plans to retake the colonies
A generator. When Maybot is leaning on it, she's recharging.
It sits next to the plans to retake the colonies.
We've been over all these points before. If the MP's voted for another referendum, that would be working within the system. If the MP's voted for May's deal that would be working within the system. If the MP's voted for something else, that would be working within the system.
None of these possibilities are "anti-democratic" as democracy is currently understood in the UK system as it is today.
Your argument is that a second referendum is somehow anti-democratic, or for whatever reason should be dismissed prima faci. However "best 2 our of 3", nor any of your other arguments, is not an anti-democratic process; if the MP's voted for a 2 our of 3 contest they could do that and, insofar as first past the post is democratic, then the 2 out of 3 referendum would be democratic too.
All arguments you have presented are not based on the principles of democracy, neither from some philosophical view of what democracy is or should be nor from the practical implementation of what the UK calls their democracy today. All the arguments you have presented, and other "no second referendum" participants to the conversation, are either simply bad arguments (that if a second referendum was held and Brexit lost this would be unfair to the voters of the first Brexit and somehow anti-democratic) or then arguments from practical considerations (that having too many referendums too close together is simply not practical).
Think about it: "elected MP's voting on an issue they decide to vote for" is anti-democratic within the UK system.
Now if your projecting that I believe it would be anti-democratic not to have a second referendum in the UK system's current democracy, and you have just poorly formulated the above argument from the opposite starting point that not-having a second referendum would not-be-democratic in the current UK system, no where have I made that claim. If the MP's vote for May's deal or something else that's not a second referendum, then likewise nothing anti-democratic has occurred within the first-past-the-post system of democracy.
My mention of first-past-the-post is that criticizing Brexit proceedings by the government and in parliament as such reduces to criticizing the first-past-the-post system, there is nothing special about Brexit in such a criticism. This was to simply make clear that none of the outcomes voted by MP's I view as undemocratic in the current system and that debating first-past-the-post would be a conversation largely independent of Brexit.
I've been predicting a second referendum, but not because the UK citizens have a right to a second referendum, but because it is the-least-worst-option for the debacle and at some point MP's will have a hard time making objectively worse choices.
Though second referendum may seem "too late", it is still very much in the running as it maybe the only way to secure a long extension from the EU.
From the Tory government perspective, there are only 2 good options among only bad options. Work out some sort of exit from the EU that can be called Brexit and move on (May's deal) or drag on the negotiation be at least able to say "we tried" and then create a last minute crisis where a second referendum needs to be carried out before a general election; this would at least bring some semblance of closure to the issue and the Tories could regroup before the next general election (whereas a "Brexit" general election would be the worst possible scenario for the Tories at is would an election where the only subject to talk about is Tory incompetence).
So, given May's deal is dead then (maybe) my prediction remains second referendum will spontaneously generate over the next couple of weeks out of the chaotic negotiations with the EU for an extension. The EU has now more reasons to revoke an extension than to grant one, but at the end of the day the EU is about democracy so there is no possible principled opposition to granting an extension for the purposes of a second referendum, which if the UK people voted to remain it's basically the best possible outcome for the EU: the UK is humiliated and the EU suffers zero negative consequences remaining as strong economically as before with a few countries having gained some business and investment from all the uncertainty (so all other EU national leaders as well as Brexit technocrats would be able to toast to that).
Of course I could be wrong, the humiliation of admitting a mistake and letting the people of the UK resolve by referendum a crisis created by a ill-defined referendum, maybe too great for the crust of English high society (in other words, the English upper class, in particular the Tories, may prefer to harm UK citizens much more by a chaotic Brexit or just stupid trade policy with their biggest trading partner, rather than harm their own pride even a smidgen; long term the consequences could be grave even for political careers of those involved (relative hiding behind a second referendum, just as the goal was initially with the first referendum), but who cares about that).
Compare:
No wonder they can't get Brexit straightened out.
Maybe you have some insight into the box?
It's not really apathy, except apathy at an endless argument conducted by ignoramuses and special interests with no concern for society as a whole.
International trade relations are important to everyone - rather like the gas central heating installation regulations are important to everyone. But I don't want either of them decided by what Boris can persuade Mrs Thing down the road is a good idea, and I don't want to decide them myself. I want clever experts with lots of time to work out what works best and everyone else to just shut up unless they know something about it.
Quoting unenlightened
There's not enough time these days
No it is caring. I care too much about the gas central heating installation regulations to want them decided by a referendum of the ignorant, and the same goes for brexit. And the experts overwhelmingly agree that remain is the best course, both economically and politically, and no more time is required for that.
So then (or later) a later date is given when Brexit actually happens, I think.
Again EU is showing it's inability to do anything.
What else are the EU supposed to do? Deny the request and have us leave without a deal? They don't want that.
The problem is entirely with Parliament being unable to agree on what to do.
The EU benefits with the UK being in the EU. So we will continue to October... to only then perhaps start the final (?) transfer time for Brexit.
So, I guess I should be asking how many British here will be eagerly voting on the EU elections in May? Will Nigel Farage, one of your present EU Parliament members be running for re-election?
I wonder how many years will the UK be leaving the EU.
Of course, IF the EU would be a genuine federation which would behave as real sovereign state, it would have the option to basically shove the Brexit up the UK's ass sideways as a warning to any other state considering leaving the Union. It would then try, first and foremost, to take away the position of the City of London enjoys in the financial markets. The evil money laundering London banks would be a nice populist discourse. And have that no-deal Brexit if the UK doesn't submit. It could possibly lure Scotland to remain in the EU by promising that if Scotland would want independence it would be immediately recognized by the EU and the new country would automatically inherit the position of the UK. Imagine the talk then of the Anglo-Scottish border from over 300 years ago being erected again.
Of course the above is totally ludicrous and crazy. The EU would not and could not act like that. And this just shows that the EU isn't at all one coherent entity or actor like the United States of America. And hence the above shows how the discourse of "Brussels" taking power away from it's members is nonsense: the EU simply doesn't have the ability to truly control it's member states. The idea of a tight federation is not only wrong, it is detrimental. The European Union cannot be anything else than a confederation of independent states.
That is financially not feasible without seriously undermining the banking book of every EU bank in the process. They'd pay through the nose to move their cleared swaps from LCH to EUREX, ICE and EuroCCP. If you want to move it, it will have to be done gradually by grandfathering existing portfolios and requiring new euro-denominated swaps to be cleared with a CCP established in the EU27. To have the bulk move would then take about 10 years and for all the historic portfolios to close about 30 years. But LCH offers more than just clearing of euro-denominated swaps and would probably be recognised as a third country equivalent CCP any way, which you'd want if you want your EU banks to operate meaningfully internationally.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/may/03/tories-lose-over-1200-seats-in-local-elections-as-major-parties-suffer
So following an election in which both major parties lost, and parties representing remain made large gains, the two major parties are showing us how democracy works by trying to stitch up a brexit deal in order to avoid the humiliation of EU elections.
I don't think I'll be the only one to see that as a betrayal of all principle except self-serving fear of the electorate. Anything at all to avoid an election you will lose, even a compromise you have refused for 3 years.
How it's supposed to work, this democracy thing, is that people stand for ideas and policies they believe in, and try and convince the electorate to agree with them. But what has been happening is that people have been finding out what the electorate want to hear and telling them they stand for that.
And of course what the electorate want is an impossible magic world where everything is free and somebody else does all the work.
Scotland and NI, maybe. Wales ain't breaking away.
Apparently Corbyn in literally[sup]†[/sup] the worst thing in the world:
[sup]†[/sup] But probably not literally literally
It really is rather difficult for me at least, to understand what is happening. It is as if we are fighting on the beaches, and on the landing grounds, and in the fields... At any cost, it seems. What has the EU done to warrant preferring the breakup of the country and your own political party?
Your insightful explanations are solicited.
Brexit means Brexit.
It is probably the weird assumption that the democratic voice of the people has spoken in the referendum, which was so narrowly in favour of Brexit that the only statistically relevant conclusion that could be made is that the people were hopelessly divided on the issue.
In a sense it's a righteously principled stance, the consequences be damned, because the principles of democracy trump everything else.
I originally thought it was about controlling immigration but it seems it's now about ensuring the right to make worse trade deals with other countries than they already have with the EU. Stumped.
Quoting Benkei
I reject both of these as being far too pragmatic, too realistic, too thoughtful.
Quoting frank
That has the ring of true fakery to it. Like the terrible plight of the white race, the poor English are under siege from all quarters, but this hard done by, once proud region that includes the capital of the Union the way the Conservative party is actually called 'The Conservative and Unionist Party', resents those other regions with their separate identities, and has to invent its own identity in the Sainted Nigel, slaying the EU dragon, and King Boris and his knights of the round table returned in Albion's hour of need.
I think it has to be down to an awakened archetype of war and destruction, of sacrifice to the vengeful gods in atonement for the sin of giving up the Empire without a fight.
I didn't think it was like that here. Prime Ministers aren't like Presidents.
Though the biggest takeaway is really that Conservatives are willing to break apart the UK, damage the economy, and destroy their party just to secure Brexit.
The thing is, we already have immigration regulation for EU citizens. We can kick people out after 3 months if they can't prove they're working, seeking work, or self-sufficient. The government just isn't doing that.
Sure, it's hard to enforce and everyone makes arguments that you're just kicking people out because they're Mexican, Polish or whatever the migrant worker country of origination is. The only solution then becomes to build a wall, either literally, or by making your island more of an island, fully divorced from the EU.
No they're not. They're making Britain great again. MBGA.
According to this, in 2018 there were almost 350,000 immigrants from non-EU countries and just over 200,000 immigrants from EU countries. If the government wanted to it could cut immigration by almost two-thirds without even leaving the EU.
You're probably joking, but breaking up the UK and damaging the economy isn't going to make Britain great. So honestly what's the real reason those Conservative voters want Brexit so bad? Seems like they want to make Britain worse off and I wonder why (and also why whatever reasons they have don't hold up in the face of a Corbyn government).
They don't want Britain to be worse off. That's not their motivation. They want autonomy. It's sort of like how I'd vote that you not have the right to come in my yard to cut my lawn, trim my bushes, and make sure my house looks in order all on your dime. It's my house damn it.
So they want autonomy even if it means breaking up the union and damaging the economy? But they don't want autonomy if it means a Corbyn-led government?
Just seems like bullshit to me.
I don't know enough about it, but I'm assuming there are limitations to how much Britain can limit emigration from EU countries into Britain and that imposes upon Britain self-rule.
They must think Corbyn is the boogey man.
Let me take a poll of you:
Would you rather: (A) A Trump led Britain with no Brexit, (B) a Corbyn led government with Brexit?
That, nor The Sound of Music.
But not a limit on control over immigration from non-EU countries, and yet there's more immigration from non-EU countries, so if immigration is a problem then we can cut it by up to two-thirds without having to leave the EU by limiting immigration from non-EU countries.
Quoting Hanover
Probably Trump with no Brexit.
Although the situation is slightly different when asking me about it because the reasons I have for opposing Brexit, e.g. the threat to the NHS, are also reasons I might have for opposing Trump, and if what Trump would do to the NHS is worse than what a Corbyn-led Brexit would do to the NHS then it would be consistent with my motivation to favour a Corbyn-led Brexit.
Whereas if your reason for being in favour of Brexit is that you believe that the democratically-elected Parliament of the UK should be autonomous then it would be inconsistent to then favour shared-rule with Brussels over an autonomous democratically-elected Parliament with Corbyn as Prime Minister.
Which makes me wonder what they think Corbyn will do to the UK if they're willing to damage the economy and break up the union to ensure Brexit but not willing to let Corbyn be Prime Minister to ensure Brexit.
Sure, but the non-EU immigrates are the immigrants Britain has chosen to allow in but the EU immigrants are the ones foisted upon them. They want to choose who they let in and who they don't.Quoting Michael
I think the Corbyn objectors are similar to your objections to Trump, which is that they think Corbyn will damage something particularly central to their ideology that is greater than their desire for an autonomous Britain. Just like you'd rather have Brexit if it meant Trump coming in and doing significant damage to the NHS, I think the Corbyn objectors would rather have Brussels controlling certain aspects of the British economy than to Corbyn doing the various damage they expect he will. Quoting Michael
He's a socialist. That might make me giving up some autonomy to avoid that. In the US, I'd likely accept a socialist President over control by Brussels because a socialist president would just result in gridlock and an American socialist is equivalent to a European conservative.
I'm not here to help anyone, I'm here to discuss politics.
By the way, do you think Scotland will leave UK if there is a no deal Brexit? I'm listening to an interesting discussion on LBC about this at the moment.
Theresa May is speaking in Scotland right now warning of the split up of the Union in the case of a no deal Brexit. While having spent the last three years ignoring any Scottish representatives, and telling them to shut up and get lost. The hypocrisy.
The show should be good this morning following the leadership debate last night
So I am attracted to Brexit as it not only provides sovereignty but also we can create trade agreements that best suit us, an EU trade takes many years and is filled with far too many regulations. Now with Brexit we could create the perfect trade agreements.
As to the commitments we made, I think they were made with the mindset that we would commit ourselves to the EU, now we have decided to leave those commitments are no longer valid. While I agree this is unfair it is also the danger of a Union, it is always possible that members could leave so in that case its just one of the disadvantages a Union has. If I go to work 9-5 I have to accept that im possibly going to eventually get really bored of it.
But what matters is the result, could it damage our quality of life in the long run or only short? This is impossible to predict as Brexit does provide a lot of opportunities to improve our economy. However the EU might want to punish us by introducing all kinds of tariffs and make trade between us as difficult as possible, the reason I believe this is because they want to set an example so no other nation leaves. But we all know that these interior fear tactics shorten an empires stability.
I dont want anyone to get hurt, even though I dislike the EU, I hope we can trade with them positively and share a great growth of prosperity. Politics has become very hateful recently and that type of attitude needs to stop, just because you disagree with Brexit doesn't mean you should hope the UK economy fails as I have heard so many say.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/22/opinion/boris-johnson-prime-minister-britain.html
The sceptered isle of Britain won't sink into the sea on the basis of Brexit. But the United Kingdom could come apart and not be the UK anymore. Scotland, part of the UK for 300 years, could sever its union. So could Wales (probably won't). Northern Ireland--god only knows. So, theoretically, Brexit could scuttle the United Kingdom.
England will probably remain England. Maybe Cornwall will decide to reclaim itself. Maybe SE England will shed the poorer northern portions. Maybe London will become a city-state. Or maybe London will get swamped by rising ocean levels.
Not likely. Those Pseudo-English don't have the stomach to get independent. Heck, their pro-independence politicians don't have the guts to make Scotland independent. And the English are so nice after all.
I'd say this is more of a trick of the media to get us following the media-circus around the issue.
But then the nearby hinterlands could be converted to banana plantations to take advantage of the change in the climate.
You know, the City of London Corporation headed by the Lord Mayor of London, and all the money protected by the arrangement.
They'll surely survive.
There's no denying that Brexit would damage the union. Scotland was clearly against Brexit. And the SNP - the party for an independent Scotland - have maintained control over most of Scotland for a number of years now. You don't know how future events will unfold, or to what extent they could effect the union. Dismissing the possibility of a breakup of the United Kingdom, as we know it, would be just as bad as rashly predicting it.
And there's nothing more annoying then someone who comments that we'll survive either way. Survival? Jeez, you're setting the bar real high. We'll be economically worse off in a Brexit scenario, and especially a No-Deal Brexit scenario, but hey, at least we'll still be alive!
Well, an economic downturn can happen in the fall too.
In the end, it's not a big hassle that you need a visa for a longer stay in the UK or when the queue line is different in the airport. Or books you buy online from a British bookstore etc. will be more expensive as the customs duties get added. Going to the UK will be like going to the US (and vice versa), which isn't such a huge deal in the end.
So what is the likelihood that a hard 'no-deal' Brexit will simply be a nonevent when it happens? Rather likely I'll say. The media still will milk the issue dry.
How the UK economy develops is more dependent on how the Global economy goes, but likely there will be an urge to blame / praise Brexit depending on the political stance of the commentator. So if the economy doesn't collapse, Boris will praise the decision and so on. Hardly anyone will admit the obvious that Brexit IS NOT the most important thing that decides if the UK will be in a recession or not. Nope, with or without Brexit, it's a globalized World.
I don't really understand what you're saying. The Hard Brexiters (our government), say that we have a great future, one in which we are set free of the shackles of over regulation and protectionism. They point out that we will be free to make our own trade deals ( ye haa! )
I was saying that those on either side who argue that it is the end of things if what they want does not happen are not helping the debate or the discussions. I think they don't know this will be the case, in either the short or the long term. They are speculating,and wildly, but presenting it is as if it is a clear and obvious rational conclusion.
This morning Johnson has been saying that there will be lots of support for all the farmers, small and medium sized businesses, drug supplies, even heavy industry, I expect the next thing he's going to say is that he will prop up/ bribe the car plants, who are all saying they will move to Southern Europe(where there is a large desperate workforce, just waiting to pick up the pieces) following a no deal Brexit. All this while spending all the money that has been planned for to be borrowed( this morning stated at £2.1 billion) to mitigate the chaos, at the ports and for customs.
So he will have to borrow an unknown amount to do this while the £ is plummeting, our credit rating is down graded, our international reputation is trashed, no one who we are expecting to agree trade deals with will trust a word we say, especially with our current administration, which, if you listen to the media has lost touch with reality. Just listen to the words coming out of Johnson's mouth.
I was saying that those on either side who argue that it is the end of things if what they want does not happen are not helping the debate or the discussions. I think they don't know this will be the case, in either the short or the long term. They are speculating,and wildly, but presenting it is as if it is a clear and obvious rational conclusion. [/quote]
Oh, I see, thanks for clarifying. Yes, I agree. The problem from where I'm standing is that the majority of the electorate who voted and will vote if there is another referendum don't ever find out what the real issues are, what reality will be like. All they hear is the popularised slogans on each side.
I follow the media quite closely and I'm struggling to get down to the facts and realities. A case in point is the BBC, the one news organisation one can rely on. Or so I thought, but they rarely point out the implications of the events they report on, they just give a simplified gloss of the events of the day. They do have some more indeapth analysis, but you have to watch news night, or politics live to get it, which the majority of the population don't do.
I am beginning to have doubts about their impartiality, or at least their editorial decisions. They appear to be falling for the anti Corbyn, anti labour rhetoric and giving to much credence to the hard right dogma. While relentlessly attempting to analyse the minutiae of the internal politics of the Labour Party and continuously failing to call out the Tory bluster about the political psycho drama and undemocratic power struggles within the Tory party and with their corporate supporters.
I'm primarily a Yank (though also a Brit) so the above sounds to me like, well, politics. I mean, when is it not so. The difference is a huge decision made via direct democracy rather then representational. I can think of other decisions made via representational democracy, in Britain and the US, where similar descriptions fit. In fact it is the norm. Which is not to say one should not complain about it, but to my eyes and ears it is the rule and not a recent phenomenon.Quoting Punshhh
My guess is if there was a hard right candidate, they would be biased against him. I think there is a kind of radical center and anything that does not follow that line has any potential fault highlighted and often things that even that radical center would agree with glossed over, put in the footnotes so to speak. I could see this with Trump - who I do not like, just so that's clear, but who did actually have some good ideas, but these were treated as insanity or absolutely ignored, because he was not to be President. And whatever sympathy I might have with that particular goal, that ain't journalism. And that pattern takes place when you are dealing with much more interesting individuals and groups. They also get marginalized and mistreated by much of the media.
In fact this pattern, a kind of radically rejecting things not well understood, or that seem threatening, or might give someone or something a positive light and they 'should' not have it, the my paradigm is right and anything not fitting that paradigm must be treated like the immune system treats any intruder I find endemic and pernicious. My frustration with it online is ready to undermine all participation.
People just won't play fair when it comes to anything they have ego/paradigmatic stake in, which now seems to be everything. Politics, ontology, interpersonal relations, psychology. I find few people willing to concede anything, willing to say things like 'nice point, I still disagree, but I need to come back when I am sure why I disagree' or even willing to actually respond to specific points. There are jihads in the strangest places, including people advocating science.
I am surprised I am still surprised by this, given how this has frustrated me and no doubt many others, including many of those who I think do this, but, well, there are always parts of oneself that are slow to learn.
(and I am sure I have engaged in this type of thing myself.)
And you needn't respond to (or even read, too late) my rant. It's off topic. It just occurred to me and I found a way to articulate it which was, heh, beneficial to me.
Unfortunately this has resulted in the hard right seizing power, so we're in for a rollercoaster ride now.
A banana republic, lol
I think the issue often gets couched as nationalistic or not. But in practical terms we are dealing with a small nation or a batch of small nations and the formation of a large nation. The latter nation will have specific values and goals. So, it is not as if wanting the EU is simply wanting a neutral non-nation thing.
I do get the ideas here. The huge wars. The increasing the economic power of members through group negotiation and more. I do get the idea of being a more unified center for certain values and something to offset the massive power and influence of the US and potentially a USSR again and China.
I just have a feeling that the EU will end up being a corporate entity. This doesn't mean smaller nations are immune to this. Nor do I think the current powers and policies of the EU make this easy for the corporations to manage, yet. But I think that is why they - the corpoations in general - are so, so pro EU. Any centralization of power, allows centralization of influence and control. And degrees of separation between representatives and the represented allow more sweeping disconnected changes.
None of my concerns are easy to demosntrate in terms of probability. I just note that they are not even considered. I remember when the State I lived in began to make noises about seceding - and not for racist or other reasons. Jus the sense, held by some, that it could represent the people's own needs better. This was treated as a kind of sin/sign of retardation. It would necessarily economically collapse. I doubt it. I think people in Canada and other parts of the US would find it fascinating there was a little nation there, an ally of course, and Tourism would have increased radically. Not that I could prove this, but i was skeptical about all the doomsayers - this would not have been the same as Brexit, I do not conflate the two. I think smaller governments can be more fair since they are known to their neighbors. More interconnected. It was also treated as not sharing values such as democracy. IOW the idea fell under so many guns that were extremely certain. Me, I think in the long run it would be better to evolve into smaller countries. I don't think we can think at the levels of megacountries.
Is now the right time? I don't know.
Were the motives of the Brexiters like mine? Not on the surface.
But remember people often justify their beliefs and reaction and emotions after the fact.
I don't think the working class is wrong that the elites don't really give a shit about them. That there is something off going on at a systematic level and that the EU in the long run likely will not have their interests at heart and will be, perhaps, even harder to influence.
Now my reactions are coming in part from the fact that the media where I am paints anyone wanting Brexit as per se stupid and evil. That message gets put through over and over. Nothing grey in it. No possible points of concern about the EU. Nothing. It is black and white, good versus evil, intelligence versus the fucking stupid manipulated proletariat.
That does not play well with me.
I remember when the country I now live in was going to swithc to the EURO. The government lost the referendum and immediately started to try to set up another one, democracy be damned. It was a drop in the bucket of controversy compared to Brexit, but the same patterns. TElling people they were stupidd and stuck in the past. Dire warnings about catastrophy predictions - in fact, it protected the country several times not having the Euro.
I distrust the powers that be have the same ideals as the people who voted against Brexit. IOW I am not sure that the very good values that most pro-EU brits have are actually what the goals of the designers and players involved in the EU have. I can't demonstrate this. I am not sure where the EU will go. But finding myself bombarded with the pro EU in all media with not the slightest possible future problem or disadvantage or concern, I find myself saying things like I did above.
And heck, I don't think demonizing the opposition is helping at all as a strategy. People just dig in their heels more. Adn you get the populist political groups gaining ground.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/01/so-project-fear-was-in-fact-reality-readers-on-no-deal-brexit-funding
* The magic money tree
"Theresa May has come under fire for telling nurses “there is no magic money tree” to increase their pay as living costs continue to rise.
The Prime Minister was responding to a member of the audience at an election special of BBC Question Time, who asked: “My wage slips from 2009 reflect exactly what I'm earning today. How can that be fair, in the light of the job that we do?“
The moderator, David Dimbleby, asked whether the Prime Minister could “sleep happily”, adding: ”Do you think it is fair that the nurses get just a 1% increase year in, year out, regardless of inflation, so they get poorer, so some of them we're told go to food banks?”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-nurse-magic-money-tree-bbcqt-question-time-pay-rise-eight-years-election-latest-a7770576.html
The issue of "ever closer union" is a different matter and is at the heart of the crisis in the UK. I should stress that I see a deep existential crisis within the UK. This was a surprise to the EU and has been realised and spoken about by Michel Barnier, the EU chief negotiator. Leading to them bending over backwards to accommodate the UK and their flexibility in granting extensions, while the Conservatives fight amongst themselves.
As I see it the issue in this crisis is the love hate relationship between the UK and other parts of Europe which has been ongoing for thousands of years. The dichotomy between the concept of us being in Europe, or out of Europe is a conundrum occupying the thoughts of British people repeatedly over this period, without a resolution. So periodically we are revisited with crises hinging on this point.
On this ocassion it appears to have manifested inside the Conservative party, which is tearing itself apart and may soon implode, while visiting considerable flack on the population at large.
It is something to notice, sure.Quoting Noah Te Stroete
Absolutely.
Quoting Noah Te Stroete
Yes, if that was the only factor, it would be a bad move to stay in the EU. It is however a complicated situation, extremely. I do think that the closer the electorate is to the representatives, the better the chances they will actually be represented, other factors being equal. I also think that centralized distant governments are more easily control by industry and potentially also military/intelligence players.Quoting Noah Te Stroete
There's Nato and there's the EU, both forms of European unification, the former tying it in with the US. I am sure Putin for purely practical reasons - perhaps some negative, some neutral, some simply taking care of his country's and his own interest - would see benefits in being able to negotiate with, engage in dimplomacy with and barter with a diverse group instead of a block. I would guess he is also concerned about US hawks and how they want to use Europe.Quoting Noah Te Stroete
I haven't asserted that, nor do I think it. That's another extremely complicated set of causes and motives. I don't however think that most of the conservative and many of the labor players want EU because of farmers and working class people. They have steadily increased the gap between the rich and the poor through their polices going back to Thatcher. IOW all their talk about caring about migrants and caring about the state of the working class sounds like BS to me. They are pro EU for other reasons. Yes, some of these might trickle down to benefit those classes, but that's not their motivation. Does this mean that Brexit is right? No, but the fog of BS is huge and I understand why the working classes did not see the positions for EU as for them.Quoting Noah Te StroeteI think very little of it is evil. Like sitting around rubbing their hands with glee evil movie villain. I am sure that when they repeat the views the neo cons want them to have, the neo cons, as one example, have found a way to make it seem obvious (whatever the particular issue is) and those reporters, editors and owners to a great degree think they have the right editorial opinions, have investigated the right things, have taken facts to support their articles and so on. I would think very, very few journalists and editors thought the Bush Admin was making shit up about Hussein's WOMD to get both the US and Britain into Iraq. I am sure that a number deep down didn't really care, but even these still bought the ideas because it was comfy for them. There are so many reasons why even good people can end up supporting bad ideas, not doing due diligence, decided not to air their doubts. This is especially true when one would be damned as crazy, evil, hating your country, moronic for doing so.Quoting Noah Te Stroete
Fox News was anti-trump before he was elected. I see you're right about where they are now. Sure, there have always been differing views, though anyone outside of the democrats and republican views, in the US will be marginalized and pathologized. No journalist could point out that the US is an oligharcy. No candidate who has not kissed Wall St. ass has come in the White house in, what 40 years. Obama made noises, but the moment he got in he put people in his cabinet who would toe the Wall st. line. And at the best time to push back in recent history on Wall St. Clinton, a theoretical liberal slashed social services, allowed a bill that radically increased the number of poor and black people brought up on drug charges and freed Wall st and banks in precisely the ways that led to the 2008 collapse. Fox news also needs to compete with other networks that are mainly staffed with liberals. If all stations are attacking trump, Fox news, which is branded as different, loses a lot of that difference. Further Trump - who I will repeat, I do not like at all - hasn't really done many of the things he promises. He is not or was not allowed to be the candidate that even freaked out the Republicans. He did end up intervening in Syria, despite long saying he would not play that game. He is still not really getting a wall - which by the way Clinton and Obama added to. Many his policies have been blocked by congress and the courts. He sure has made a lot of noise and said a lot of things that conservatives have bitten their tongues over. Fox news knows who hates him most. They have a brand and target audience to work with.Quoting Noah Te Stroete
I may have missed it but I didn't say there was a conspiracy. Not in any gett he main players together have a sit down and decide. People are actually much more easily led by people with power than to need their being in on whatever changes those in power want to make.
But let's go back to Putin. The US has entered militarily, well, I don't know how many nations in the years since 9/11, and left behind it a wake of not quite functioning countries. It has been screaming about Iran and Syria and just as the neo-cons announced in the years prior to 9/11, it has wanted to get into these two countries, along with the others it already has. Putin is a typical strong man dictator type. He's no one I want to be ruling my country. That said, I think he has good reason to be concerned about what the US is planning and just because the US is the cavalry of democracy and goodness, butrut because they are the most actively violence destabilizing country these days and they definitely have long term eyes on Russia and China. Of course Putin would like to see diversity in the Allies - in the Allies of the US. The better the chance that whatever polices and military movies, and destabilization moves are made using the US by the neocons, might meet criticism by US allies. Of course Britain, via Blair, a neocon in labor clothing, hopped right into Iraq. Putin would be a fool to think he has any guarantees of independent thought. But the more potentially separate voices and actors, the better off Russia is. That's just practical. Does this mean he cares about British workers? nah? Does it mean that it might be of benefit to both? Sure. And it certainly might be a benifit to poor young men in the US who will be the main cannon fodder, as they have been since ww2, the next time the US puts people on the ground somewhere at the behest of Wall St. and the Oil industry.
You give a very nuanced analysis. It SEEMS like it could be a good model of reality, so I don’t know how I would disagree. Anyway, there is too much there to respond to each point, but like I said, it seems like what you say might be true. Much of it speculates on motives, but what you describe as potential motives may very well be the true motives of the parties in power. That said, we’ve enjoyed a relatively long stretch of relative peace since WWII, so there’s that to be said for the powers that be, and I think free trade is a good means of helping to ensure peace, at least among nations states when it comes to hot wars. All of what I’ve said can be argued against, as its not very nuanced, and my simplistic explanations may just be what the neocons want us to believe. I would add that institutions aren’t inherently bad, but there are always selfish actors.
I agree with what you say in the rest.
My guess is that in 2 years, we will still have a bit of a muddle knowing what is happening, what caused what and who is benefiting and losing and what this means about the long run.
But we'll see.
In the US these days it has a lot to do with the near death of investigative reporting and taking news releases from the government (not inherently bad but run by neo-cons for the most part as you said) as news itself.
Exactly. No need for any conspiracy. The merging of huge media companies, the reduction of money for positions and investigation, the entertainment-izing of news, and dependency not just on government but also on private industry releases for news. And the background desperation for advertising is also problematic. It leads to conservative approaches to challenging the private sector especially if there is the threat of lawsuits which would almost always be the case if the reputation of the company was in question.
Sorry I missed this. In my recollection this was not mentioned at all during the campaign. And I agree with Michael, that the risk of the Good Friday agreement failing is sufficient reason to revoke article 50 and return to the decision to leave after a public debate.
While back at home Boris appears to have boxed himself in. He cannot negotiate with the EU, because they will not agree to what he wants, I don't think he knows what he wants and he hasn't announced it. He would come back from the EU with egg on his face and be judged weak by his party, which would resume the implosion of the party, which he's only just managing to hold together.
He can't adopt no deal as the official policy of the government because Parliament would bring the government down. Which would also resume the implosion of the party and could bring in a party of national unity before 31st October. So he just blusters on claiming that he wants a deal, while not meeting or approaching the EU, or the leaders of our European neighbours. Something which is, by the way, highly disrespectful to neighbourly relations.
He has to string us along as far as possible so that he can instigate a general election less that 5 weeks before 31st October( a general election takes a minimum of 5 weeks). As an alternative to pirogueing parliament(which he can't do now, as Dominic Grieve would take him to court at that point). So that there is no government on 31st October and we leave the EU by default.
Oh and of course, the EU would be to blame with their "undemocratic backstop".
This is how he saves the Conservative party from oblivion, because there would then be no need for the Brexit party.
Are there any leavers out there who want to point out how this is not putting party before country and a perversion of democracy?
But Johnson will be PM until 10/31. And then there's an election? I don't get it.
I'm not a betting man, but if I were, I would bet that this won't be true, that's his leadership and/or government is going to fall before that date.
There isn't a working government during an election campaign. Also the election hasn't been called as yet.
I'd agree, from the commentary yesterday it looks like he won't get that far and parliament will seize power during September.
So the no confidence vote will be at the beginning of September, parliament will then have 14 days to find a leader who can command a majority in the house. Johnson is powerless to prevent this and can't advise the Queen(as he doesn't have the confidence of the house). If this fails parliament can command Johnson to request a further extension from the EU for a general election. Which he must do or the Queen would be likely to sack him and form another government against his will.
Thank God for the Queen, I wonder who is giving her advice at this time? I'm not sure the Privy council can be relied upon to be untainted at this point?
I too think the Royal Family might end up with a pivotal role in what happens, as the last thing they will countenance is the fracturing of the United Kingdom, which is a real possibility. I'm sure if Britain leaves without an agreement there'll be another Scottish independence vote.
The thing is, I do wonder if there were an election called, how it could feasibly amount to a vote on Brexit. I mean, I don't think Labor is going to campaign on Remain, are they? Because unless the general election lances the boil one way or another, then it will just continue to be a stalemate.
I think the whole thing is a terrible pickle, a real predicament. Although part of me wants to see Britain leave without an agreement and sink into depression, because then the Yes vote will really, for the first time, grasp what it has wrought.
Yeah, pretty sure May’s agreement is the compromise. What the government want is for the EU to give us more without us giving anything back.
Not only is it the compromise, it's the compromise BoJo voted for when he thought he couldn't be blamed for it by the Brextremists. Now that it's his responsibility, it's morphed into inexplicable EU intransigence. Scratch head. Michael Gove is sad. So, we're in rewrite-history-maybe-noone-will-notice bullshit land. And Michael Gove is sad. Fucking frauds.
It would be interesting to know what the "more" is, I bet the EU negotiators would like to know that too.
The trouble is if there is a no deal exit then the brexiters will have to work out what the "more" is. Because when the shit hits the fan, they'll have to sit down with the EU again and go right back to square one with the same issues to deal with, while having lost all leverage, integrity and face.
Perhaps they will find that to unpalatable and say to hell with the EU, we'll go and find other friends. Only to find no one else will want to make friends with us until they know what our relationship with the EU will be. So again they will have to go back and sit down with the EU, with even less credibility.
I can't see any hope for the Conservative party, the're dooomed. At least then we will get someone more moderate, or left wing in for a while and begin to put the country back together again after 40 years of being ravaged by Tory's.
I expect the Lib Dems will win the popular vote, but I don't know how that adds up in numbers of constituencies to win a general election. I expect that about two thirds of the people who will vote will vote for remain party's now, because it is such an unholy mess with the only sensible way out being to revoke article 50.
Even if May's deal is accepted, it is only a transition, the new relationship has not been worked out yet and the same issues of Northern Ireland, single market, customs union etc will still have to be solved.
The deal was a compromise between Britain and the EU. The fact that Britain is internally polarised in no way negates that.
Remember Remember the 1st of November.
(Johnson is considering calling an election to be held on the 1st of November.)
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/10/dominic-cummings-owns-farm-got-eu-subsidy
[quote]Despite all the noise and dust, there is no majority for Brexit in the UK. In the referendum the Brexit vote was 37 per cent of the total electorate – 26 per cent of the population :gasp: – which, by the way the figures for votes cast on the day fell out, gave a 51.89 per cent “win” for Brexit. (Note that had this been the proportion of the total electorate it would still not be enough to trigger vast constitutional change in most civilised states in the world. There are scarcely anywhere a simple majority, let alone a small one, would permit this: for such a change, a supermajority would be required, of 60 per cent or 66 per cent either of votes cast or the entire electorate.)
You beat me to the punch there. I just read that in the news a moment ago. It shows that their number one priority is not in fact stopping a No Deal Brexit, in spite of all the hot air coming from the Lib Dems. If the expected no confidence vote fails, they'll shoulder a responsibility for that, and for all of the detrimental consequences which follow. :down:
It was hilarious watching Grant Shapps last night saying we can't have Corbyn leading a caretaker government because he would wreck the economy etc, when it is well known that the caretaker government would explicitly be for the one purpose of stopping no deal and calling an immediate general election. This is the standard of Tory rhetoric these days, a laughingstock.
Did you watch the Tory leadership debates? Some of the candidates, Jeremy Hunt in particular, seem to think that he's the literal incarnation of Lenin! You know, Jeremy Hunt: the one who wants to bring fox hunting back, halve the time limit on getting an abortion, and give big corporations a massive tax cut.
Literally a pantomime, great for the image of the Tory party, which is sinking like the Titanic.
Gina Miller's take:
'Success in a general election would allow the prime minister to experiment with the most extreme rightwing ideology'.
Quoting Gina Miller
'MPs of all parties must summon the courage to hold an overweening executive to account and do what is right in the name of the people they are elected to represent.'
Lookee here:
Quoting Michael Savage
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/aug/17/labour-tory-mps-unite-plot-radical-law-stop-no-deal-brexit
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/aug/18/mr-corbyn-wants-a-general-election-but-is-his-party-ready-to-fight-one
Quoting Rafael Behr
@Baden
I guess he's trying to outdo Trump's attempt to buy Greenland for absurdity. In which case, mission accomplished.
Exciting times, huh.
There's a petition against this - linked in the Guardian Politics Live BTL comments.
But what good will it do.
Its text reads: “Parliament must not be prorogued or dissolved unless and until the article 50 period has been sufficiently extended or the UK’s intention to withdraw from the EU has been cancelled.”
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/269157
Britain Trump has said that suggestions the suspension was motivated by a desire to force through a no deal were "completely untrue".
Bit of a Trump move, I'd say.