Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest MattP]

5 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

banging his head against a brick wall, is what he's doing. 

 

trying to explain that democracy isn't a one time thing to a group of people who are adamant that an advisory referendum that was paid for illegally and based on misinformation is binding when it isn't at all - yeah, good luck to @Voll Blau

Go on, I'm going to entertain this.

 

How was is paid for illegally? 

[Izzy]

9 minutes ago, lifted*fox said:

banging his head against a brick wall, is what he's doing. 

 

trying to explain that democracy isn't a one time thing to a group of people who are adamant that an advisory referendum that was paid for illegally and based on misinformation is binding when it isn't at all - yeah, good luck to @Voll Blau

Careful Daz, you’re slowly getting sucked back in mate 

[deep blue]

4 hours ago, Markyblue said:

As usual you dont get how democracy works do you.its not about you excepting anything other than a original democratic vote. Every time you people skirt around democracy by insisting a new vote enhances democracy we actually leave it further behind us.

The democracy we have in this country is a parliamentary democracy, where decisions are taken by elected MPs. A referendum goes completely against this; it isn't our type of democracy, it should never have been taken, and it should not be considered legitimate.

[Guest MattP]

5 minutes ago, deep blue said:

The democracy we have in this country is a parliamentary democracy, where decisions are taken by elected MPs. A referendum goes completely against this; it isn't our type of democracy, it should never have been taken, and it should not be considered legitimate.

So what happens when the parliamentary democracy decides to refer a decision to the electorate and then also the parliamentary democracy enshrines the decision made by the electorate? That has now happened.

 

Gina Miller was one of the best things about Brexit, her court case stopped the use of the royal perogative and made our MP's uphold the vote.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

7 minutes ago, deep blue said:

The democracy we have in this country is a parliamentary democracy, where decisions are taken by elected MPs. A referendum goes completely against this; it isn't our type of democracy, it should never have been taken, and it should not be considered legitimate.

 I TAKE IT YOU'RE VERY DRUNK AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME,

The sour grapes brigade are losing their marbles. Do you not understand the meaning of democracy? Did you not cast your vote? If the result had gone the other way, you would not be bleating like a blind sheep now.

[bovril]

I don't agree with the idea of a second ref and it's not going to happen now anyway, but I'm not sure how it would be undemocratic. You're essentially asking the same people the same question, only this time with a slightly better understanding of what leaving the EU entails. Said people would either make the same decision or change their mind. It might be a waste of time, money and effort, but it wouldn't be undemocratic.

"Undemocratic" is like "scaremongering" during the referendum campaign, it's used so much now by both sides it's lost all meaning. 

[Strokes]

10 minutes ago, bovril said:

I don't agree with the idea of a second ref and it's not going to happen now anyway, but I'm not sure how it would be undemocratic. You're essentially asking the same people the same question, only this time with a slightly better understanding of what leaving the EU entails. Said people would either make the same decision or change their mind. It might be a waste of time, money and effort, but it wouldn't be undemocratic.

"Undemocratic" is like "scaremongering" during the referendum campaign, it's used so much now by both sides it's lost all meaning. 

I think the feeling is that it’s undemocratic to ask again if you don’t implement it first. If the second referendum yielded a different result then the first referendum is effectively being ignored.

[Sharpe's Fox]

Varoufakis said from the start the EU would do no negotiating, they’d pick a stance and tell the Goverment to come to it. I think Theresa May must be incredibly thick to believe otherwise.

[Charl91]

30 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I think the feeling is that it’s undemocratic to ask again if you don’t implement it first. If the second referendum yielded a different result then the first referendum is effectively being ignored.

 

But it's not really though is it. It's not like we can just leave and then be like "Oh, now let's have a referendum after Brexit. Whoops, it now turns out more people now want to be in the EU than out. Oh well, too late now, lol". It's a fairly permanent decision, at least for a generation, it's the kind of thing you want to bloody sure about doing - especially as a lot of the facts and figures (admittedly from both sides) prior to the referendum were clearly bollocks.

 

I don't get the leavers fear of a second referendum (or at least the logic behind it). If it surely is the "will of the people" then surely the people will vote for Brexit again and put the issue to rest. And if it turns out that it's not what the public wants after all, then surely it's best just not to do it...?  That's why it was ridiculous to leave on such a narrow majority, because that's the kind of thing that can change within a week, let alone two years worth of the clueless shit show that we've been presented with.

 

 A new referendum, once we actually have options on the table (even if those options are remain or leave with no-deal) would be much more democratic, because people would have a clearer view of what they were getting with their vote. Of course, I'm sure some Brexiteers will say something like "we know what we voted for, we voted to leave the EU", but then it's funny to see the same people say "That's not the kind of Brexit that we want" when referring to different plans/deals. Clearly Brexit means different things to different people, and many people voted Brexit in the hopes that they would get the Brexit that they envisaged. Now that it turns out that the German car manufacturers haven't come to save the day, and  the Brexit-For-Everyone is looking more and more like a fantasy, maybe people should get an "Are you sure you want to do that?" option.

 

The argument that "The Government will keep re-doing the vote until it gets the result it wants" is also very weak. You think the Government would hold 5, 6 referendums? That all the foaming at the mouth Brexit fanatics would eventually go "fine, you held a second referendum, we give in - let's vote remain."? Nah, it's a poor argument - a clutching-at-straws argument to try and explain away the irrational logic of how the will-of-the-people is fine on the first vote, but not on a second, more informed vote.

 

There would be nothing wrong with the Government offering up the choice of "This is what Brexit will look like - take it or leave it". Leavers are just scared that the answers aren't what they might want to hear. Ironically, trying to deny the will of the people  

Edited 21 September 2018 by Charl91

[Spiritwalker]

6 hours ago, MattP said:

I do now.

 

Purely on the basis remain politicians still seem to think this is about economics and also they don't realise the leave side would fight the second referendum on the issue of democracy.

 

With Corbyn probably backing leave in that it could even be a bigger margin. 

The polls are saying a win for remain.

[Guest MattP]

7 minutes ago, Spiritwalker said:

The polls are saying a win for remain.

Yeah. They did on referendum day as well.

[Strokes]

6 minutes ago, Charl91 said:

 

But it's not really though is it. It's not like we can just leave and then be like "Oh, now let's have a referendum after Brexit. Whoops, it now turns out more people now want to be in the EU than out. Oh well, too late now, lol". It's a fairly permanent decision, at least for a generation, it's the kind of thing you want to bloody sure about doing - especially as a lot of the facts and figures (admittedly from both sides) prior to the referendum were clearly bollocks.

 

I don't get the leavers fear of a second referendum (or at least the logic behind it). If it surely is the "will of the people" then surely the people will vote for Brexit again and put the issue to rest. And if it turns out that it's not what the public wants after all, then surely it's best just not to do it...?  That's why it was ridiculous to leave on such a narrow majority, because that's the kind of thing that can change within a week, let alone two years worth of the clueless shit show that we've been presented with.

 

 A new referendum, once we actually have options on the table (even if those options are remain or leave with no-deal) would be much more democratic, because people would have a clearer view of what they were getting with their vote. Of course, I'm sure some Brexiteers will say something like "we know what we voted for, we voted to leave the EU", but then it's funny to see the same people say "That's not the kind of Brexit that we want" when referring to different plans/deals. Clearly Brexit means different things to different people, and many people voted Brexit in the hopes that they would get the Brexit that they envisaged. Now that it turns out that the German car manufacturers haven't come to save the day, and  the Brexit-For-Everyone is looking more and more like a fantasy, maybe people should get an "Are you sure you want to do that?" option.

 

The argument that "The Government will keep re-doing the vote until it gets the result it wants" is also very weak. You think the Government would hold 5, 6 referendums? That all the foaming at the mouth Brexit fanatics would eventually go "fine, you held a second referendum, we give in - let's vote remain."? Nah, it's a poor argument - a clutching-at-straws argument to try and explain away the irrational logic of how the will-of-the-people is fine on the first vote, but not on a second, more informed vote.

 

There would be nothing wrong with the Government offering up the choice of "This is what Brexit will look like - take it or leave it". Leavers are just scared that the answers aren't what they might want to hear. Ironically, trying to deny the will of the people  

I’ve not got any fear of another referendum but when do we schedule the third or fourth, how many times do we ask before it’s enough to judge? If you don’t want the answer that was given then the question should never have been asked. 

What for you makes the first referendum ineligible, that would prevent the second from having the same accusations?

[Guest MattP]

10 minutes ago, Charl91 said:

But it's not really though is it. It's not like we can just leave and then be like "Oh, now let's have a referendum after Brexit. Whoops, it now turns out more people now want to be in the EU than out. Oh well, too late now, lol". It's a fairly permanent decision, at least for a generation

Sorry but this is just not true. Any political party can stand at any election on a second referendum if they want to do so. That's every five years.

 

Just last year the Liberal Democrats, the SNP and the Greens (who between then stood in every seat NI aside) offered a second referendum on Brexit.

 

There was already a chance for the public to have another say, instead over 85% voted for two parties (Conservative and Labour) who were both and still are committed to upholding the result of the 2016 referendum.

[deep blue]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

So what happens when the parliamentary democracy decides to refer a decision to the electorate and then also the parliamentary democracy enshrines the decision made by the electorate? ...

What happens is that those who opposed the referendum, and/or the result, express their opinion and try to change the direction the the government is hell-bent on pursuing.

 

In my opinion the government made a huge error of judgement in holding the referendum, especially without first researching the processes and consequences of exiting the EU, so as to give the electorate the opportunity for a more informed view. They also had no obligation to implement the result of the vote, and certainly not to invoke article 50 with indecent haste, without thinking through the consequences.

 

Acting in such an uncompromising way in the face of difficulties that they should have been aware of much earlier, and are still struggling to acknowledge at such a late stage, shows unbelievable incompetence. 

 

Our democracy is far from perfect!

 

One thing that's clear to me is that in the referendum people voted for the PRINCIPLE of exit from the EU. When the agreed deal (or no-deal) is reached then, much as I dislike referendums, a second and different one should be held to give people the chance to vote on the REALITY of exit.

 

 

 

[Charl91]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

I’ve not got any fear of another referendum but when do we schedule the third or fourth, how many times do we ask before it’s enough to judge? If you don’t want the answer that was given then the question should never have been asked. 

What for you makes the first referendum ineligible, that would prevent the second from having the same accusations?

 

There's a big difference between

 

First Referendum:

A) Remain 

B) Leave (with hundreds of permutations of what this could mean)

 

and 

 

Second Referendum:

A) Remain

B) Leave (with actual plan)

 

(Or even a two parter, with Remain/Leave, and then a  Super Soft Brexit / No deal option)

 

The first was comparing a fairly known (and boring) quantity with an option with which people could project their own hopes and ideals onto. That question should never have been asked; it's like saying "What would you prefer, vanilla ice-cream or this mystery undetermined flavour". I suppose in some ways it separated the optimists from the pessimists (like me) - optimists assume that they're going to end up with their favourite flavour (probably corned beef), while I damn well know that it's going to be bloody pistachio. 

 

A new referendum should offer two concrete options. Then that should at least put to bed most claims of not knowing what was voted for.

 

[Spiritwalker]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

Yeah. They did on referendum day as well.

Fair point, but what also needs to be taken into consideration is that the

demographic has changed, many elderly leave voters have been replaced

by previously ineligible remain voters.

[Guest MattP]

Just now, deep blue said:

One thing that's clear to me is that in the referendum people voted for the PRINCIPLE of exit from the EU. When the agreed deal (or no-deal) is reached then, much as I dislike referendums, a second and different one should be held to give people the chance to vote on the REALITY of exit.

Oh did we

 

I do envy how omniscient you are, you know why we voted to leave, why we didn't vote to leave and why we might not now vote to leave

 

Now even those who did vote to leave only did so on the principal.

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, Charl91 said:

There's a big difference between

 

First Referendum:

A) Remain 

B) Leave (with hundreds of permutations of what this could mean)

 

and 

 

Second Referendum:

A) Remain

B) Leave (with actual plan)

 

A new referendum should offer two concrete options. Then that should at least put to bed most claims of not knowing what was voted for.

How do we vote for leave with the Canada plus option?

[Strokes]

2 minutes ago, Charl91 said:

 

There's a big difference between

 

First Referendum:

A) Remain 

B) Leave (with hundreds of permutations of what this could mean)

 

and 

 

Second Referendum:

A) Remain

B) Leave (with actual plan)

 

(Or even a two parter, with Remain/Leave, and then a  Super Soft Brexit / No deal option)

 

The first was comparing a fairly known (and boring) quantity with an option with which people could project their own hopes and ideals onto. That question should never have been asked; it's like saying "What would you prefer, vanilla ice-cream or this mystery undetermined flavour". I suppose in some ways it separated the optimists from the pessimists (like me) - optimists assume that they're going to end up with their favourite flavour (probably corned beef), while I damn well know that it's going to be bloody pistachio. 

 

A new referendum should offer two concrete options. Then that should at least put to bed most claims of not knowing what was voted for.

 

Why not two options -

Leave no deal.

Leave the known deal.

 

Why should remain even be an option now?

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, Spiritwalker said:

Fair point, but what also needs to be taken into consideration is that the

demographic has changed, many elderly leave voters have been replaced

by previously ineligible remain voters.

Have they? By that logic from the 1975 referendum it should be a 99% win for remain. 

 

You'll be telling me next a person's politics can change as they get older.

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Why not two options -

Leave no deal.

Leave the known deal.

 

Why should remain even be an option now?

Because they want to overturn the result. It's absolutely hilarious they are trying to portray it as anything else.

 

Not a single one of these people would be calling for a re-run had it gone their way, I'm embarrassed reading the call for it.

 

I just wish they would be honest.

[deep blue]

5 minutes ago, MattP said:

Oh did we

 

I do envy how omniscient you are, you know why we voted to leave, why we didn't vote to leave and why we might not now vote to leave

 

Now even those who did vote to leave only did so on the principal.

Oh come on, Matt. You surely don't believe that many of those who voted to leave had much idea of the complexities of the process, or of the various options that may or may not have been possible. The same can be said of those who voted to remain. I suspect that few people had much idea.

[Charl91]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

Sorry but this is just not true. Any political party can stand at any election on a second referendum if they want to do so. That's every five years.

 

Just last year the Liberal Democrats, the SNP and the Greens (who between then stood in every seat NI aside) offered a second referendum on Brexit.

 

There was already a chance for the public to have another say, instead over 85% voted for two parties (Conservative and Labour) who were both and still are committed to upholding the result of the 2016 referendum.

 

Nah, I'm sorry but this is just wrong.

 

Firstly, we get a lot of concessions being in the EU. If we scrape and grovel to get back in, it's not going to be on the terms that we left.

 

Secondly, in our first-past-the-post system, a vote for Lib Dem is a wasted vote in most seats. If people voted for Lib Dems, then all that would mean is that Theresa May would have had more of a mandate to push through the harder Brexit that it seemed she was gunning for. Many people (myself included) voted Labour because at least it seemed more likely that they'd be go for a softer Brexit. Better to be slightly shit then really really shit. Some (misguided) people also voted Labour because they were also under the impression that they would stop Brexit, since Corbyn was deliberately ambiguous with his wording and led them to believe that he was pro-europe.

 

At the end of the day, Lib Dems were never an option. The only realistic option was to vote for Labour to stop the Tories having quite so many seats. I seem to remember TM went to the polls to get a bigger mandate for her Brexit, and ended up losing quite a few seats.

[Guest MattP]

Just now, deep blue said:

Oh come on, Matt. You surely don't believe that many of those who voted to leave had much idea of the complexities of the process, or of the various options that may or may not have been possible. The same can be said of those who voted to remain. I suspect that few people had much idea.

Well of course not. That's why the question was binary and then we expect the government to implement the decision.

 

I presume you did and warned of us of this pre-referendum and explained why we should expect another referendum?

[Webbo]

Basically, everybody who has been telling usfor 2 years that the first vote should be ignored because we're too thick/old/racist to know what we were voting for now want our voices to be heard