Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Finnegan]

10 hours ago, Strokes said:

It depends how it was done.

If it was a 3 way loaded referendum with remain as an option then no, as the leave vote would be split but if it had remain or the government deal in round one, then the winner vs no deal I think that would be fair.

If it ran like that, I would vote remain, then no deal.

 

Obviously Remain vs Deal vs No Deal in a straight three way vote is a trap, wouldn't suggest for one moment that that's the format it should be. 

 

I'd have two rounds of voting, leave and remain to begin with and if its leave again for a second time then we vote on deal or not. 

 

I just can't get my head around anyone claiming that that's undemocratic, it should always have been written in to the plan in the first place that we'd get a second vote on the outcome because there's such an infinite list of possibilities that could have turned out from negotiations. 

 

And if anyone is completely confident that Leave is definitely the will of the people and its definitely what the people want, then why would you fear a second referendum? 

 

You'd only object to a second referendum if you were an anti democrat that knew full well the first one was a complete sham and you wanted to impose YOUR political beliefs on the rest of the nation, whether they're a majority view or now. 

 

That's not democracy, its fascism. 

 

The Brexiteers on here have regularly insisted that leave is and was the people's choice, so what's the problem? 

 

Edited 11 November 2018 by Finnegan

[BlueSi13]

50 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

Obviously Remain vs Deal vs No Deal in a straight three way vote is a trap, wouldn't suggest for one moment that that's the format it should be. 

 

I'd have two rounds of voting, leave and remain to begin with and if its leave again for a second time then we vote on deal or not. 

 

I just can't get my head around anyone claiming that that's undemocratic, it should always have been written in to the plan in the first place that we'd get a second vote on the outcome because there's such an infinite list of possibilities that could have turned out from negotiations. 

 

And if anyone is completely confident that Leave is definitely the will of the people and its definitely what the people want, then why would you fear a second referendum? 

 

You'd only object to a second referendum if you were an anti democrat that knew full well the first one was a complete sham and you wanted to impose YOUR political beliefs on the rest of the nation, whether they're a majority view or now. 

 

That's not democracy, its fascism. 

 

The Brexiteers on here have regularly insisted that leave is and was the people's choice, so what's the problem? 

 

We had that in 2016 and we voted leave with the biggest democratic mandate in this country's history.  

 

What possible reason can you give for us voting on this particular point again? 

 

I hear this a lot from Remainers, "it's now becoming clear what an absolute disaster Brexit is".  Since 2016 what has happened to employment? what has happened to growth?  What is this 'disaster' some are referring to?

 

Project Fear is a completely ruined concept.  Sure it almost worked (I know plenty of natural Brexiteers who voted Remain after being scared shitless by it) but trying to re-animate its corpse only continues the path of division and bitterness between the two sides.

 

We need to be coming together now.  There's a far bigger world out there.  

[Charl91]

27 minutes ago, BlueSi13 said:

We had that in 2016 and we voted leave with the biggest democratic mandate in this country's history.  

 

What possible reason can you give for us voting on this particular point again? 

 

 

Because what "Brexit" looked like wasn't known by anyone, including those who voted for it. 

 

(And if you say - "well I know what Brexit looked like, it meant leaving the EU", then you have no right to complain about any deal whatsoever, as long as it means leaving the EU).

 

27 minutes ago, BlueSi13 said:

 

 

I hear this a lot from Remainers, "it's now becoming clear what an absolute disaster Brexit is".  Since 2016 what has happened to employment? what has happened to growth?  What is this 'disaster' some are referring to?

 

We haven't left yet. The "disaster" is the clear lack of planning and foresight, and the fact that we're going to end up with a deal which will leave us far worse off than what we had, and still subservient to the EU anyway. I doubt that is what most people voted for, but if it is, surely there's nothing undemocratic about checking that....?

 

Quote

Project Fear is a completely ruined concept.  Sure it almost worked (I know plenty of natural Brexiteers who voted Remain after being scared shitless by it) but trying to re-animate its corpse only continues the path of division and bitterness between the two sides.

 

We need to be coming together now.  There's a far bigger world out there.  

Project Fear  Ffs, give me strength.

 

Let's look at the reality. Brexiteers are shit scared of another referendum, hence the cries of "undemocratic", "biggest democratic mandate" and "will of the people". They realise that the reality of the Brexit that we're heading towards (one that means we'll end up giving lots of concessions to the EU) is looking to be pretty poor, and they know that it's fairly unlikely to be well receieved by the public, hence hiding behind these same, worn-out slogans repeated ad-nauseum. 

 

As has been said many a time, there would be nothing undemocratic about a second referendum (though I don't think one will be likely, as much as I'd like that). How would giving the people another vote, that is...

 

A) More informed

B) Has actual tangible options to choose from

C) Not 3 years ago

 

Be less democratic than a poorly worded, ill thought out question from three years ago?

 

If you say "I still want to push on with Brexit regardless", then fair enough, that's your perogative, but hiding behind the "but muh democracy!" argument is just intellectual dishonesty. Why not see what the actual will of the people is, now that the cold hard facts are on the table, rather than fantasies?

Edited 11 November 2018 by Charl91

[Finnegan]

If "it's becoming clear what a disaster brexit is" has become cliché so has "we need to come together."

 

We aren't together, we're divided hugely, we've never been more divided. 

 

There's people who never wanted to leave, people that didn't want to leave but now think we should because of the first vote, there are people that always wanted to leave, there are people that wanted to leave but now want to remain because they were lied to. There are people that want to leave with a deal, there are people that want to leave with a deal but not this one, there are people that want to leave with no deal.

 

How on earth can a government that's ruling without a clear majority, a prime minister whose own party's followers don't want her, make this decision unchecked? 

 

And how on earth can you pretend it's democratic if they do? 

 

I say again, if you're sure that what the people want is to Leave then you shouldn't have any concern, they'll vote that way again. If you're going to claim that the original referendum was honest, was voted for on the grounds of truth, you're nuts. From either sid. I mean, if you want to bemoan "Project Fear" then surely there'll be a big chunk of people that weren't sure that will now vote Leave because they can see those economic benefits you're talking about? Because THEY will feel lied to? 

 

But if you DON'T think it's what the people want and you want to press on regardless? Have the ****ing balls to admit what you are and stop pretending that you love democracy. 

[Guest MattP]

21 hours ago, Charl91 said:

You know, I do have some sympathy with this "undemocratic" argument. I can sort of see it from a moral standpoint, and in an ideal world I'd agree with it. However, I think that when new facts come to light, our opinions and expectations must change with it, especially when making a decision that's very difficult to reverse.

 

Let me take the idea to its logical extremity, through use of an absurd example. Let's say the Government hold a referendum where they ask "Would you like everyone to have a free BMW - yes or no?" - everyone votes yes (because why wouldn't you). All of a sudden it comes to light that we can't really afford to do so - that Schools and Hospitals would have to be closed down across the country to pay for it, that thousands of people would lose jobs, worst case scenarios, etc. etc. People probably would've wanted to know this information in advance, as it would inform their judgement. You wouldn't say well, we need to implement the decision of the referendum first. Clearly, it's a silly, and fairly permanent decision, and it's not something you can go back very easily once it's done. Instead, you say, "Whoops, this isn't how we quite thought it would be, maybe we should double check that this is what the people really want, now that we know a bit more".

 

Obviously our current predicament is a little more grounded in reality, but the principle is the same. Maybe offering a second referendum would be quite undemocratic, had new, significant facts not come to light in the meantime. The problem isn't with the principle of democracy though; the problem was, and always has been the question, and it should never have been allowed to appear on the ballot in the form that it did. As a remainer, my biggest bug-bear has always been the ambiguity of the question that was presented; when you're pitting a known quantity against a mythical panacea, where people can imagine their own personal vision of Brexit as they envisage it, then it's certainly not a balanced question. For it to be meaningful, it should've been remain vs. a concrete option of what Brexit looked like, or they should've planned to hold a second referendum from the outset with the options (or even with the first referendum being along the lines of "are you interested in us persuing options to leave the EU" and then a second referendum to offer the options once it had been thought about). 

 

I think the crux of it is, when you decide to offer a gargantuan decision, that will significantly impact many generations to come, you need to be bloody well have thought it out a little bit first. Not asking the question, then trying to decide how it's workable afterwards. When people voted for Brexit, how many people do you think voted for this? In which case, I don't think it's "undemocratic" at all - it was just a stupid, stupid question.

 

13 hours ago, Finnegan said:

Not really sure how anyone can complain about "anti-democrats" with a straight face whilst suggesting we should plough on through with Brexit regardless.

 

Even if you honestly believe Brexit is what the majority of the country really want as opposed to just the biggest political **** up of our lifetimes, you'd still have to surely accept that NOT having a second referendum is a **** lot more undemocratic. 

 

Democratic would be presenting the people with their full list of options now the deal is on the table and asking "right, what do you want?" 

 

Hoodwinking the country with a bunch of false promises then going "yeah, sorry, that's not what brexit actually is going to be", then doing your own negotiations and not giving the public a chance to voice objections is infinitely more undemocratic. 

 

The only people that look like they're going to be happy with the outcome are Nationalist zealots who just want to be out of the EU in name for their own flag waving, chest thumping stupidity. 

 

Surely if you're an actual, honest to God, political brexiteer that thinks we'd be better off leaving, you'd STILL want a second referendum because you'd want a say on whether we take the deal or leave without?

I just wish we were having these arguments about democracy ten years ago, no one gave a shit about democracy when we had to watch the Lisbon treaty being passed through parliament, no one gave a shit about democracy when the Maastrict treaty was passed though, I really so wish our people and parliament had as much concern for democracy when they were giving away our independence as they do when we are trying to take it back - had they done so I doubt we would be in this mess.

The main problem I have with the calls for a second referendum are that they only come from the people who lost, they wouldn't be saying a word now about the tone of debate, the ambiguity of the future of the Union or the result had it gone their way, it would have been completely settled. I expected in good faith that a decision would be taken in the plebicite and then the government and parliament would implement the decision. What I certainly didn't count even our own politicians like Nick Clegg askingn the commission to be harsh on us just because they didn't get their own way.

You actually did have a chance at a second referendum as well, many people forget that - the SNP, the Greens and the Liberal Democrats all stood on either reversing the result or having another vote and the share of that vote all went down.

 

@BlueSi13 has already also made the point but where is this huge disaster people are talking about that means we should vote again? We are growing at 0.6% which is higher than the Eurozone itself and we have the highest employment in history.

Some questions for the advocates of a second referendum though?

 

Why should any Leave voter trust you to honour the result of it when you have already proven you didn't do that with the first?

If Remain win when do we have the third referendum?

Will this also apply to General Elections in future? If we have an immediate run on the pound and it becomes clear what Labour have promised is impossible instantly (certainly possible) do we have a second vote before he can form a government just to make sure it's what the people want? (After all they shouldn't be scared of it)

 

What happens if Leave wins again and the government still can't get it's deal through parliament? Remain/Leave MP's are not all of a sudden going to vote through Hard Brexit, Soft Brexit or even the revokal of Article 50 is that is possible?

Would the Second referendum be constituency based or popular vote?

You might actually get your wish though, a reversal of the result is possible and I really would advise you to be careful what you wish for, decent people across Europe are already now having to vote for hard-right parties as they are being completely ignored over and over and over again, it's something we've never had here in great numbers, it might happen here. Even if it doesn't, the way voting patterns are going across the continent it might even see us taking rules from people like Salvini and Orban in the future.

[Guest MattP]

44 minutes ago, Charl91 said:

Because what "Brexit" looked like wasn't known by anyone, including those who voted for it. 

 

(And if you say - "well I know what Brexit looked like, it meant leaving the EU", then you have no right to complain about any deal whatsoever, as long as it means leaving the EU).

Given the Prime Minister, Home Secretary, Foreign Secretary and Chancellor said that it meant leaving the single market I'd argue that this isn't the case. If you didn't hear that you weren't paying any attention.

You wouldn't be able find me a single quote from anyone from the Leave side during the campaign that said it was possible - hence why the Remain side cobbled together that video that had to go as far back as when Gordon Brown was Prime Minister to try and show it.

[BlueSi13]

Make no mistake I am totally against the governments current course of action.  BRINO would be an absolute catastrophe and I pray it will be reversed.  

 

I was talking about why we should have another Leave/Remain referendum.  I asked what has happened since 2016 that would make it a necessity?

 

Employment is up, wages are growing and outstripping inflation, we are growing three times faster than the Eurozone, foreign investment is the second largest in the world and opinion polls have barely budged.  Apart from forecasts, rumour and innuendo (we've had those before and voted accordingly), why do we need a re-run?

 

Also, so it's clear, I'd have no issues about a referendum with deal/no-deal on the ballot,

[Guest MattP]

8 minutes ago, BlueSi13 said:

Make no mistake I am totally against the governments current course of action.  BRINO would be an absolute catastrophe and I pray it will be reversed.  

 

I was talking about why we should have another Leave/Remain referendum.  I asked what has happened since 2016 that would make it a necessity?

 

Employment is up, wages are growing and outstripping inflation, we are growing three times faster than the Eurozone, foreign investment is the second largest in the world and opinion polls have barely budged.  Apart from forecasts, rumour and innuendo (we've had those before and voted accordingly), why do we need a re-run?

 

Also, so it's clear, I'd have no issues about a referendum with deal/no-deal on the ballot,

I think a lot of Remain voters have decided to take forecast as fact and ignore the evidence, they've claimed this is going to be a disaster so they have to stick to it - a good example was Gary Lineker's tweet last week - he happily and almost joyfully retweeted the forecast of us having 0.2% growth for Q4 - he didn't bother then even mentioning the actual fact that growth was higher than predicted for Q2 at 0.6%.

As for the bolded bit, the problem with this is though would parliament still vote that through? Look at people like David Lammy and Anna Soubry - they voted to have the referendum and then when they lost immediately were on a stage shouting that it wasn't binding and they should ignore it.

No point sending us to the polls if they won't pass it anyway.

Who is to say that MP's would respect a remain vote (let's not forget as well on terms of a constituency vote it was 61-39 in favour of leave, not 52-48) as well, I'd be asking my MP to still vote to uphold the first result in parliament.

Edited 11 November 2018 by MattP

[FoxNotFox]

2 hours ago, Finnegan said:

And if anyone is completely confident that Leave is definitely the will of the people and its definitely what the people want, then why would you fear a second referendum? 

Indeed. 

 

It could be just one referendum (with 3 choices; remain, leave with deal, leave with no deal) but 'remain' would clearly have to take more than 50% of the vote. But, tbh, I'm not convinced that there's a path to a 2nd referendum, even though I see that the momentum for it is slowly increasing.

 

I'm not a huge fan of Blair but I think he was right to suggest that MPs should not be afraid to vote 'no' to any deal May may come back with simply because it's the least worst option. That is to say, they shouldn't vote with the assumption that 'leave' of some flavour is a given. It's going to be a crucial vote and I feel MPs have to vote only on the merits of the deal before them. If they feel it's a bad deal then the ought vote it down... and then deal with whatever the fallout of that is.

[Charl91]

26 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

I just wish we were having these arguments about democracy ten years ago, no one gave a shit about democracy when we had to watch the Lisbon treaty being passed through parliament, no one gave a shit about democracy when the Maastrict treaty was passed though, I really so wish our people and parliament had as much concern for democracy when they were giving away our independence as they do when we are trying to take it back - had they done so I doubt we would be in this mess.
 

 

Well, maybe they should have then; I can't particularly comment on that, I wasn't able to vote then. Strikes me a little as what-aboutism though. Just because due democratic process wasn't taken previously, it doesn't mean that shouldn't be the case now.

 

 

Quote

The main problem I have with the calls for a second referendum are that they only come from the people who lost, they wouldn't be saying a word now about the tone of debate, the ambiguity of the future of the Union or the result had it gone their way, it would have been completely settled. I expected in good faith that a decision would be taken in the plebicite and then the government and parliament would implement the decision. What I certainly didn't count even our own politicians like Nick Clegg askingn the commission to be harsh on us just because they didn't get their own way.

Or let's flip that on its head. The main problem with those opposing the second referendum is that it only seems to be coming from those who "won" (although I dislike using the words won/lost when it comes to democratic decisions - language like that only exacerbates the tribalism that we're already seeing - it's not a game of football where you have teams). In my view, these people actually want to forgo a fairer, more accurate democratic process, because they're worried that what they thought was the will of the people 3 years ago may no longer be the case.

 

Quote

You actually did have a chance at a second referendum as well, many people forget that - the SNP, the Greens and the Liberal Democrats all stood on either reversing the result or having another vote and the share of that vote all went down.

This argument has been torn apart so many times that I'm not going to waste time doing so again.

 

 

Quote

@BlueSi13 has already also made the point but where is this huge disaster people are talking about that means we should vote again? We are growing at 0.6% which is higher than the Eurozone itself and we have the highest employment in history.

We haven't left yet.

 

Quote

 

Some questions for the advocates of a second referendum though?

 

Why should any Leave voter trust you to honour the result of it when you have already proven you didn't do that with the first?

If Remain win when do we have the third referendum?

Will this also apply to General Elections in future? If we have an immediate run on the pound and it becomes clear what Labour have promised is impossible instantly (certainly possible) do we have a second vote before he can form a government just to make sure it's what the people want? (After all they shouldn't be scared of it)

 

What happens if Leave wins again and the government still can't get it's deal through parliament? Remain/Leave MP's are not all of a sudden going to vote through Hard Brexit, Soft Brexit or even the revokal of Article 50 is that is possible?

Would the Second referendum be constituency based or popular vote?

 

1. It's essentially a different question. The outcomes weren't clear with the first referendum
2. You're welcome to campaign for one. I highly doubt that if remain had "won" by such a margin that leave would stop pushing for a second referendum, Farage said so himself. It might have to be a bit more grounded in reality this time around though.
3. Personally, I think Governments should be held responsible for their manifesto promises, so yes, in an ideal world. I certainly think there should be strict punishments imposed on parties that make promises that are clearly unattainable, just to win votes. That goes for all parties (I'm thinking of Labour at the last G.E, but Tories aren't innocent of it either).
4. I imagine it would be the choice of either no-deal or soft-brexit, and that MP's would eventually capitulate and go for the latter. Don't really know though.
5. Popular. Consistuency wouldn't make any sense.

Quote

You might actually get your wish though, a reversal of the result is possible and I really would advise you to be careful what you wish for, decent people across Europe are already now having to vote for hard-right parties as they are being completely ignored over and over and over again, it's something we've never had here in great numbers, it might happen here. Even if it doesn't, the way voting patterns are going across the continent it might even see us taking rules from people like Salvini and Orban in the future.

I can't see a second referendum happening, sadly. Not with a Corbyn-led Labour Government.

 

People were voting for hard-right parties before Brexit. Brexit is just a symptom, not a cause.

[bovril]

59 minutes ago, MattP said:

You might actually get your wish though, a reversal of the result is possible and I really would advise you to be careful what you wish for, decent people across Europe are already now having to vote for hard-right parties as they are being completely ignored over and over and over again, it's something we've never had here in great numbers, it might happen here. Even if it doesn't, the way voting patterns are going across the continent it might even see us taking rules from people like Salvini and Orban in the future.

There seems to be a consensus of opinion that a bad Brexit will hit those in deprived areas the most, which are probably the areas most likely to see a surge in far-right support. 

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, Charl91 said:

 

Well, maybe they should have then; I can't particularly comment on that, I wasn't able to vote then. Strikes me a little as what-aboutism though. Just because due democratic process wasn't taken previously, it doesn't mean that shouldn't be the case now.

 

 

Or let's flip that on its head. The main problem with those opposing the second referendum is that it only seems to be coming from those who "won" (although I dislike using the words won/lost when it comes to democratic decisions - language like that only exacerbates the tribalism that we're already seeing - it's not a game of football where you have teams). In my view, these people actually want to forgo a fairer, more accurate democratic process, because they're worried that what they thought was the will of the people 3 years ago may no longer be the case.

 

This argument has been torn apart so many times that I'm not going to waste time doing so again.

 

 

We haven't left yet.

 

1. It's essentially a different question. The outcomes weren't clear with the first referendum
2. You're welcome to campaign for one. I highly doubt that if remain had "won" by such a margin that leave would stop pushing for a second referendum, Farage said so himself. It might have to be a bit more grounded in reality this time around though.
3. Personally, I think Governments should be held responsible for their manifesto promises, so yes, in an ideal world. I certainly think there should be strict punishments imposed on parties that make promises that are clearly unattainable, just to win votes. That goes for all parties (I'm thinking of Labour at the last G.E, but Tories aren't innocent of it either).
4. I imagine it would be the choice of either no-deal or soft-brexit, and that MP's would eventually capitulate and go for the latter. Don't really know though.
5. Popular. Consistuency wouldn't make any sense.

I can't see a second referendum happening, sadly. Not with a Corbyn-led Labour Government.

 

People were voting for hard-right parties before Brexit. Brexit is just a symptom, not a cause.

Leavers don't want a second referendum for many reasons, the main reason I don't want it is because I;m certain you still wouldn't respect it if we won again, it would just be the same thing and we would be told I'm sure we now need a third one at the end of transition to make sure we "really want to leave" - this is the problem now, people like Blair, Mandleson etc have always managed to get what they want and as soon as they didn't it has to be stopped at all costs, I don't buy for one minute the result of the second referendum would be respected if the outcome was leave again.

"We haven't left yet" - When we talk about false predictions we are talking about those we can already prove wrong, we were told in the immediate aftermath of a vote to leave we vote see job losses, we would have to hold an emergency budget, already proven as complete and utter hogwash, bullshit. - you might be right that this all turns around and all the predictions from the treasury all of a sudden are spot on as soon as we do leave, it could all be a complete disaster but given the forecasts we have already seen it appears unlikely.

1 - How do we make it clear then what the outcome of leave is in this referendum, is is no deal, chequers, a new gov? What about Remain as well? Do we commit to an EU army with remain?

2 - As are you, you are welcome to campaign for one as soon as we have left.

3 - How do you implement another General Election then and who decides whether this is feasible or not, who is the judge of whether the General Election campaign was fair and proper?

4 - So what about the leave voters who campaigned for the Norway option? the Canada plus option? This is so multi option it's impossible to put onto ballot paper except the decision to vote leave or remain.
5 - I actually agree, but when I see MP's deciding to vote against it (David Lammy) because their constituents voted Remain this has to be an option.


It's possible, it would be interesting as well. The political junkie in me would like to see it - Remain would certainly run a better campaign, but they would have the problems of the EU itself to deal with - I think Leave this time would fight the whole campaign on the issue of democracy, how it would play out I have no idea.

 

Not really, we had 3million odd voting for UKIP but they are certainly not "hard right" in terms of Orban, Salvini etc - or they certainly weren't at the time, they may head there with Batten.

[Sampson]

I voted remain and would do again but the idea of a 2nd referendum in a first world democratic country is indeed ludicrous. Just like the last needless general election was and just like any election in the near future would be.

 

And to be honest, if there's one thing I do have sympathy with on the Leave side it's that the EU is an undemocratic entity which does and has superseded the votes of democratic countries and that it's power structure is incredibly open for abuse in the future if certain types of people were to come to power in the EU.

 

There's plenty of remainers who think a 2nd referendum is spitting on democracy. It's not just those who "won" who don't support a 2md referendum at all.

[Carl the Llama]

2 hours ago, Sampson said:

I voted remain and would do again but the idea of a 2nd referendum in a first world democratic country is indeed ludicrous. Just like the last needless general election was and just like any election in the near future would be.

 

And to be honest, if there's one thing I do have sympathy with on the Leave side it's that the EU is an undemocratic entity which does and has superseded the votes of democratic countries and that it's power structure is incredibly open for abuse in the future if certain types of people were to come to power in the EU.

 

There's plenty of remainers who think a 2nd referendum is spitting on democracy. It's not just those who "won" who don't support a 2md referendum at all.

Why is it spitting on democracy?  Hardline brexiteers like to make the idea out to be some conspiracy to keep redoing until the 'elites' get the 'right' result but it's more about responding to new information. If you want to make the spitting on democracy argument then you surely have to first concede that the whole shebang in the first place was exactly and disgracefully that from all campaigning sides, at which point your argument becomes irrelevant anyway because it surely can't be anti-democratic to try to redress an anti-democratic clusterfvck.

[Sampson]

29 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Why is it spitting on democracy?  Hardline brexiteers like to make the idea out to be some conspiracy to keep redoing until the 'elites' get the 'right' result but it's more about responding to new information. If you want to make the spitting on democracy argument then you surely have to first concede that the whole shebang in the first place was exactly and disgracefully that from all campaigning sides, at which point your argument becomes irrelevant anyway because it surely can't be anti-democratic to try to redress an anti-democratic clusterfvck.

What is the new information exactly? That we would lose out on trade deals outside the single markets? That the EU would have the overwhelming upper-hand in the leverage in the negotiations? That we might end up leaving with no deal?

None of that is new information, all of that could easily have been discussed before the referendum. If it wasn't brought to light that was a failure of the Remain campaign for a lack of convincing arguments for people to stay in, but it certainly isn't information that wasn't known or couldn't have been discussed before the referendum.

What does the disgraceful campaigning have to do with anything? That is true of absolutely any election or referendum - people lie and smear their opponents, that's happened in every democratic election since Ancient Athens and that's always going to happen in any democracy and there's no way it can be eradicated without removing freedom of speech or freedom to campaign and in which case you wouldn't have a democracy anymore, you'd have Mao's China.

I don't see it as a hardline Brexiteer conspiracy at all and in fact I don't even understand that argument - it was a free election and leave got more votes. What was anti-democratic about the referendum exactly?

As I've said before, I don't think this issue should have gone to a referendum in the first place, but now that it has, I'm not going to try and claim it needs to go to the polls again because I didn't like the result of a fair election. You have to accept it, that's democracy,

Edited 11 November 2018 by Sampson

[Carl the Llama]

4 hours ago, Sampson said:

What is the new information exactly? That we would lose out on trade deals outside the single markets? That the EU would have the overwhelming upper-hand in the leverage in the negotiations? That we might end up leaving with no deal?

None of that is new information, all of that could easily have been discussed before the referendum. If it wasn't brought to light that was a failure of the Remain campaign for a lack of convincing arguments for people to stay in, but it certainly isn't information that wasn't known or couldn't have been discussed before the referendum.

What does the disgraceful campaigning have to do with anything? That is true of absolutely any election or referendum - people lie and smear their opponents, that's happened in every democratic election since Ancient Athens and that's always going to happen in any democracy and there's no way it can be eradicated without removing freedom of speech or freedom to campaign and in which case you wouldn't have a democracy anymore, you'd have Mao's China.

I don't see it as a hardline Brexiteer conspiracy at all and in fact I don't even understand that argument - it was a free election and leave got more votes. What was anti-democratic about the referendum exactly?

As I've said before, I don't think this issue should have gone to a referendum in the first place, but now that it has, I'm not going to try and claim it needs to go to the polls again because I didn't like the result of a fair election. You have to accept it, that's democracy,

You just answered a question with 6 more questions and not one sentence directly backing up your claim about spitting on democracy.  To make it worse you've disregarded the idea that we know more about the possible outcomes now than we did over 2 years ago (apparently everyone who voted to leave knew about how fruitless negotiations have been at this point in time and harboured no delusions about being able to make a quick, clean break with favourable trade deals on the table with countries all around the world); you've shown a confusion between elections and non-binding, vaguely defined plebiscites; you've shown disdain for the idea that democracies function best when people are adequately informed of the realities surrounding their vote (oddly choosing to compare the idea of truth and education to communist suppression) and you've demonstrated contempt for the democratic ideal that a populace be allowed to change their minds if the desired outcome appears less attainable/desirable than first thought (why even have governmental elections then?  The people wanted a Tory government it would be undemocratic to ever have another party in power!).

[Alf Bentley]

On 10/11/2018 at 09:05, MattP said:

I still think her plan all along was a far softer Brexit than she led on and she hoped to carry the deal through parliament with the support of Labour remain MP's, I know I've mentioned this before but some Eurosceptic MP's were even blocked from standing in 2017 so she was always having one eye on the rebelious side of the party back then.

If the deal fails to get through parliament I can't see an extension of Article 50 but I can now see a General Election, if she can't carry a policy through we will need a new make up of the house and after a leadership contest the Tory party can see what direction they go (membership is Eurosceptic so we know) and then the Soubry's etc can either stand on the platform properly or leave. Unfortunately I don't really see any other solution. I actually wouldn't even be opposed now to Labour doing this, let's call them out for what they are and see if they can deliver a "jobs first Brexit that pleases everyone".

I think I've already explained why I wouldn't see a second referendum as democratic - the decision of the first one wouldn't have been implemented, it's exactly why the "we have a general election every five years" argument carries no weight, the results of those are implemented - imagine Labour winning a GE and then everyone in the HoL saying we don't like this can you vote again, even if we did and a different outcome occured there would be no way that could be called democratic.

Some of the Tory Brexiteers have behaved appalling, but in the main they are actually the ones trying to hold the Prime Minister to the Conservative manifesto and the speeches she gave at Lancaster House, I need to watch that again at some point but I'm certain almost everything has been rolled back on. I reserve more of my ire (I'm sure you won't be surprised) for the Tories remain lot who were happy to keep their jobs standing on the Hard Brexit platform last year but are now doing everything possible in parliament to thwart it.

It's not fair to put them all in the same basket either, Boris Johnson is a coward, he legged it, Gove stood for PM and was defeated, so did Leadsom, Liam Fox stood and was defeated, Davis and Raab seemed to have no power whatsoever anyway over these negoatiation and looking back I think he "I don't do much" and "I don't need to be clever to do this" were his subtle ways of telling us the job had no sort of influence anyway - Rees Mogg gets a lot of abuse now because of how ubiquitous is he but those people have short memories, he wasn't even a serious player at the time of the referendum, he has came to prominance since it. I can't criticise them in hindsight as May was my choice once the final two were out even against a leaver, she seemed the most competent.

I still think she is going to try and bully her way through parliament to get the deal through, already seems to be trying that with the DUP by threatening a border on the Irish Sea in the event of a No Deal - the Tory remainers are being threatened with Boris as the next leader and the ERG are going to be threatened (I imagine with a General Election or something along the lines of an even softer Brexit after) with getting the deal through with other sides of the house - she's certainly trying to fall on her sword whiilst going.

Grieve might be right, but I suspect May would rather have a General Election than a Second Referendum - Corbyn's stock is getting lower and lower, Labour are still struggling with anti-semitism and she might even manage to win it, she surely can't run a campaign anywhere near as bad as last time and we'll be looking at a manifesto of giveaways rather than austerity as they don't go into this one with a 20% polling lead where they thought they could get away with things like the "dementia tax" and fox hunting votes.
 

 

You might be right about May always planning to get a softer Brexit through at the last minute, relying on Labour defectors to outweigh Tory rebels. She certainly spent 18 months trying to keep both wings of her party on board, rather than making realistic proposals to the EU that would have alienated one wing or the other. Or maybe she just didn't think further than trying to keep the Tory ship afloat, hoping some sort of fudge would prove possible.

 

I'm not criticising leading Tory Brexiteers for failing to become PM, though they did botch the leadership election. Given how dominant Eurosceptics are among the Tory membership, all they had to do was agree on a credible Brexiteer candidate who'd make the final 2 to be put to the membership. Instead, they knifed one another in the back (Gove/Boris), put up multiple candidates (Gove/Fox/Leadsom), still got a candidate (Leadsom) into the final 2....only for her to pull out, giving May a free run. 

 

My point, though, was that leading Brexiteers have held prominent Brexit-related positions in May's cabinet throughout, and some are still there. If Davis and Raab have no power, why have they held the Brexit Secretary position continuously between them? Surely they should have flexed their muscles or left sooner? Did Davis not bother telling Raab he was wasting his time as May was all-powerful? As for Fox, he's been Trade Secretary throughout, promising us all these great trade deals ready to go in March....which have been scuppered for the foreseeable future, not by the EU, but by Russia, USA, Australia and others at the WTO. Does he not bear some responsibility for misleading us so badly? Likewise, they've all spent 2 years telling us that "No Deal is better than a bad deal", "we want a deal, but will be ready for No Deal, if necessary". Yet we are clearly pitifully ill-prepared for No Deal. As Jo Johnson so eloquently put it, we seem to be facing a choice between "vassalage and chaos". Do the various Brexiteer ministers who've been in the cabinet not share responsibility for not seeing that coming and for falsely claiming that everything would be just great?

 

I share your view that it's quite possible that the Tories might win a general election, if there is one. Not only because many are wary of Corbyn, but also on the principle of "they started the job, let them finish it". The outcome would be highly unpredictable, though, so a massive risk. Also, are you suggesting that the Tories would go into the election with May still as leader....that having made such a mess and having seen her govt voted out of office, May would be kept as leader? Surely, if Tory MPs wanted a general election (and the Tories & DUP get to decide), they'd try to change their leader first? If so, there surely wouldn't be the time for that, as the divorce deal needs to be done within a couple of months? Unless the MPs somehow agreed on a unity candidate (Javid?), it would take weeks to consult the membership, then at least 4 weeks for an election campaign.....and the EU would surely be much less likely to agree an Article 50 extension for a general election than for a second referendum? Apart from anything else, an election could well produce a similar result to last time - or a more Eurosceptic Tory Govt, hardly something that the EU would help with. An election brings a big chance of (a) Corbyn or (b) No Deal, so why would Tory Remainer MPs prefer that to a referendum?

 

I voted Remain but, since the Leave vote, have always opposed having another referendum. If May came back with a decent deal, I'd still see that as better than a referendum - which is bound to create all sorts of toxic division in the country. But it sounds as if she's going to return with a dog's breakfast of a deal and try to make MPs choose between that and No Deal - "vassalage or chaos". Under those circumstances, there absolutely IS a democratic argument for another referendum. There's no good option available, but that would be better than years of influence-free dominance by the EU (and growing public anger) or the disaster of a disastrous No Deal for which we are clearly unprepared. Those are absolutely NOT what people voted for - or expected. Once upon a time, Brexiteers claimed that everything would be great if we left with No Deal, but even they don't try to pretend that now. If people are told that something they expected to be rather pointless and disappointing, but acceptable, is in fact going to be an unmitigated disaster that could ruin their lives and ruin their country, why would they not want to use every democratic (and I emphasise "democratic") means available to stop the ship hitting the iceberg? If Remain had won and Cameron had turned round and said that we would be joining the Euro and a federal European superstate, would you not have used all democratic means to fight that?

 

Your suggestions that Tory Remainers should leave the party or should not have stood on the "2017 Hard Brexit manifesto" reminds me of the stance that hard-line Momentum types adopt on the Left: "we are the masters now and we'll crush any minority within our party". Both main parties have always been broad churches with ongoing struggles between Left & Moderates, Europhiles & Eurosceptics etc. Should Rees-Mogg & co have refused to stand for the Tory Party in 2010 or 2015, when it was party policy to stay in the EU and in the Single Market? Should Corbyn have been expelled by Blair - or should the Blairites now be expelled by Corbyn? Of course, it is our electoral system that forces the parties to operate as broad churches. There's an argument that politics would be healthier if there could be, say, a Eurosceptic Thatcherite Party, a moderate Conservative Party, a Blairite Labour Party and a Corbynite Labour Party, though they'd probably end up forming coalition, not majority govts.

 

Yes, it's true that the referendum result has not yet been implemented....but not because it has been thwarted by anti-democratic Remainers. All sorts of promises were made as to the great deal and great future that lay ahead: "great deal with EU"; "loads of global trade deals will be ready to go"; "No Deal is better than a bad deal"; "we're ready for No Deal"; "we're in a strong negotiating position due to our trade deficit"; "the German car makers need us, so Merkel will get the EU to capitulate to our demands for cake". Many thought those promises were fake, many thought they were true. It now seems clear that vassalage or chaos are the only options. There is no great Brexit deal available because the Govt has been unable to negotiate one. If a greengrocer sells me a bag of "great spuds", I take them home and they're all rotten, I have the right to change my mind and seek a different outcome. Whether you think a great Brexit deal was never possible (as I do - though I expected a lot better than this) or whether you think a great Brexit was possible but your govt has failed to provide it (as I presume you do), the shocking alternatives on offer are still clear to everyone, or will be if May returns with the sort of deal anticipated by politicians on every side, who are expressing their disgust. We're allowed to change our mind under such disastrous circumstances, rather than meekly accept that our lives and our country should be ruined because a past decision has proven disastrous in practice.

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but I cannot see May getting her deal (as advertised) through parliament. Too many people on all sides will see years of disaster ahead, for which they risk being blamed. I think a second referendum is becoming increasingly likely - and I don't say that with relish. I'd expect it to be a horrible experience that will cause further division in the country - and might even result in another Leave vote, due to a combination of entrenched views on all sides and Leave-Remain defectors being offset by would-be Remainers with a "British sense of fair play" who wrongly accept the "democratic" argument that "the people have spoken" - and cannot speak again, but must hold course straight ahead for the iceberg.  

 

Sorry for the usual extended rant! Not intending to be hostile in any way. 

Edited 11 November 2018 by Alf Bentley

[fuchsntf]

9 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

Why is it spitting on democracy?  Hardline brexiteers like to make the idea out to be some conspiracy to keep redoing until the 'elites' get the 'right' result but it's more about responding to new information. If you want to make the spitting on democracy argument then you surely have to first concede that the whole shebang in the first place was exactly and disgracefully that from all campaigning sides, at which point your argument becomes irrelevant anyway because it surely can't be anti-democratic to try to redress an anti-democratic clusterfvck.

There was never new information!!!?   

The whys and wherefores,were there to fetch,to know,to try and understand...Incompetent politicians,from both sides lied,and fobbed off the

Electorate.Plus they started themes and ideas,to confuse and Not to help and support the electorate.They actually made promises which wasn't

Theirs to make!!! They tried to get the electorate to forget, the whole business of contracts made for all members,and were quite obnoxious

to/for the rules and laws they signed up for,in Government and the private trading businesses and Banking contracts...

Unfortunately many people ,no matter what their level in society,decided to play dumb and ignorant,just to push their own emotions and opinions

Forward,without gathering for themselves the facts. To be truthful many were just damn lazy to bother!!! They prefered to simply believe in the crap,

That pilgrims used from already failing experts,who also had their own agendas,for individual opinions and ideas...

There were simple facts to put on the table...both sides refused,and went into nonsense tactics,instead of getting to know what the

People on the street,and various business who invested in the EU,really already knew,and what they simp!y wanted to know.

 

Nobody,not one the Politicians put country,before Party,or their own quacky individual career building.....

Like it or like it not, immigration control and border controls was one of the top 2 issues,but they have made a wide berth around this theme.

Many, concessions and controls,like farming and fishing issues,were sold down the line by our Politicians,who found it convenient to blame

Johnny Foreigner EU regulations!!!r

IMO, the British approach was never about a decent Brexit leave campaign,but to keep their national political  face in the headlines,instead

of working the Brexit  for the good of country at the INTERnational level,actually ignoring the obvious points,that leaving members had

agreed with when becoming members years ago!!!  The first year was pathetically carried out at Neanderthal brain dead level...

Beating of chests in front of the British electorate,then incompetence when trying to start honest respectfully negotiations which would be opened

to the EU. present and eventual WWide contract negotiations..

The whole sorry business should of been a cross party Brexit approach,looking for what would be good for the country,and not individual party-politics!!

I was remain,but after the vote,there should of been a cross-party movement that should of concentrated on getting an honest respectfully Brexit,

instead of continual point winning,on the internal party politics...A poor media presentation of mis-representation,according to their party liasons,

and Not upfront reporting,may have also confused the people,looking in every corner,for an honest snippet of facts!!!

 

 

As an expat,I might see more of business and political issues,but I can't see me knowing more,of what is right and important for the actual electorate as individuals and as a people,for their country that want to decide their futures.

The big shame is there wasn't or isnt one politician or group of...that has served their country,

on this historical positioning on the world stage,in a 3-4yr period in trying to get a decent decision and agreement.

This is not to be compared with any business contract or negotiation.There are actual facts that can't now be argued on,we signed..xxx end of!!!

The high political icons have failed the country,and self-appointed experts,have again failed. When it was/is important to have leadership from

group of political people and establishments,The British people have been lied to,and stabbed in the back from their own!!!

 

 

 

[Innovindil]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46169131

 

And it said research among over 1,000 employers suggested that vacancies are becoming harder to fill.

 

The squeeze is leading employers to increase pay rates, said the CIPD.

 

-----

 

Only one way to react to this after being told basically forever that jobs are created to suit incoming migrants and it doesn't have an effect on wages. 

 

Shock. 

 

 

[Jon the Hat]

On 11/11/2018 at 09:59, Finnegan said:

If "it's becoming clear what a disaster brexit is" has become cliché so has "we need to come together."

 

We aren't together, we're divided hugely, we've never been more divided. 

 

There's people who never wanted to leave, people that didn't want to leave but now think we should because of the first vote, there are people that always wanted to leave, there are people that wanted to leave but now want to remain because they were lied to. There are people that want to leave with a deal, there are people that want to leave with a deal but not this one, there are people that want to leave with no deal.

 

How on earth can a government that's ruling without a clear majority, a prime minister whose own party's followers don't want her, make this decision unchecked? 

 

And how on earth can you pretend it's democratic if they do? 

 

I say again, if you're sure that what the people want is to Leave then you shouldn't have any concern, they'll vote that way again. If you're going to claim that the original referendum was honest, was voted for on the grounds of truth, you're nuts. From either sid. I mean, if you want to bemoan "Project Fear" then surely there'll be a big chunk of people that weren't sure that will now vote Leave because they can see those economic benefits you're talking about? Because THEY will feel lied to? 

 

But if you DON'T think it's what the people want and you want to press on regardless? Have the ****ing balls to admit what you are and stop pretending that you love democracy. 

They are not making that decision unchecked, they have to put it to parliament, a legal requirement which many were delighted with 2 years ago but now this is apparently not enough.  Personally I think that barring an massive shift from the EU in the coming days, whatever is put before parliament will be rejected, the Government will fall, a general election is inevitable, and will require a new conservative PM.  Welcome Prime Minister Gove!

[Jon the Hat]

That new government will have a mandate to actually Brexit, and will probably agree a interim arrangement for 2-3 years in the meantime.  No deal is shit for the EU as well.

 

You will note i have been pro-no deal barring a good one on the table, but it has become clear that the Government is completely incapable of managing to prepare effectively, something they should have done before triggering article 50, and certainly before giving away anything at all to the EU negotiators.  What a bloody mess this has been.  Honestly if you said today we could remain for 2-5 years then reconsider I would probably say yes.  I still believe the EU is doomed, but my assumption that we were better off taking the chance to leave in advance of its collapse and being proof there is life outside it has been well and truly wasted by May and her idiots.

Edited 12 November 2018 by Jon the Hat

[Carl the Llama]

8 hours ago, fuchsntf said:

[An essay]

Like I said to Sampson there's been over 2 years since the votes came in and unless you're telling me that you accurately predicted the ebb and flow (or lack thereof) of the negotiating process and the horribly unprofessional approach from our representatives leading us to this point in time where there is still no significant progress, then claiming there's no new information is wilfully disregarding that entire period since the vote. 

 

10 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

That new government will have a mandate to actually Brexit, and will probably agree a interim arrangement for 2-3 years in the meantime.  No deal is shit for the EU as well.

 

You will note i have been pro-no deal barring a good one on the table, but it has become clear that the Government is completely incapable of managing to prepare effectively, something they should have done before triggering article 50, and certainly before giving away anything at all to the EU negotiators.  What a bloody mess this has been.  Honestly if you said today we could remain for 2-5 years then reconsider I would probably say yes.  I still believe the EU is doomed, but my assumption that we were better off taking the chance to leave in advance of its collapse and being proof there is life outside it has been well and truly wasted by May and her idiots.

Thank you, this is exactly what I'm trying to get at. You can say "we already knew that" to all the confirmations of dishonesty and dodgy behaviour from each campaign over the past couple of years and the ensuing argument that the populace was therefore too poorly informed to effect a fair, democratic vote on such a complex issue, but regardless of your stance on remain/leave it's unrealistic to say that things today are exactly as they were when we went to the polls on 23 June 2016.  Ceteris paribus the inability of our representatives to make sufficient preparations to approach the negotiating table effectively and professionally is certainly new information that has come to light since the results were tallied.

[fuchsntf]

31 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Like I said to Sampson there's been over 2 years since the votes came in and unless you're telling me that you accurately predicted the ebb and flow (or lack thereof) of the negotiating process and the horribly unprofessional approach from our representatives leading us to this point in time where there is still no significant progress, then claiming there's no new information is wilfully disregarding that entire period since the vote. 

 

Thank you, this is exactly what I'm trying to get at. You can say "we already knew that" to all the confirmations of dishonesty and dodgy behaviour from each campaign over the past couple of years and the ensuing argument that the populace was therefore too poorly informed to effect a fair, democratic vote on such a complex issue, but regardless of your stance on remain/leave it's unrealistic to say that things today are exactly as they were when we went to the polls on 23 June 2016.  Ceteris paribus the inability of our representatives to make sufficient preparations to approach the negotiating table effectively and professionally is certainly new information that has come to light since the results were tallied.

I agree,with the above...

but regarding information,and needed action that was there from the beginning but many ,including our political spokesm en,either ignored it,or played to the crowds.

and because of falsehoods two years ago in both campaigns,yes I predicted the lack of understanding from the  British side,what points first had to

be recognised and contractual respected!!! So any progress was doomed from the start, worse still The British side stagnated.

New information,is just old regurgitated points,that should of been known from the beginning,our politicians played too long the innocents....

These last 2 years,didn't bring out anything exceptional on  New information ,any disregarding came from our politicians,who then dawdle

and for own means distort the points and discussions on the table...

 

 

 

 

Edited 12 November 2018 by fuchsntf

[Carl the Llama]

13 minutes ago, fuchsntf said:

I agree,with the above...

but regarding information,and needed action that was there from the beginning but many ,including our political spokesm en,either ignored it,or played to the crowds.

and because of falsehoods two years ago in both campaigns,yes I predicted the lack of understanding from the  British side,what points first had to

be recognised and contractual respected!!! So any progress was doomed from the start, worse still The British side stagnated.

New information,is just old regurgitated points,that should of been known from the beginning,our politicians played too long the innocents....

These last 2 years,didn't bring out anything exceptional on  New information ,any disregarding came from our politicians,who then dawdle

and for own means distort the points and discussions on the table...

Again though you're fixating on the arguments surrounding the debate over whether we answer yes or no to the referendum question.  I can accept that people would believe there's no new information in that regard although I firmly believe that there are many out there who have learnt more relevant information since making their decision but that's beside the point.

 

Nobody knew Cameron would cut and run the second results came in; nobody knew May would take over as PM, insist there'd be no snap election, call a snap election, then lose the Tory's parliamentary majority; nobody knew the government would need propping up by bribing the DUP, an act with implications on our approach to the Brexit deal-making process; nobody knew whether or not MPs would get a vote on the final deal, now we know that they will; very few people understood that the Irish border would be an issue, now it's one of the biggest talking points; etc. etc.

 

New information abounds, including much I've not mentioned, and it should all be taken into account when pondering whether we should maintain our current course or have a rethink (be it along the lines of remaining after all or effecting an interim compromise like Jon suggests).

[Strokes]

6 hours ago, Innovindil said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46169131

 

And it said research among over 1,000 employers suggested that vacancies are becoming harder to fill.

 

The squeeze is leading employers to increase pay rates, said the CIPD.

 

-----

 

Only one way to react to this after being told basically forever that jobs are created to suit incoming migrants and it doesn't have an effect on wages. 

 

Shock. 

 

 

Gobsmacked, did not see that coming.

The EU, keeping the poor, poor.