News BREXIT - more good than bad or more bad than good?

[Ryan_m_b]

Technically sure, the referendum was nonbinding. But if you hold a referendum, and then ignore the outcome, it sends the message to the populace that their opinion matters, but only if it's the right opinion.

I don't agree, though I acknowledge many feel that way. I would agree if the vote wasn't so close and if it wasn't advisory. As it stands it's up to the elected representatives to make a decision on a very important, close referendum that has turned into a political Charlie Foxtrot in the following week.

 

[mheslep]

I don't agree, though I acknowledge many feel that way. I would agree if the vote wasn't so close and if it wasn't advisory. As it stands it's up to the elected representatives to make a decision on a very important, close referendum that has turned into a political Charlie Foxtrot in the following week.

The logic of that argument is that close outcomes in a referendum have no consequences, that they are no different from an extensive poll.

A referendum serves the purpose of addressing a single issue in a representative democracy, where representatives are chosen based on traditional positions across a range of issues. To ignore the referendum, forces the electorate to increasingly choose representation that they agree with on the single issue (as has been ongoing in the UK) but disagree with on the whole, leading to a country led by those with whom the majority is in large disagreement across major parties.

 

[mheslep]

... I'm certain that no interpretation can be found for which there would be majority support in the UK, especially as Scotland and Northern Ireland are against any form of Leave...

Youre certain, post referendum, that there is no majority support in the UK for leaving the EU via Article 50?

 

[Jonathan Scott]

Youre certain, post referendum, that there is no majority support in the UK for leaving the EU via Article 50?

No, I'm saying that there's no specific realistic target position (for example whether still single market or not) which would satisfy such a majority.

It appears that what most people wanted when they voted was not what was on the ballot paper but rather what was promised by Vote Leave, e.g. to stop paying the EU fees and have more money for the NHS, to prevent "unwanted" immigration and so on. They did not vote for example to bring back border controls between Northern Ireland and the Republic, but that might well be a consequence of their vote (although a united Ireland might be an interesting alternative).

 

[Buckleymanor]

So people can vote, so long as they don't vote the wrong way - and then they must be stopped. Does it surprise you that some people bristle at this?

I would agree with you but it's not that clear cut you can't say it's a clear mandate a couple of percentage points is no reason to bristle caution is required.

 

[mheslep]

Next up:

...Although the Netherlands is a founder EU member and currently holds the EU presidency, a June poll showed 54 per cent of people want a referendum on EU membership, while 48 per cent would vote to leave and 45 per cent to remain.

...A recent survey by the Pew Research Centre found that only 38 per cent of France had a favourable view of the EU, marking an astonishing negative shift in attitudes towards Brussels since the 2009 financial crisis

...a survey found that 48 per cent of Italians would opt to leave the bloc if given the opportunity of a British-style referendum.

...A recent poll found that 40 per cent of Austrians want an “Auxit” referendum. A majority of 53 per cent said if there was a referendum, they would vote to remain.

Unsurprisingly, and revealingly:

...A recent poll for Stern magazine found that just 17 per cent of Germans would vote to leave in a referendum, while 79 per cent would vote to remain

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...vote-raises-fears-of-a-tsunami-of-eu-members/

CNBC, from IPSOS poll.

 

[rootone]

Gets more intriguing all the time.
Let's suppose France and Netherlands had referendums with a similar result to UK, (indecisive but narrowly opposed to EU membership.).
So then what, EU v2.0, with UK, France and NL, as core group of the new one?, which of neccesity would be joined eventually by Ireland.
Italy is a different story, but it's not surprising just because of where they are geographically, Greece and Portugal, Spain too. (EU, v3.0?)

 

[mheslep]

A smaller group of couple countries with closer and longer historical ties probably was the place to start in the first place, and then only for trade.

 

[nsaspook]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...s-eu-referendum-petition-latest-a7128306.html

The Government has rejected a call for a second referendum on European Union membership in a petition that was signed by more than 4.1 million people following the Brexit vote.

It was the most-signed Government petition since the process was introduced in 2011.

However in an official reply, the Foreign Office said 33 million people had had their say and “the decision must be respected”.

 

[Buckleymanor]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...s-eu-referendum-petition-latest-a7128306.html

Which decision must be respected thirty tears ago we had the referendum to join the EU and they have not respected the say of the voters from that.
It is a joke!

 

[mheslep]

After 30 more years then have another go.

 

[russ_watters]

Which decision must be respected thirty tears ago we had the referendum to join the EU and they have not respected the say of the voters from that.
It is a joke!

Seriously? 30 years is enough time for the situation to change. It certainly is no a do-over vote like what people want now.

 

[Buckleymanor]

Why 30 why not 49 or 1 year the contractual obligations towards the voters are not worth the paper they are wrote on.
Lots of people will have built there business around the EU only to have them removed because of infighting within the Conservatives.
So what is the point in doing the same under the new Brexit rules only to have them removed again after yet another referendum.
You don't or won't get the point there is no point in having a referendum in the first place if you don't stick to the first result.
Not the second or third each result after the first destabilises the country and it's economy if you can not trust a referendum what can you.

 

[Buckleymanor]

Seriously? 30 years is enough time for the situation to change. It certainly is no a do-over vote like what people want now.

That is the point the situation has changed and most business within GB are more involved within the EU and never wanted a referendum in the first place.
The only reason there was one was because the Conservatives were frightened of defects to UKIP which would cause a split within the party so to appease the rebels one was offered.
The sad fact now is there is a bigger and far worse split which is likely to cause more harm, the electorate.

 

[russ_watters]

That is the point the situation has changed...

What, specifically, has changed?

...and most business within GB are more involved within the EU and never wanted a referendum in the first place.

That's do-over talk, not "the situation has changed". The vote said what it said. It represents the will of the people, to the level of which it is capable, whether the outcome pleases the people who lost or not.

 

[rootone]

One of the big arguments at the moment is that after the result the 'exit' campaigners pretty much openly admitted that much of the basis of the case was fraudulent.
There is no extra money available for the health service, There are no expulsions of 'foreigners' taking place, the rest of the world is not falling over themselves to get preferential trade deals with the UK, and guess what else, the old empire countries are not begging for the return of British dominion over them.
Still the result is what it is. and it's not unheard of that voters can persuaded by promises of milk and honey, and pots of gold at the end of the rainbow.

 

[mheslep]

Why 30 why not 49 or 1 year the contractual obligations towards the voters are not worth the paper they are wrote on.

You use the word contractual to mean the people of the UK were bound to the EU forever, and bound by the choices of people 30 years ago, as if the Article 50 exit procedure did not exist. You know, I know, and everyone else here knows this not the case so why not give it a rest?

Lots of people will have built there business around the EU only to have them removed because of infighting within the Conservatives.

The 'because' is 17 million votes to leave. The EU did enable new business, and lots of people in the UK had their businesses or jobs destroyed by EU rules.

...You don't or won't get the point there is no point in having a referendum in the first place if you don't stick to the first result

Right, then it's back to the devine right of kings. Off to the Tower with the dissent.

 

[russ_watters]

One of the big arguments at the moment is that after the result the 'exit' campaigners pretty much openly admitted that much of the basis of the case was fraudulent...

...and it's not unheard of that voters can persuaded by promises of milk and honey, and pots of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Yes, that's pretty much par for the course in politics, unfortunately.

 

[Astronuc]

One potential consequence of Britain leaving the EU, if Scotland breaks from the UK.

Britain Needs a New Place to Park Its Nukes
The U.K.’s entire nuclear arsenal lives on four submarines in Scotland. And it’s got nowhere to put them if Scotland bolts.

http://foreignpolicy.com/2016/07/10/britain-needs-a-new-place-to-park-its-nukes/Finger on the nuclear button
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_7758000/7758347.stm

Nuclear deterrence - "If Britain is substantially destroyed by a nuclear strike and the prime minister is killed, the captain of the submarine on patrol (one is always out there, armed and ready to strike) will open his safe, take out the prime minister's instructions, and act on them."

 

[mheslep]

There is no extra money available for the health service,

No extra money at all, or that some in Exit exaggerated the amount (as you do in in reverse here) It's widely understood some 250 million euros a week goes from the UK to EU control. That will end. Surely some can go to NHS instead.

There are no expulsions of 'foreigners' taking place, the rest of the world is not falling over themselves to get preferential trade deals with the UK, and guess what else, the old empire countries are not begging for the return of British dominion over them.
Still the result is what it is. and it's not unheard of that voters can persuaded by promises of milk and honey, and pots of gold at the end of the rainbow.

I've not seen those claims from Exit leadership. New kinds of expulsions were promised? Is that all hyperbole, or do you have an example reference?

 

[mheslep]

One potential consequence of Britain leaving the EU, if Scotland breaks from the UK.

Britain Needs a New Place to Park Its Nukes
The U.K.’s entire nuclear arsenal lives on four submarines in Scotland. And it’s got nowhere to put them ...

There's been a plausible suggestion that, in the event of Scottish separation, the subs use US ports.

 

[rootone]

I've not seen those claims from Exit leadership. New kinds of expulsions were promised? Is that all hyperbole, or do you have an example reference?

I can't remember a specific claim to that effect from one the campaign leaders, but the 'foreigners go home' meme was pretty much right at the top of the agenda in online discussions sponsored by popular right wing newspapers such as 'The Daly Mail' and 'The Sun'.
However the exit campaign leadership definitely did say on several occasions that the one of the primary aims was abandonment of freedom of movement to the UK for citizens of other EU countries.
For some reason this public ire seemed to be focused on Turkish immigrants, and Turkey isn't even an EU member state.

 

[epenguin]

Oh well, a lot of what has been said is now outdated or by the way. The rival has withdrawn, we now have a new PM in waiting, she might take up office in matter of days. To have been without a government with the authority to do anything about our relations with Europe (and let's not mention, no Opposition either) until September was a crazy situation we risked being in.

It was remarkable that out of half a dozen candidates every single one has looked bad and had ugly things exposed in the campaign. (In the case of Ms. May and one other the egg on their face was old and dried.)

Ms. May is really an Outer, only posing as a Remainder. She was very eloquently quiet during the campaign and has said some extraordinary things about immigration, as if it had had nothing to do with her as key Minister like she had not belonged at all to the government of which she was the Number Three! I am sorry the winner was not Johnson, who instead is a Remainder posing as an Outer. He might have had the imagination and skill to be able to pull off a Remain under acceptable conditions. (However I couldn't vote for something on the basis of it having a 1 in 10 chance of happening). Ms. May is said to be tough, but I have never seen in her much indication of flair or imagination.

Anyway she has now made it clear that as the referendum vote was for Brexit that is what it will be. So she now just has the job of: forming a government; forming a policy; forming negotiating and policy aims, teams, strategies.

 

[Buckleymanor]

You use the word contractual to mean the people of the UK were bound to the EU forever, and bound by the choices of people 30 years ago, as if the Article 50 exit procedure did not exist. You know, I know, and everyone else here knows this not the case so why not give it a rest?

The 'because' is 17 million votes to leave. The EU did enable new business, and lots of people in the UK had their businesses or jobs destroyed by EU rules.Right, then it's back to the devine right of kings. Off to the Tower with the dissent.

It is the case Article 50 only came into existence in 2009.

!5 million to stay an employment record the highest it has ever been before we joined the EU GB had a pretty bad economy now it's second within the EU.

It's not the divine right of kings more like the public was sold a sick pup and you support it.
I don't imagine it will get better any time soon.
Just a side observation Anthea Leadsom has quit the race for PM .I will give it to Brexit lot they are exceptional quitters .

 

[Buckleymanor]

What, specifically, has changed?

That's do-over talk, not "the situation has changed". The vote said what it said. It represents the will of the people, to the level of which it is capable, whether the outcome pleases the people who lost or not.

It does not represent the will of the people any more than the election as Mrs, May as prime minister.When push comes to shove as far as the Conservatives are concerned party comes before the will of the people.
They don't even get a vote and if they do it is ignored.

 

[russ_watters]

It does not represent the will of the people...

Huh? What is a referendum if not an attempt to gauge the will of the people? If it had gone the way you wanted it to, would you still say that?

Also, since you didn't say what has changed, can I take that as a retraction of that claim?

 

[mheslep]

However the exit campaign leadership definitely did say on several occasions that the one of the primary aims was abandonment of freedom of movement to the UK for citizens of other EU countries.

Sure, which is different from expelling people already legally arrived in country. That's not going to happen.

From the evidence I've seen, aside from the inflation of the UK payment to the EU made by one group, the case for Exit by Exit leadership was fairly made.

 

[mheslep]

It's not the divine right of kings more like the public was sold a sick pup and you support it.

You stated the country was under some kind of contract to stick to the first result, this, despite the exit clause agreed to Lisbon by the UK. If so, who are you to say when time begins? Why can I not choose the Stuart's proclamation of the DRoK, find a bloke named Stuart, and have you step and fetch for him?

I understand you don't like the outcome, fine, your opinion is as valid as another's and more than mine as I don't live in the UK. But the rest: 17 million people don't count, it was all a fraud by Exit, against the contract - that's all nonsense.

 

[Buckleymanor]

Huh? What is a referendum if not an attempt to gauge the will of the people? If it had gone the way you wanted it to, would you still say that?

Also, since you didn't say what has changed, can I take that as a retraction of that claim?

I don't think you are really interested in what happened if won't to believe that this was a necessary referendum when the rest of Europe has managed to cooperate fore the sake of the greater good then fine.
As for what has changed the Lisbon treaty has been hijacked by a minority to further right wing politics.

 

[rootone]

Ah well, at least there now seems to be the prospect of sane negotiation replacing sloganeering and shouting now that a replacement PM has been decided.
Theresa May has still to announce what sort of 'Brexit' she favours though, (and tbh she has expressed in the past both of remain and exit sentiments)
Options range from the Norway model, a sort of associate membership which still requires freedom of movement,
Through to plain WTO rules, in which UK has no special access at all to EU markets, and has to set up new bilateral trade deals with individual countries, probably involving tariffs on both exports and imports,.