skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
We get to vote again to overturn a general election result though don’t we.
You mean like every general election result there has ever been?
You mean like every general election result there has ever been?
Nice generalisation there. I've said on here I'd go with the EEA as a compromise between both sides, it would honour the vote of leaving the EU. Even prominent Leavers said no one was talking about taking us out of the SM before the vote.
With a general election you can kick them out at the end of their term. Plebiscites are different which is why it should not have been advisory. It should have been carried out as binding with a threshold. Then it would have been subject to stricter controls.
But that's not relevant, because the EU ballot paper only said "leave or remain a member of the EU", regardless of what any of the campaigns said, there was no particular version or outline of Brexit which was required - as per the referendum, the government, via parliamentary approval, has a free hand to negotiate a deal with the EU as it sees fit. In fact, the proposed deal is pretty much a "soft Brexit" - I'd sort of agree with you if we were going for an ultra-Brexit, but the proposed version is pretty much the mildest version available and doesn't represent a more extreme version of what was promised.
But that's not relevant, because the EU ballot paper only said "leave or remain a member of the EU", regardless of what any of the campaigns said, there was no particular version or outline of Brexit which was required - as per the referendum, the government, via parliamentary approval, has a free hand to negotiate a deal with the EU as it sees fit. In fact, the proposed deal is pretty much a "soft Brexit" - I'd sort of agree with you if we were going for an ultra-Brexit, but the proposed version is pretty much the mildest version available and doesn't represent a more extreme version of what was promised.
Even though not legally binding, it was 100% advertised as such i.e. the winner would see their version implemented. Would you, as a remainer, be happy if the government declared A50 and we left anyway, despite the campaign promising we'd remain if Remain won? After all, it was only legally advisory....
There isn’t a strong mandate and therefore Brexit is doomed.
The European Union is doomed and everyone in it.
The two things are not mutually exclusive. There's no reason why a united Ireland cannot exist outside the EU. The Republic only joined in the first place so as not to sever its economic ties with the North of Ireland and the rest of the UK.More chance of a United Ireland than the EU being doomed....
The Republic only joined in the first place so as not to sever its economic ties with the North of Ireland and the rest of the UK.
Give it time and the collapse of the €uro when interest rates start to rise.Funny how there’s no hunger to leave the EU in Ireland now that tie is being severed.
Even though not legally binding, it was 100% advertised as such i.e. the winner would see their version implemented. Would you, as a remainer, be happy if the government declared A50 and we left anyway, despite the campaign promising we'd remain if Remain won? After all, it was only legally advisory....
The point being if they wanted to enforce the result, why go for an advisory referendum in the first place? The rules are apparently not as strict and there was no threshold. A majority of 1 vote could have changed the future of the country. The country is now split. The government wasn’t able to get a landslide victory at the last election to take us through Brexit. That’s it. There isn’t a strong mandate and therefore Brexit is doomed. Put it out as a vote on the deal or scrap it Brexit.
how can a more extreme version have been promised if the government had a free hand to negotiate and the ballot paper said only leave or remain? I've said it many times, there was no consensus as to what Brexit meant. You can look through interviews with all the main protagonists and they all hold conflicting opinions. This whole thing wouldn't be such a mess if there'd been a bit more definition before votes were cast.
No. Of course not. That is not what is happening here. The government cannot extract us without causing damage. This a totally different scenario to what was promised.
THey have had 2.5 years and it’s looking bad. If we had remained and a major disaster in the EU meant that if we stayed we would take a hit, then maybe I would see it differently ( if Remain had won ). What we have on the table is unacceptable to most people in the UK, and it is probably the best deal we can get. At some time we have to admit that leaving puts us in a worse state than if we were to remain. In any case no one is proposing that the government scrap Brexit without putting it back to the people. Even I wouldn’t want that. When I say scrap Brexit, I mean that the people do that, not the government alone
How about explaining how you came to this conclusion from what I said.Even the UN has pointed the finger at the current government for the countries rising child poverty and inequality within society, yet you still do their dirty work and blame working, tax paying migrants.
So it's the old "Brexit is going wrong, stop it now!" argument.....the point of a referendum, unlike an election, is you make a once in a generation choice and live with the consequences. I do not recall this whole "Stop Brexit, People's Vote" business before the 2016 result when everyone expected Remain to win. It would be totalyl unfair to go back on the basis of the 2016 vote just because it doesn't look like it's panning out badly. After all, Remainers wanted to block the 2016 vote despite "the facts changing" via the Treaties of Rome, Maastricht and Lisbon - now they're in danger of losing, all of a sudden a referendum is a good idea.....rank hypocrisy.
As Mrs May would say, nothing has changed. Nothing happening now was unforeseeable at the time. The UK has bought Brexit (unfortunately), time to live with the consequences.
It was always advisory, was no mention at all of it being binding in the Referendum Act. The briefing paper very clearly states 'it does not contain any requirement for the UK government to implement the result'.I don't recall why it was set up as an advisory referendum, but that's beside the point, which is that it was made clear to all concerned during the campaign that the result would be honoured either way, regardless of the advisory nature of the legislation. That was something accepted by all the participants, and then parliament voted through Article 50 to ensure that this promise was honoured. If you're being fair, you would acknowledge that the barrier for Remain should not be lower than the barrier for Leave - therefore it was always going to be that 50% plus 1 would see one side win
OK to be clear, if the UK govt got a declaration of article 50 through parliament without any referendum (advisory or binding), which would be entirely within the law and EU treaties, would you be cool with that?It was always advisory, was no mention at all of it being binding in the Referendum Act. The briefing paper very clearly states 'it does not contain any requirement for the UK government to implement the result'.
50% plus 1 sounds great until you actually put any thought in to it. Cameron clearly didn't put any thought in at all or there would have been discussion over if 50% plus 1 was sufficient, if there was a minimum turnout requirement, if all 4 countries had to give the same result etc. He just assumed it would be an easy win.
So it's the old "Brexit is going wrong, stop it now!" argument.....the point of a referendum, unlike an election, is you make a once in a generation choice and live with the consequences. I do not recall this whole "Stop Brexit, People's Vote" business before the 2016 result when everyone expected Remain to win. It would be totalyl unfair to go back on the basis of the 2016 vote just because it doesn't look like it's panning out badly. After all, Remainers wanted to block the 2016 vote despite "the facts changing" via the Treaties of Rome, Maastricht and Lisbon - now they're in danger of losing, all of a sudden a referendum is a good idea.....rank hypocrisy.
As Mrs May would say, nothing has changed. Nothing happening now was unforeseeable at the time. The UK has bought Brexit (unfortunately), time to live with the consequences.
Well that's how parliament normally works and we're told that people want parliament to have the power to make more decisions.OK to be clear, if the UK govt got a declaration of article 50 through parliament without any referendum (advisory or binding), which would be entirely within the law and EU treaties, would you be cool with that?
OK to be clear, if the UK govt got a declaration of article 50 through parliament without any referendum (advisory or binding), which would be entirely within the law and EU treaties, would you be cool with that?
Well that's how parliament normally works and we're told that people want parliament to have the power to make more decisions.
My personal preference, with hindsight being a wonderful thing, would be for parliament to debate and agree upon our negotiating stance (things like customs union, Irish border, immigration policy) and then have a vote on that. Would have eliminated all the brexit means brexit, hard brexit / soft brexit arguments.
Also think it would have given our negotiators a stronger stance as they could push to the EU negotiators that they are acting on the will of the people.
As we discussed before, I think this will eventually be his downfall but I still can't believe how many think he is pro-Remain. I will never vote for the party again while he is in charge.
There was no actual event which even warranted a decision. The EU was plodding along as normal. The advent of social media magnified the voice of fringe groups like UKIP. Farage admits that. 2008 started him getting recognition through YouTube. His public slagging off of the first EU parliament president in 2010 got him huge coverage on YouTube. He became a household name and UKIP took off. People loved him slagging off an organisation of 500 million people. The little man against „the global elite’. The Tories panicked and tried to pull the rug from under UKIP‘s feet by offering a referendum... and here we are. Absolutely no reason of national interest to leave. Now we have good reason to be worried about where we are headed. We have good reason to reconsider and put it back to the people in the national interest. This is really crazy.
But on the other side.....It was always advisory, was no mention at all of it being binding in the Referendum Act. The briefing paper very clearly states 'it does not contain any requirement for the UK government to implement the result'.
50% plus 1 sounds great until you actually put any thought in to it. Cameron clearly didn't put any thought in at all or there would have been discussion over if 50% plus 1 was sufficient, if there was a minimum turnout requirement, if all 4 countries had to give the same result etc. He just assumed it would be an easy win.
Corbyn is a politician.FWIW my opinion on the Corbyn leave/remain thing (and McDonnell as I think he plays a part too)
Corbyn has always been an eurosceptic, hence what his voting record looks like. That said, I think he (and McDonnell) place a higher value on nationalisation of commodities than that of being in or out of Europe. I think they thought that at the time prior to the referendum that reform of the EU (and the UK's relationship with them) would be the only way to acheive this, albeit a long and drawn out process. Then Brexit happens, and then all of a sudden a GE. They then see an opportunity to see Brexit through - thus respecting the democratic vote, but also an easier way to get that dream of nationalising the things that they want to. They don't want to remain or May's deal as they will be unable to follow this through to completion should they ever come to power.
I also agree with you that it may well be his downfall. If Labour back a 2nd referendum they will never get into government, and he will be gone. They will lose their leave voters which will take away those constituencies they have to hold in order to ever get close to a workable position - never mind a majority. A people's vote is equally risky, especially if Remain is one of the options.
Again - just my opinion, not saying it's right or wrong.
Corbyn is a politician.
Labour has a go at the Tories. The Tories have a go at Labour. He wants to have a go at the Tory leader. But if he agrees with us leaving he can't have that much of a go. So he then has to make out that he wants to remain and that leaving isn't the right thing to do.
You can always tell when a politician is lying. Their lips move.
So why is he doing it?Surely he must know to go against the democratic result would be political suicide?
So why is he doing it?
So why is he doing it?
he's not is he? He's ruled out a peoples vote and a second referendum in the short term.
No he hasn't.he's not is he? He's ruled out a peoples vote and a second referendum in the short term.
Whether I'm happy with it or not is irrelevant. It was an advisory referendum, the time for complaining about that was when the referendum terms were being agreed.Would you have been happy with the situation called advisory referendum if we had voted remain but needed another referendum to see if we were sure we wanted to remain?
And what would the use of having a referendum if the result was going to be ignored?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?