Another new Brexit thread

[journolud]

It solves nothing.

We will have a hung parliament after the next GE and we would have an almost 50/50 split in a second ref, plus who is going to take it seriously when the result of the first one wasnt enacted?

Whats the question on it?

Is it legally binding this time?

Is it won by one single vote or do we have to have a super majority?

Will the losers respect or do we have the same situation yet again?

Are you being deliberately obtuse? A second referendum on a specific deal is very different to a vote on a general principle with the details to be worked out later because “it will be the easiest deal in history “.

 

[Metal Biker]

The thread IQ takes a sharp downward turn.

I know, but we'll forgive you.

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

"Few voters have changed their minds
Third, very few voters on either side of the argument have changed their minds about whether the UK should leave the EU. The country appears to be just as divided as it was three years ago."

Remoaners:

I'm happy to take the chance. As i've said before, we might vote in numerous referendums to leave the EU - it will still end up being a shit deal or a no deal and wont get majority support.

As soon as you put a firm brexit proposal on the table it will get shit on by all sides. And then if we ever action that plan it will bring down whatever government tries it very quickly and with lasting damage. Leavers are backed well and truly into a corner. Brexit is shit, we have to come to accept that to move on, so do we abandon it or accept a shit situation. I don't think the latter has ever been a successful political strategy, irrespective of how many referendums you have in the lead in...

 

[blueinsa]

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

I'm being a democrat.

 

[SWP's back]

That's not what i said or think, no.

More than happy for us to rejoin the EU in another ref once we have left as per the result of the first one.

The Leave campaign painted a false picture of free trade (and the rest).

That isn’t the reality of it so put whatever deal we secure from Europe to the vote in a binding referendum.

you know as well as I do that would be the correct thing to do but you know it wouldn’t pass so you’re against the idea.

 

[Metal Biker]

Are you being deliberately obtuse? A second referendum on a specific deal is very different to a vote on a general principle with the details to be worked out later because “it will be the easiest deal in history “.

So long as the options are "deal or no deal", because the option to remain isn't one of the outcomes people intended when they voted to leave.

I personally would love to know what remainers preferred "leave" option would be, which is why i'm confident in that scenario, "leave with a deal" would win by a landslide.

 

[Coatigan]

Yet you are trying to reinvent our democratic process.

Since when have we had a vote and immediately said to the losing side right how do you want us to implement our policies?

Yes wins does the SNP turn to NO and say right, lets work with you here on this?

Im not shouting, im telling you how our system has worked for ever and a day.

Brexit has seemingly rewritten the rules and i cant wait for the next GE and as the winner is announced the opposition refuse to accept the result or the calls for it to be ignored and everyone sharing power because many didn't vote for the government so who represents them etc.

If YES wins by one single vote then independence should happen.

If the Greens win Brighton by election by one single vote they take the seat and everyone else takes it on the chin.

If Labour win a GE by one single vote then they should take power.

There is no lucky or plucky loser badge in our politics and never has been.

(Bear with me on the typos please, i wont double check before posting)

Right, so in this winner takes all world, if brexit is overturned by a single vote, that too will be absolutely fine, as it is only the result that matters, and not the process in the slightest.

Look i don't want to be facetious, im pointing out the extremity of your logic.

I get your view is entrenched, but it is just as undemocratic to isolate all other views and stick with the preferential one. I do fully get what you mean, re the vote should be respected, but you can hardly argue no effort is being made. Even the ones in parliament piggybacking it for their own political gain (and they are on both sides i'm sure you agree) have put time into it.

You say a vote not being respected has never happened before, actually, it has. Scotland 'won' an independence referendum in 1979, by 52% (the irony, i know). But this was reduced proportionally relative to the turnout which was 64% (actually average in UK politics) and counted as 33% of the electorate. After protests, votes of no confidence, SNP withdrawal from government, guess what, democracy survived, it has largely been forgotton about, does anyone feel wronged by it? i don't, i doubt you do.

Lets exclude the example, and say you are right. The reason there is no precedent for a referendum vote being re-examined, is because it is unprecedented, an issue this complex, this contentious, and this divisive, with such fine margins. Past referendums have been convincingly decisice, by large margins. So surely we are not so absolute as a society to distil such significant sociological issues to basic integers!

I'll tell you why i believe it is democratic to ask again.

1. Lies were told, sure, they always are yoj say. But these are big big ones, that had a big sway. Leave campaigns promised anything and everything to swing every single voter specificly by what pushed their buttons. Ones that are and always were, completely undeliverable.

2. And thats just the legal ones, that we know about. The underground campaign, illegaly and disproportionately funded, we will never truly know what people were targeted with. it was by no means a fair campaign or referendum

3. The constituent nations were not fairly represented. The UK voted as a whole, aye right. 4m voters are never going to have any meaningful representation proportionally against the english electorate. And, absolutely, it isnt England's fault for having a larger population. But neither is it Scotland's for having a vastly lesser one.
The democratically elected First Minister of a nation, specifically insisted that each nation have an equal say bu a majority needed in each country. This was overruled, so sovereignty was not respected. I'm sorry, i might not advocate a reversal, and i do respect the result, but no way can i possibly consider it democratic. in fact i could argue (which im not) that carrying out brexit is undemocratic.

So, The resultant outcome, either one of the only likely two is sooo vastly different to what was sold. Whether deliberately or through misguided illusion, or incompetence. Again, surely, we must be mature enough as a society to be able to recognise and address that.

What is your arguement against a referendum, erm, we've already had one, and this could overturn it? The brexit referendum itself is to overturn the result of a 1975 referendum!

Being asked again, is not undemocratic. It is just transparent on the now known consequences and outcomes. And it puts both arguements to bed. Both my 'people had no clue what they were getting, whether lies or not' and the other extrene of 'brexit in name only, this isnt what we voted for', both which will continue to pull the country apart long after brexit is concluded, if it is just blindlly implemented to crash through some arbitrary self decided deadline.



And yes, should Scotland get independence, the SNP SHOULD absolutely work with the other 40% thereafter, if they want to have a country and society left worth being independent, or worth anything at all.

I can't be more honest with you than that.

 

[bluejon]

So long as the options are "deal or no deal", because the option to remain isn't one of the outcomes people intended when they voted to leave.

I personally would love to know what remainers preferred "leave" option would be, which is why i'm confident in that scenario, "leave with a deal" would win by a landslide.

My preferred option would be for the UK to remain in a customs union and Nigel Farage be shot out of a cannon into the fucking moon. I would be very happy with that deal.

 

[blueinsa]

The Leave campaign painted a false picture of free trade (and the rest).

That isn’t the reality of it so put whatever deal we secure from Europe to the vote in a binding referendum.

you know as well as I do that would be the correct thing to do but you know it wouldn’t pass so you’re against the idea.

The remain campaign scared people into voting to remain by painting pictures of financial Armageddon immediately after a vote to leave.

Look mate I'm not laying out the ref campaign yet again.

Its been done to death and as per the BBC article this morning, literally no one has changed their minds on the issue.

Can I also point out Parliament are not interested in a second ref either other than the revokers who only want to use it to get what they want.

 

[blueinsa]

(Bear with me on the typos please, i wont double check before posting)

Right, so in this winner takes all world, if brexit is overturned by a single vote, that too will be absolutely fine, as it is only the result that matters, and not the process in the slightest.

Look i don't want to be facetious, im pointing out the extremity of your logic.

I get your view is entrenched, but it is just as undemocratic to isolate all other views and stick with the preferential one. I do fully get what you mean, re the vote should be respected, but you can hardly argue no effort is being made. Even the ones in parliament piggybacking it for their own political gain (and they are on both sides i'm sure you agree) have put time into it.

You say a vote not being respected has never happened before, actually, it has. Scotland 'won' an independence referendum in 1979, by 52% (the irony, i know). But this was reduced proportionally relative to the turnout which was 64% (actually average in UK politics) and counted as 33% of the electorate. After protests, votes of no confidence, SNP withdrawal from government, guess what, democracy survived, it has largely been forgotton about, does anyone feel wronged by it? i don't, i doubt you do.

Lets exclude the example, and say you are right. The reason there is no precedent for a referendum vote being re-examined, is because it is unprecedented, an issue this complex, this contentious, and this divisive, with such fine margins. Past referendums have been convincingly decisice, by large margins. So surely we are not so absolute as a society to distil such significant sociological issues to basic integers!

I'll tell you why i believe it is democratic to ask again.

1. Lies were told, sure, they always are yoj say. But these are big big ones, that had a big sway. Leave campaigns promised anything and everything to swing every single voter specificly by what pushed their buttons. Ones that are and always were, completely undeliverable.

2. And thats just the legal ones, that we know about. The underground campaign, illegaly and disproportionately funded, we will never truly know what people were targeted with. it was by no means a fair campaign or referendum

3. The constituent nations were not fairly represented. The UK voted as a whole, aye right. 4m voters are never going to have any meaningful representation proportionally against the english electorate. And, absolutely, it isnt England's fault for having a larger population. But neither is it Scotland's for having a vastly lesser one.
The democratically elected First Minister of a nation, specifically insisted that each nation have an equal say bu a majority needed in each country. This was overruled, so sovereignty was not respected. I'm sorry, i might not advocate a reversal, and i do respect the result, but no way can i possibly consider it democratic. in fact i could argue (which im not) that carrying out brexit is undemocratic.

So, The resultant outcome, either one of the only likely two is sooo vastly different to what was sold. Whether deliberately or through misguided illusion, or incompetence. Again, surely, we must be mature enough as a society to be able to recognise and address that.

What is your arguement against a referendum, erm, we've already had one, and this could overturn it? The brexit referendum itself is to overturn the result of a 1975 referendum!

Being asked again, is not undemocratic. It is just transparent on the now known consequences and outcomes. And it puts both arguements to bed. Both my 'people had no clue what they were getting, whether lies or not' and the other extrene of 'brexit in name only, this isnt what we voted for', both which will continue to pull the country apart long after brexit is concluded, if it is just blindlly implemented to crash through some arbitrary self decided deadline.



And yes, should Scotland get independence, the SNP SHOULD absolutely work with the other 40% thereafter, if they want to have a country and society left worth being independent, or worth anything at all.

I can't be more honest with you than that.

Give me some time to come back, snowed under with work here and i need to get some done.

 

[Coatigan]

Yet here we are and virtually no one has changed their minds in 3 years.

That suggests to me that the lies that came from both sides barely had an impact.

Maybe. If so, be it. At least we will all know, and be able to back it up.

 

[Metal Biker]

I'm happy to take the chance. As i've said before, we might vote in numerous referendums to leave the EU - it will still end up being a shit deal or a no deal and wont get majority support.

As soon as you put a firm brexit proposal on the table it will get shit on by all sides. And then if we ever action that plan it will bring down whatever government tries it very quickly and with lasting damage. Leavers are backed well and truly into a corner. Brexit is shit, we have to come to accept that to move on, so do we abandon it or accept a shit situation. I don't think the latter has ever been a successful political strategy, irrespective of how many referendums you have in the lead in...

Why? We've been told for years that "people have changed their minds". All the evidence shows that people haven't, not by a large enough margin to justify holding a second referendum on membership, because if you did manage to get your way and overturn the first result with a slim margin, there is absolutely nothing to suggest the "losing" side would or should back down and be silent, demand another referendum, so the whole issue drags on and on with the UK still in this hokey-cokey limbo with the EU.

You want this finished and over? Back leaving with a deal and once we're out, begin a campaign for us to rejoin the EU.

 

[SWP's back]

I'm being a democrat.

Which in the U.K. means that Parliament is sovereign and they have the final decision and voting power and you’re welcome to vote out your local MP.

 

[Metal Biker]

My preferred option would be for the UK to remain in a customs union and Nigel Farage be shot out of a cannon into the fucking moon. I would be very happy with that deal.

And we can organise trade deals independently from the EU in that scenario?

 

[Metal Biker]

Which in the U.K. means that Parliament is sovereign and they have the final decision and voting power and you’re welcome to vote out your local MP.

But they're refusing to offer a General Election.

 

[Gareth Barry Conlon]

Why? We've been told for years that "people have changed their minds". All the evidence shows that people haven't, not by a large enough margin to justify holding a second referendum on membership, because if you did manage to get your way and overturn the first result with a slim margin, there is absolutely nothing to suggest the "losing" side would or should back down and be silent, demand another referendum, so the whole issue drags on and on with the UK still in this hokey-cokey limbo with the EU.

You want this finished and over? Back leaving with a deal and once we're out, begin a campaign for us to rejoin the EU.

This is quite simple - whatever happens the EU question will be the biggest single issue at the next GE and the one after that. Leave or remain it will be the biggest issue. If we leave then the rejoin argument will kick off, your right on that, but even without that there are a million other things that will still need to be sorted re trade and the economic mess that leaving will have caused. If we remain the leave argument will still be ongoing.

The idea that brext will go away once something happens is farcical. This will define politics for the next 10 years at least - whatever happens in the next 12 months.

 

[Coatigan]

It solves nothing.

We will have a hung parliament after the next GE and we would have an almost 50/50 split in a second ref, plus who is going to take it seriously when the result of the first one wasnt enacted?

Whats the question on it?

Is it legally binding this time?

Is it won by one single vote or do we have to have a super majority?

Will the losers respect or do we have the same situation yet again?

A G.E would resolve nothing. A second referendum would, and inho is required with or without one.

I'll admit, when it was first mooted, some two years ago, i was against it. I considered undemocratic. i did. I thought, if it comes, il abstain (couldnt possibly vote leave on some spiteful principle, as it is not what i believe in), but wouldnt help overturn it either.


But then i thought about it, like an adult. And i applied it to the Scotland situation, and what would i do if something i voted for (however ideologically well intended or ambitiously idealistic) resulted in the clusterfuck that this has.

And im not lying when i say, i'd happily be asked again.

Has to happen, imho, if I am to have any 'faith in democracy'

 

[SWP's back]

So long as the options are "deal or no deal", because the option to remain isn't one of the outcomes people intended when they voted to leave.

I personally would love to know what remainers preferred "leave" option would be, which is why i'm confident in that scenario, "leave with a deal" would win by a landslide.

Free trade customs union.

I’m anti-Federalisation of Europe absolutely. But the thing is, I’m not a fucking idiot and therefore I’d rather avoid a economical meltdown in the U.K., a depression likely to last a number of years and the like simply to achieve that goal. The trade off isn’t worth it. And the people it would hurt most are the low paid and service sector workers.

 

[SWP's back]

Look mate I'm not laying out the ref campaign yet again.

People don’t have to change their minds for the result of a referendum on the deal available to change dramatically and leaving the EU to be binned off.

 

[Metal Biker]

This is quite simple - whatever happens the EU question will be the biggest single issue at the next GE and the one after that. Leave or remain it will be the biggest issue. If we leave then the rejoin argument will kick off, your right on that, but even without that there are a million other things that will still need to be sorted re trade and the economic mess that leaving will have caused. If we remain the leave argument will still be ongoing.

The idea that brext will go away once something happens is farcical. This will define politics for the next 10 years at least - whatever happens in the next 12 months.

Then why would a second referendum be warrented if it's purpose is meant to "allow the people to decide", if the outcome solves nothing?

If we leave the remain argument will be dead, because we cannot "remain" we could only "rejoin". You can't remain in something you're no longer part of.