Brexit New Deal/Legal Changes - Risk Still Remains

[j.o.s.h.1408]

My first reservation on the 2nd referendum is that it's standard EU practice for people 'stupid enough' to vote the wrong way. It's been done time and again, and even now, today, we get the EU threats .... so much fir friends and allies.

That said, provided we do leave now, if at some future point a movement builds to rejoin, and wins, well that is democracy.

But, so far, the "2nd referendum" grouos aren't offering that. They're offering a loaded choice.

Consider Dominic Grieve's call .... what he wants, and he's said it time after time, is :-

a) May's Deal,

OR

b) Remain.

Well, given that May's deal is hated by some many Remainers AND Brexiters, what we wants to present Brexit supporters (like me) with is either a deal I detest, or Remain. Would you prefer being shot in the head, or burned alive?

I'm guessing probably neither.

Which is how I feel about Grieve's deal. It's a con trick, a deceit, a conjuring trick.

Then, a Labour MEP was on local radio an hour or so ago, suggesting the 2nd Referendum should be :-

1) May's Deal (i.e. Leave, but on lousy terms),

OR

2) Leave, No Deal,

OR

3) Remain.


Again, conjuring trick. Here, the trick is to offer a deal that unites Remainers and a LOT, but by no means all, Brexiters, witb the objective of splitting the Leave voters leaving 3) with the most votes and the winner, even if 1) + 2) comfortably out-numbered 3).

Again, conjuring trick.

All of which highlights a major problem wuth a second referendum - what's the wuestion?


But there's also the bad precedent.

Suppose we have a 2nd referendum and it goes 52:48 Remain. Then what? Because if you think that settles it, I say it doesn't. A year down the line there'll be calls for #3 because, aftr all, time has gone past and people might have changed their minds. Again.

If that logic is sound to justify ignoring Ref-1 because those that lost don't like it, then it's sound to ignore Ref-2 for exactly the same reason if it's gone the other way.

But does it stop there?

If we ignore a referendum we were all told our decisionwould be implemented, then how about a call to re-run the next General Election because the losing side don't like the result?

We were told we were going to make the decision and it would be implemented. Now, MP's are blocking no only no-deal but May's terrible deal, because they don't like it.

So much for our decision will be implemented.

There is a serious risk MP's are sowing a whirlwind here, and they will thoroughly deserve the contempt they are earning themselves, along with the undermining of belief in the enture system by an already highly disillusioned public.

GE runs every 4 years mate, referendum to stay or leave eu? once in a lifetime.....

[j.o.s.h.1408]

Agree. Even as a remainer I can only think of 1 referendum question that would not end up a rehash of the previous result:

We WILL be leaving the EU. Would you prefer:

1. No deal
2. Mays deal
3. Leave but stay within the customs union.

Even that would cause serious ructions because you'd have millions of Remain voters either boycotting or spoiling their ballot.

I think to avoid all of this the most likely option will be a General Election rather than a referendum. But I'd fully expect it to return another hung parliament and we'll be right back in it again.

So basically we would never leave? a GE now would take 3-6months to prepare launch it. Then who knows how long for the new PM to restart brexit negotiations from scratch. 2 years again?

I cant believe some leavers dont see a pattern here. the problem is the parliament NOT EU!!!

[Saracen999]

GE runs every 4 years mate, referendum to stay or leave eu? once in a lifetime.....

Obviously. But if a principle of voting again when the elite don't like the result applies to one, why not the other? The whole idea of asking again undermines political processes.

[Saracen999]

I've said it "I am certainly not against a round three".

Personally, I don't know if there is a good reason for this subject to remain so hotly contested. We had one referendum in 2016, which provides the snapshot of a Brexit win, yes, but also a highly contested win.

Give it a bit more time and.. would it always be like this? Or at some point we'll get a 70% for Brexit? Or perhaps 70% for remains?

If we can even establish that it is trending -further- toward Brexit I will quite readily accept that my values may simply not be aligned with the majority of the country. And that is fine.

But even failing that, say Brexiters still take it 50.5%/49.5% I would still begrudgingly accept that fair's fair, even with all the Remainers wide awake, Brexiters won, so again, it's just that my values aren't aligned with the slightest majority.

Saying that, I do accept that formulating the question poses a challenge and yes, it might sound like we are trying to get the people to vote "the right way" (not unlike May trying to push the same deal again and again then.. who wants to bet she'll try again?). But really, this could be the chance for Brexiters to say "Erm, no. We really mean what we meant the first time round". Could it be annoying? Insulting? Perhaps, but just as you wouldn't expect May's speech last week to affect how MP votes, I wouldn't expect voters to not let their ego get in the way of setting things straight. If the parliament can reject May's deal three times, I don't think it would be too hard for Brexiters to reject the union twice.. if they still command the majority (and frankly, I don't know either way; I have pretty much resigned to the notion that my values do not align with the majority; I would like to be proven wrong, but I am prepared to just.. continue settling elsewhere).

All of us have to accept that our opinion doesn't align with the majority sone oc the time. Anyone supporting either main party accepts it (though usually REALLY doesn't like it) about half the time. LibDems get to not like it much more than most.

For that matter, I didn't much like the result in the mid 70s, but it was the majority view so, okay.

Of course, since then, the "Common Market" has morphed into a highly political EU and while many country's populations got to vote on that, we didn't, not at Maastricht, not Lisbon and not at several other smaller but still significant points.

Until 2016.

Then we were told by the government that the decision was ours, and would be implemented. And it wasn't just a quick announcement, Sk the question, and done with it. We had almost 2 years of arguing and debating, claim and counter-claim, including some by both sides that were then and remain now utter cobblers. But, of course, all such cobblers was promptly denounced and trounced by the other side. Anyone that missed all that had to either be asleep for two years or determined to avoid it.

And after all that, we voted. And we got s result. I can't see any case at all for going again, just because the losing side lost. One side always loses.

Personally, I can't see any way, any way at all that the country is coming together on this issue, and certainly not in the short or medium term.

At the moment, we have some Remainers determined to overthrow the result, by any means, but I suspect the majority are more of "Well, I don't like it and I think it's a mistake, but .... that was the result and I'll put up with it".

But if Parliament manages to obstruct and or block Brexit, I will bet my right arm that a lot of Leavers will not tske it that way. They will be, at a minimum, incensed at having won the referendum, then had it ignored and be utterly disgusted with the entire Parliamentary process. What's the point, if they ignore it anyway.

And that disillusion is dangerous, not least because there's going to be a lot for whom merely being incensed is a massive understatement. That way lies the rise of Trumpian-style populism, as has been happening in more than a few european countries, and anger at the elites may result in the election of extremist csndidates, if nothing else out of anger at the establishment.

Or it could result in much worse.

[Saracen999]

....

I cant believe some leavers dont see a pattern here. the problem is the parliament NOT EU!!!

The problem is both. Or rather, both, and the government. And the nature of the problem is that they're so busy arguing among themselves that most of them have forgotten who the work for.

[j.o.s.h.1408]

Obviously. But if a principle of voting again when the elite don't like the result applies to one, why not the other? The whole idea of asking again undermines political processes.

Because first of all a referendum is not a binding vote... Its to grasp peoples opinions. Its not the be all end all.

Instead of executing A50 they should have asked the leavers why they want to leave the eu (ignoring the racist reasons) and come up with some solutions to the issues they have for wanting to leave.

Some have said because of NHS being strained. Well u do know NHS has loads of eu and immigrants working there providing a service for us brits.

Places like Wigan not being looked after and invested? That's the parliament fault and your local MPs!

You do know that eu actually provide benefit aid here and other eu member states right?

You do know that many eu laws were ideas from us... And you do know any decisions made for eu needs to be approved by all member states..

The list goes on! Many issues with this country is down to the parliament! Can't leavers see that in the way they are dealing with Brexit....



Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

[j.o.s.h.1408]

The problem is both. Or rather, both, and the government. And the nature of the problem is that they're so busy arguing among themselves that most of them have forgotten who the work for.

Even if that was true (which imo its not) there's saying. Deal with business at home first before worrying about business outside of your home...



Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

[peterb]

You do know that eu actually provide benefit aid here and other eu member states right?

The EU Organisation - like all Governments - does not generate wealth - it consumes it (although they can create the conditions for wealth creation).

So all EU nations contribute to the redistribution pot and the E/u redistributes it after taking out the running costs for the bureaucracy, so the amount redistributed will be less than the amount contributed. One argument is that the amount the UK contributes would be better spent internally rather than giving it to the EU to spend on our behalf. The EU has consistently failed to balance its budget.

One solution to that would be for the EU to directly raise tax from individuals (as the federal government in the US applies income tax as well as most States). As far as I know, that has not been proposed by the EU, but that would be the next logical step in the creation og=f a political superstate, just as the EU would like to harmonise VAT and excise duty across the EU.

https://ec.europa.eu/taxation_custom...islation-eu_en

[Galant]

The idea that the referendum was not binding is tenuous at best, but should have finally been laid to rest when MPs met last week and secured the chance to control the house for a series of indicative votes. The proclamation there was that they had "taken back control" - and yet the votes would only be 'indicative', that is, not legally binding. Not legally binding - and yet, they said they'd taken back control. What's more, having secured the chance to vote, the question was asked of the chair what could be done to guarantee that any positive outcome from those indicative votes be honoured by the government. It was a moment of utter irony. Those who had argued that the referendum need not be honoured, and that the people hadn't really taken control of the UK with the referendum vote, because it wasn't legally binding, were now declaring that they had taken control and were looking for support for their own non-binding vote. The reality is that had the vote been legally binding it wouldn't have changed the outcome or anyone's angle after the fact. It would still look to be overturned. The referendum vote, following the promise of government to provide it and honour it, was as strong a declaration and decision as could be made. Everyone knows that. Some just don't like the result. The legality of it is immaterial to the democratic question.

Now, with regards to the notion that leavers should be been asked why they voted, or what they meant -1 that would be impossible to achieve - how could it be done. 2 - Whatever the results, it would be irrelevant because of the major reasons people offer as for why people supposedly voted for Brexit, all of them would require a full Brexit in order to achieve them (because the UK doesn't have the right to set its own laws, independently, in those areas), none of them can be achieved by negotiating with the EU - that's the whole point.

We most certainly do have an issue with our own government, and this has only highlighted that. But that's not resolved by remaining in or returning to the EU. If anything, this precipitation of things may be the best way to see and being to deal with the issue.

[TooNice]

[...]The proclamation there was that they had "taken back control" - and yet the votes would only be 'indicative', that is, not legally binding.[...]

I for one did not bought that proclamation. Anyone can proclaim anything and it won't make it true nor legally binding. Even had the "Revoke A50" gained a majority, I had no doubt in the slightest that May would've just overruled it stating how the (non-legally binding) referendum result must be delivered yada yada. I do see some irony in it, but perhaps not the same way you do. Last time I checked we are supposed to be a parliamentary democracy, not a direct democracy.

I do acknowledge that the government made an unwise (or perhaps clever?) decision to promise something without clearly defining it. Some people may wish for a no-deal break, which is obviously one form of Brexit, but it would not be wrong to say that the Norway/Swiss/etc. model is also a form of Brexit since you are no longer part of the EU.. you just follow some rules in exchange for some benefits.

By failing to define exactly what Brexit would entail, it suggests that the government really didn't think it through when it made that promise (I question whether it is even good to hold the government to an ill thought promise), but it would also mean that a very soft Brexit would still be delivering it. Would that be better than remaining? Questionable, but I would find it more desirable than what -some- Brexiters might want. And since we do not know how many Brexiters want what kind of Brexit (and they don't want a second vote), it would be a way for the government to "cleverly" deliver a Brexit and get this "promise" out of the way.

[Saracen999]

Because first of all a referendum is not a binding vote... Its to grasp peoples opinions. Its not the be all end all.

Instead of executing A50 they should have asked the leavers why they want to leave the eu (ignoring the racist reasons) and come up with some solutions to the issues they have for wanting to leave.

Some have said because of NHS being strained. Well u do know NHS has loads of eu and immigrants working there providing a service for us brits.

Places like Wigan not being looked after and invested? That's the parliament fault and your local MPs!

You do know that eu actually provide benefit aid here and other eu member states right?

You do know that many eu laws were ideas from us... And you do know any decisions made for eu needs to be approved by all member states..

The list goes on! Many issues with this country is down to the parliament! Can't leavers see that in the way they are dealing with Brexit....



Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

Patronising, much!

Yes, I do know all that. Most of it isn't relevant to the point I made, but still, yes I know that.

Almost all that is good reason to have voted Remain, but for me, reasons to vote Leave far outweigh that. But this isn't about why we voted Remain or Leave.

And for about the 5th time in this thread, the Refenrendum wasn't legally
binding ... though on a technical point, some are.

However, as I said, the government told us, explicitly, clearly, repeatedly and without qualification, that the referendum was to give us, the people, the decision and that they would implement the decision.

My point was about trust in the system and if, officially and in writing a government makes a promise like that, then the vote doesn't go the way they want, and they break their word and don't implement it, then it tells us what their word is worth, and that we cannot trust them to do as they promise.

If they cannot be trusted to implement a direct, black and white promise on a single issue, how on earth are we supposed to trust, for instance, that their manifesto promises on anything is worth a bean?

And if we cannot put any trust in that, how are we supposed to elect them on the first place, if all their promises are meaningless snake-oil purely for the purpose of getting them elected?

Trust in both MPs and indeed in Parliament was already at an almost umprecedentedly low point, not least due to the expenses scandal and the deceitful and venal activities it exposed of way to many (though by no means all) of them, and the wholesale inability of Parliamentary systems and procedures to hold them to account. In fact, it turned out those systems and procedures were heavily complicit in the deceptive and deceitful way the systems worked.

That, in itself, shone a spotlight into some Parluamentary shadows and by and large people didn't like what they saw.

Now, if they go back on those explicit promises to implement the referendum result, it will further damage if not outright destroy what little trust we have left in them.

Neither the pro-EU arguments you made, nor the fact that the referendum wasn't legally binding affect the point zi was making which was about that remaining trust, and the potential for what might happen next if they breach it. Again.

[Corky34]

Honestly i find it surprising people still have some trust in politicians, speaking personally my default is to not trust them, even when they put things in writing they only manage 0% on the scales of trust. That's not to say all of them are the same but i just don't have the time to keep track of 650 peoples levels of trust, it does seems the higher they are in the echelons of either party the less they can be trusted though.

For example (iirc) even some (3) promises our current government put in writing (their manifesto) have been broken, one of those was broken before they even got elected.

[TooNice]

I am both in agreement with Corky34's post above.. but also understand Saracen999's argument in the post above that. I can't really add much on this, other than note than I would prefer a second referendum (with Remain as an option) than a straight out revocation unless it becomes either that or no deal, and we are faced with those two choices because the government ran the clock down.. like it has.

And as previously noted, I wouldn't expect close remain win to be the end and all of this. I am pretty sure that Farage pre-emptively stated something along the line of "Don't think it's over if it's a close remain win", and I'll accept it.. but also turn it around in a close Brexit win.

And I still wouldn't think that it would be right to give into the threat of:

[...]the rise of Trumpian-style populism, as has been happening in more than a few european countries, and anger at the elites may result in the election of extremist csndidates, if nothing else out of anger at the establishment.

Or it could result in much worse.

If Brexit is kicked further down the line in the instance of a remain win on a second referendum. Ultimately, the present count more than the past.. which obviously also applies if Brexiters want to have another go at it in a few years time. I would, frankly prefer a more decisive margin before making such a big switch, but I can accept best of three since, at this point people are probably impatient.

One other thing I note is that.. while denying Brexiters a Brexit might incense (some of) them.. Giving Brexiters the kind of Brexit they want might also result in some thinking that it is okay to be outwardly xenophobic. This is not a "All brexiters and racist/xenophobic" accusation. But I do remember that after the referendum, there was spike of threats towards Europeans in the UK.. or people thought to be Europeans (I think there were also cases where they got it wrong). Much as I hope that it is just a small minority of brexiters who are so unreasonable, I am not sure if the rise of Trumpian-style populism, is necessarily going to be subdued even if a hard Brexit is delivered.

[Galant]

Not a lot of things make me particularly angry, but this whole process, the double-speak, hypocrisy and the gamesmanship in the face of such a significant event is really starting to tick me off.

[Saracen999]

It's "starting" to tick you off? Wow.

I've been ticking for so long family think I'm a clock.

[Galant]

It's "starting" to tick you off? Wow.

I've been ticking for so long family think I'm a clock.

I'm about ready to write a sternly worded letter.

I suppose I could have been a bit stronger. To put it more clearly, I've been surprised how angry I've been the last few days. If there were something I/we could do to influence things, I'd jump on board. That lack of ability might be what makes this particularly galling.