Boris is Boss

[TeePee]

I have answered this before elsewhere and I stand by the following:

- No. I can't get over the fact that it might have been a fluke in the sense that a number of people who were happy in the EU didn't sense the urgency with all the polls indicating that remain had it in the bag.. Obviously I do not know how many there are, just that in applied to some people I know. I reckon that a second referendum will be viewed as do-or-die on both sides and anyone who still don't vote probably just don't care either way.

- No, I wouldn't demand it. If Brexiters believe that it doesn't settle it (and why wouldn't they) they can demand it, and I would be perfectly fine that they get it. In practice I believe that the second and third referundum would likely have the result as I believe that the second one would have both sides out in full force.

I genuinely mean when I said before, it isn't about rolling till I get the result that I want. Two win in a row and it would be hard to put it down to the fluke, especially now that both sides are fully awake.

That's fine answer with solid reasoning. But what it boils down to is that you want a specific result, and you'll fight for another referendum to get the result you desire. That's a simple and honest position. But it's different from wanting a democratic result.

[TooNice]

That's fine answer with solid reasoning. But what it boils down to is that you want a specific result, and you'll fight for another referendum to get the result you desire. That's a simple and honest position. But it's different from wanting a democratic result.

Frankly speaking, I think that the whole democratic result argument is a smoke screen. But then, we'll end up rehearsing much that has already being said.

1. Mr. "Brexit" Farage claimed that 52/48 doesn't settle it and now like to preach about democracy. Yeah, I am sure it is about democracy.

2. There is the part about us being a parliamentary democracy, the referendum being advisory, how it would've been void had it not been just an advisory. On the other side of the coin, yes, as Saracen has often pointed out, the former PM did promise to implement the result.. but while two wrong doesn't make a right, politicians lie all the time, why should the words of a former PM hold more weight than all the things that were told during the campaigns, that were not just wrong, but sometime even the opposite?

There are a bunch of more things I could repeat here, but let's skip a little.

Academically, I wonder if there is anything in Democracy 101 that state that once the vote of a non-legally binding referendum is done, the democratic system will, under all circumstances view it as the will of the people until it is implemented. Even if such implementation may be several years down the line. And any other referendum revisiting the same subject introduced between that period is would always be undemocratic, and to be ignored even if (or especially if) the result might change and/or a larger number of voters might engage in the process.

If that is the innately part of democracy.. then perhaps what I want is indeed something different.. something that take the more obvious facet of democracy (people voting for a result) but without neglecting everything around it (the process, time, etc.). Maybe that is too complex, but I am not for democracy for the sake of the word itself. I am for a system that is reasonably fair.

Well, we are over 3 years down the line, we've had remainers showing a lot more passion than before (the petition, the march). Are they just shouting louder, or have the number changed? We also know that the original question leave some ambiguity.

What we should find out, perhaps via a transferable vote system is that other than remain or no deal, do people want:

- The withdrawal agreement as it is (or some other deal the government manage to negotiate), but if it is not possible then no deal
- The withdrawal agreement as it is (or some other deal the government manage to negotiate), but it is not possible then no brexit.

I do not think it is proper to assert that everyone who voted for brexit the first time around did so wanting no-deal. That was definitely not what Leave campaigned for. And while I believe that many, or most do may have hardened their views. But we do not know that. So why not find out what is the will of the people in 2019?

The reason not to (when a second remain loss would most certainly bury any credibility or hope for remainers) can only be the fear of losing (while perhaps shielding behind emotive words like "democracy"). Now, I am no saint nor impartial judge here, but that to me seem less honourable than the stance that I am taking (i.e. even if remain win a round two, it would only be right for there to be a round three).

[Corky34]

and according to https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...o-deal-brexit/ (paywall site) Corbyns missed his chance for no-confidence election. something about the timings of stuff as mentioned earlier, except from someone who presumably (?) knows a bit more about it than me.

edit; non paywall site and a MSN news link so daily mail don't get add rev https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brexi...ity/ar-AAFian4

so looks like its no deal unless the EU come up with something. or some crazy parliament takeover votes happen again.

INAL but from what i gather Cummings is wrong on this, according to this reddit post (backed up by a report from the the Constitutional Affairs Committee (PDF page 23, paragraph 7)).

6. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011 provides legal certainty only about certain matters. It is silent on what might occur during the 14-day period following a statutory vote of no confidence under Section 2(3). This is to some extent inevitable because what occurs during this period will depend on the circumstances that led to the vote of no confidence. As the Clerk of the House told us, what occurs during the 14-day period is matter of politics and not procedure. The 14-day period allows time for confidence in Her Majesty’s Government to be re-established. Whether this is done through a change in personnel, policy or party is entirely a matter for the political process. (Paragraph 34)

7. The Cabinet Manual is a helpful guide on what should occur. It is clear that, during the 14-day period following a vote of no confidence under Section 2(3), the Prime Minister is under a duty not to resign unless and until it is clear another person commands the confidence of the House. It is also clear that in the event that it becomes apparent that another person could command the confidence of the House the Prime Minister would be expected to resign. Not to resign in such a circumstance would risk drawing the Sovereign in to the political process, something the Cabinet Manual is very clear should not occur. (Paragraph 35)

Essentially what could, and i stress could, happen is a vote of no confidence could be called and if it was won the house would then try to restore confidence via a change in personnel, policy or party. I'm guessing the easiest of those options would be a change of policy that forces Boris to ask for another extension while they sort the mess they created out, if a change of policy couldn't be forced on Boris then they could vote on someone to replace him, and if that failed a vote on a change of party. If all that failed then it would go to a snap GE.

[Xlucine]

What we should find out, perhaps via a transferable vote system is that other than remain or no deal, do people want:

- The withdrawal agreement as it is (or some other deal the government manage to negotiate), but if it is not possible then no deal
- The withdrawal agreement as it is (or some other deal the government manage to negotiate), but it is not possible then no brexit.

You don't need transferable vote for this, you can handle it with two binary questions (or one question with four answers):

Q1: do you still want to leave the EU?
Q2: if we still want to leave, May's deal w/ backstop, or no deal?

That'll avoid splitting any vote - you can point to a clear democratic mandate for if we leave the EU, and what kind of withdrawal agreement we get (until the next referendum in a year or so to decide if we agree with the agreed future trading relationship, if the EU can still put up with our negotiators)

[TeePee]

It looks like a no confidence vote is going to be called.

Now Boris has formed a Government, which means he may have a chance at George Canning's record. However, to achieve that relies upon MPs agreeing with Corbyn. Not likely. Hong Kong style civil unrest to follow?

[kalniel]

Hong Kong style civil unrest to follow?

Not likely - if and when there's civil unrest we tend not to be as polite as the hong kongese.

But I don't think it'll come to that here. Ireland/N.I. is another matter. Boris is pretty much going to have to throw N.I. away to get what he wants (no-deal + trade agreement with the US, which I can't see happening without some kind of unification). Then it'll be the farmers who protest because having got the brexit they voted for they'll be put out of business by imports.

[Saracen999]

You don't need transferable vote for this, you can handle it with two binary questions (or one question with four answers):

Q1: do you still want to leave the EU?
Q2: if we still want to leave, May's deal w/ backstop, or no deal?

That'll avoid splitting any vote - you can point to a clear democratic mandate for if we leave the EU, and what kind of withdrawal agreement we get (until the next referendum in a year or so to decide if we agree with the agreed future trading relationship, if the EU can still put up with our negotiators)

Q1 is unnecessary, as both the country (referendum) and Parliament (massive majority to invoke article 50) have vofed to Leave.

Q2 is unnecessary, because May's so-called deal is dead. Voted down three times.

We are where we are, not where we were or, personally, where we should have been. Which is, leaving wjth a deal IF a mutually-beneficial deal can be arranged but with no deal if necessary. We won't find out if a deal can be done until the deadline expires, which is why we need a hard deadline. May appeared to realise that, but then bottled it.

And of course, Remainers are never going to accept that, and Leavers are never going to accept anything less.

Which is why arguing about it is pointless. It is going to split opinion in the country after Brexit just as much as it has before it.

The one certainty in all this is that the uncertainty is very damaging and has been for about 5 yeads now, and that we need to do something, and soon, not just precaricate for more years.

[Smudger]

I wouldn't say Q1 was unneccessary, as it has 'still' in there.

[TeePee]

I wouldn't say Q1 was unneccessary, as it has 'still' in there.

The problem with Q1 is still the duration. Asking once is fine. Asking twice means you have to ask three times. Which means you have to ask again. And again. Until you stop asking, when you have the acceptable result. That's the problem with referendums and pure democracy. The people cannot be relied upon to determine their own fate. Sometimes the ruling class must dictate to the masses. Deutschland Uber alles, etc...

[kalniel]

Was there any good reason the deal May agreed wasn't put to the people? Could have been a simple rank in order of preference (or 1st/2nd choice):
a) Leave the EU with the agreed deal
b) Leave the EU with no deal
c) Remain

Option with lowest choices drops out, people who voted for that have their second choice votes distributed.

Or if it's too scary to ask the people, why not put it to MPs like that? - it produces a definitive outcome.

[TooNice]

The problem with Q1 is still the duration. Asking once is fine. Asking twice means you have to ask three times. Which means you have to ask again. And again. Until you stop asking, when you have the acceptable result. That's the problem with referendums and pure democracy. The people cannot be relied upon to determine their own fate. Sometimes the ruling class must dictate to the masses. Deutschland Uber alles, etc...

Or until:

A. The results are consistently one sided (e.g. same result two or more times in one go).

B. One side commands a significant majority (2/3rd or more).

In this case, I believe that the second outcome won't occur over just a few years.. if ever, but I think that if we can assert with just two "wins" in a row, then we will have slightly more confidence that it would a longer term trend than a one time fluke.

With the stakes higher than the general election every 4 years, it doesn't seem unreasonable to approach this with more certainty than the usual GE. Akin to a high stake legal case which may be appealed and move to a higher court.

While I am at it, if the remain factions can't come together, I will probably hold a similar level of grudge as I will toward Boris, Farage et al. If they can not set aside their party politics and leave an open goal for Boris to just walk right in, they will be just as guilty to the outcome. Even with their best effort I reckon that it would be tough to do anything at this point, but right now, they are setting the explosives at their feet.

[Saracen999]

I wouldn't say Q1 was unneccessary, as it has 'still' in there.

Granted.

But by extension, we csn hold a second referendum, and if it's remain, then faff about for several years arguing about it, then comes the argument that we need a 3rd go to see if we still changed our minds. And then a 4th, 5th and so on.

Meanwhile, years after the "one-off"- referendum, here we are, still in and arguing about if people "still" want to leave.

Those that want to Remain, whatever the referendum said, will argue that but I'll bet my left nut that if the referendum had said 52:48 Remain, exactly those same people would now be arguing that we don't need a second referendum and most Leavers would be asking for a referendum to see if we "still" think that.

We had a government that told us WE needed to decide a single issue - Leave or Remain. We did.

That government also told us, explicitly, in simple terms and in bkack and white, that our decision WILL be implemented.

My question is this .... when?

[Xlucine]

Q1 is unnecessary, as both the country (referendum) and Parliament (massive majority to invoke article 50) have vofed to Leave.

Q2 is unnecessary, because May's so-called deal is dead. Voted down three times.

We are where we are, not where we were or, personally, where we should have been. Which is, leaving wjth a deal IF a mutually-beneficial deal can be arranged but with no deal if necessary. We won't find out if a deal can be done until the deadline expires, which is why we need a hard deadline. May appeared to realise that, but then bottled it.

And of course, Remainers are never going to accept that, and Leavers are never going to accept anything less.

Which is why arguing about it is pointless. It is going to split opinion in the country after Brexit just as much as it has before it.

The one certainty in all this is that the uncertainty is very damaging and has been for about 5 yeads now, and that we need to do something, and soon, not just precaricate for more years.

To paraphrase (my changes in bold):

While that is true, it's also a bit misleading.

It wasn't a confirmatikn that we wanted to leave. It was a confirmation that we wanted an orderly exit with a deal agreed before article 50...

... Maybe it's all in the question?

You want to re-run a referendum you don't like because the question wasn't the right one, and that one was a much more definitive result. Bojo was clear (as part of the official leave campaign) that we should agree the deal before article 50, and no-one was seriously proposing leaving without a deal.

As for may's deal, the red lines she pulled from a hat have never been put to the people.

If the second referendum gave a simple majority for no deal, or the same for mays deal, then I'll accept it - until then, bojo will have to honour every one of the promises he made during the referendum for me to acknowledge that shade of brexit as the will of the people

The problem with Q1 is still the duration. Asking once is fine. Asking twice means you have to ask three times. Which means you have to ask again. And again. Until you stop asking, when you have the acceptable result. That's the problem with referendums and pure democracy. The people cannot be relied upon to determine their own fate. Sometimes the ruling class must dictate to the masses. Deutschland Uber alles, etc...

We've already asked twice, so you're saying we need to ask again?

Was there any good reason the deal May agreed wasn't put to the people? Could have been a simple rank in order of preference (or 1st/2nd choice):
a) Leave the EU with the agreed deal
b) Leave the EU with no deal
c) Remain

Option with lowest choices drops out, people who voted for that have their second choice votes distributed.

Or if it's too scary to ask the people, why not put it to MPs like that? - it produces a definitive outcome.

Two binary questions or one question with 4 answers would be easier to count, rather than second preference.

I'm not sure if parliament can vote like that - AIUI they only do yes/no answers, so as the charades earlier this year showed you can't get them to agree on a least-worst option

[TeePee]

The problem is 'The Deal' was deliberately designed to delay and ultimately prevent Brexit. It wasn't designed for an orderly exit, or the good of the British people, or anything else. It exists purely to be as unpalatable as possible so that it would fail to pass. The remoaner mantra seems to have become 'People didn't vote for a no deal Brexit'. Except no deal is a lot closer to what people voted for than the terms Europe dictated to May.

With Boris in charge, at least there's a chance of leaving, and leaving without a deal may be enough to push the EU to more reasonable terms. A no deal Brexit is just the starting point.

[Saracen999]

To paraphrase (my changes in bold):



You want to re-run a referendum you don't like because the question wasn't the right one, and that one was a much more definitive result. Bojo was clear (as part of the official leave campaign) that we should agree the deal before article 50, and no-one was seriously proposing leaving without a deal.

As for may's deal, the red lines she pulled from a hat have never been put to the people.

If the second referendum gave a simple majority for no deal, or the same for mays deal, then I'll accept it - until then, bojo will have to honour every one of the promises he made during the referendum for me to acknowledge that shade of brexit as the will of the people.

Please don't "paraphrase" what I said, turn it into something completely alien to what I said, and then put it in quotes.

If you think I want a second referendum at all, then either I need to reword what I said or you need to reread it.

I'll simp,ify my position to make it clear. We had about 18 months of arguments with both sides making their arguments, both sides making truly moronic claims (as they are, maibly, politicians, after all). Both had ample opportunity to make any argument they thought woukd help. And then, and only then, were we asked a simple question .... Leave or Remain.

It wasn't qualified in ANY way, to Leave if this deal, or not Leave unless that condition.

It was simple. The public were expected to consider, to whatever degree they each felt necessary, all the arguments made by both camos, and then reach a single, simple, and binary vote - Leave, or Remain. The government would then implement that.

We don't need a second referendum, because we've already answered the question. Leave.

[Saracen999]

And this, by the way, is why I said I wasn't carrying on with this thread, because it goes round and round and round.

So, I'm out again.

I just wish there was a way to "ignore" threads so I didn't even see it