[Politics] Brexit – what will happen?

[Pavilionaire]

While I can’t argue with much of your post, do you really believe the last paragraph?

I think a lot of Tory MPs must be very worried about the future of the party. They took us into Europe, they supported it for 45 years, now they're against it, while the young voters are for Remaining. That's a recipe for disaster whether we Brexit or not. Similarly a lot of anti-Brexit voters are looking at Corbyn and thinking he's done f*ck all to prevent Brexit and has an incoherent policy right now.

We know all of the forecasts are predicting economic gloom if we leave the EU, it wil go tits up and this is on the back of 10 years of austerity. Why shoud we trust any of them moving forward, and where will their moral compass be pointing after this?

 

[pb21]

Not only are you a tit, you are presumptuous that I voted leave. My beef (modern parlance) is that democracy has been shat on from a great height...

I disagree. What is happening is democracy in action. You may not like it but that doesn't mean it isn't democracy.

 

[darkwolf666]

I disagree. What is happening is democracy in action. You may not like it but that doesn't mean it isn't democracy.

How is it democracy? Please explain...

 

[Uncle Spielberg]

Option 5. May will be gone before Christmas

 

[pb21]

How is it democracy? Please explain...

How is it not democracy? We voted, the government and Parliament acted on that vote, people have protested, MPs have resigned and we are were we are. MPs will vote again and we will either get May's Brexit deal, a slightly modified deal, a significantly different Brexit, no Brexit or potentially no deal Brexit. We may vote again.

There is nothing undemocratic about this. This is democracy.

 

[Bodian]

I disagree. What is happening is democracy in action. You may not like it but that doesn't mean it isn't democracy.

How is it democracy? Please explain...

A second referendum would be the most democratic way of determining the country's next step. The initial (advisory) referendum was 'do you want to leave the EU?'. A second referendum would basically be along the lines of 'we have more information now, this is the best deal we're likely to get, do you still want to leave the EU with it?'.

I can't see how that can be more democratic. It is putting the entire decision in the power of the people. A simple definition of democracy is "A system of government by the whole population". Asking the whole population 'are you happy with this before we take the final plunge?' is hugely democratic - and nothing to do with 'overturning' the original vote. It's a separate vote.

A good analogy would be making an offer on a house. Then three weeks later you get a survey that shows that the roof is falling off. You then make a decision as to whether you want to continue with purchasing the house or not in the light of the information you now have - you don't have to slavishly be bound by your offer and it's acceptance.

 

[Bodian]

It's a separate vote about the same thing, only at a different time - but it would be absolutely looking to overturn the original vote.

A referendum is a one time vote over an issue.......... Referendums are one time votes and they are final.

That's just your interpretation of what a referendum is. It is not defined that way in any dictionary I know of (samples below) - nowhere is it said that you can only hold one referendum on a topic. It might be different if the legislation setting up the referendum included something like 'this is binding', or 'no further referenda can be held on this issue for x years or something' - but that was far from the case here - it was only advisory in the first place.

"a general vote by the electorate on a single political question which has been referred to them for a direct decision."
"a vote in which all the people in a country or an area are asked to give their opinion about or decide an important political or social question"
"A general vote by the electorate on a single political question which has been referred to them for a direct decision."
"a : the principle or practice of submitting to popular vote a measure passed on or proposed by a legislative body or by popular initiative, b : a vote on a measure so submitted"
"A referendum is a vote taken by the general public to decide an important legislative or policy issue directly, as opposed to having the issue decided by a representative assembly or other legislative agency. "

 

[WATFORD zero]

I'm not denying that we could have another a referendum. We could have a hundred referendums over the same issue. We could even make it an annual thing if we were so inclined... but it would just leave us in a state of perpetual mess.

We have had voted on the issue, we voted to leave... so now it is time to go ahead with it, make the best of it, and if the public are not satisfied with the state of affairs years down the line then maybe it will be time to have another referendum to join the EU then.

So, you don't care whether we go ahead with TM's deal, A Norway type deal or 'no deal'. As long as we do any one of them, you'll be happy

 

[beorhthelm]

A second referendum would be the most democratic way of determining the country's next step. The initial (advisory) referendum was 'do you want to leave the EU?'. A second referendum would basically be along the lines of 'we have more information now, this is the best deal we're likely to get, do you still want to leave the EU with it?'.

I can't see how that can be more democratic.

more democratic? have a third, "are you quite sure about the answer to the last?", and repeat every 2-3 years.
or, accept the result from the original and ask parliament to take a decision, as we have already elected a new one since the referendum.

 

[pb21]

I'm not denying that we could have another a referendum. We could have a hundred referendums over the same issue. We could even make it an annual thing if we were so inclined... but it would just leave us in a state of perpetual mess.

We have had voted on the issue, we voted to leave... so now it is time to go ahead with it, make the best of it, and if the public are not satisfied with the state of affairs years down the line then maybe it will be time to have another referendum to join the EU then.

That maybe the case but there is absolutely nothing necessarily undemocratic about have two referendums/votes.

 

[bazbha]

I didn't like the result of the world cup semi final much. Can we replay that too? It was close after all!

 

[WATFORD zero]

My personal preference is a Norway plus type deal. I think no deal would be a short-term critical issue... However I feel that any scenario will be fixed and/or improved over time.

5 or so years down the line we'll be a bit clearer over where we are. Right now it's full of uncertainties.

I think Norway or TM's plan are the most sensible, but would have to disagree about 'no deal'. I honestly believe that if we went 'no deal' at the end of March (118 days time), we would have to have emergency measures taken within the week to put us back into some sort of membership. (And you'll notice everyone, save a few swivel-eyed loons is now distancing themselves from that option. Even Boris and JRM won't put forward a plan for it).

But the fact is that with such vastly differing options, none of which is likely to carry a parliamentary majority, surely putting it back to the electorate would be the sensible (and democratic) thing.
And, since far more information has become available about the whole thing, it makes sense for all options to be available

 

[Baldseagull]

My personal preference is a Norway plus type deal. I think no deal would be a short-term critical issue... However I feel that any scenario will be fixed and/or improved over time.

5 or so years down the line we'll be a bit clearer over where we are. Right now it's full of uncertainties.

What is clear now though, is that the option of being in the EU will be a less good proposition in 5 years time than it is now, and that the option of being out is going to see us remaining close to the EU on many things.

 

[Triggaaar]

While I can’t argue with much of your post, do you really believe the last paragraph?

The last paragraph is ridiculous, and I disagree with the rest.

 

[lawros left foot]

It would be undemocratic to ride a wave of public mood to hold a referendum at a time where it would overturn the results of the initial referendum, unless you guaranteed further referendums over the issue in the future, which would leave the country in a state of perpetual uncertainty.

The last referendum wasn’t particularly democratic anyway, if, as is suspected by the NCA the funding from leave was illegal. Democracy isn’t only about who gets the most votes, it’s about the legality of the campaigns.

 

[Baldseagull]

I didn't like the result of the world cup semi final much. Can we replay that too? It was close after all!

I didn't like it either, but I ain't suddenly going to be supporting Croatia.

 

[pb21]

It would be undemocratic to ride a wave of public mood to hold a referendum at a time where it would overturn the results of the initial referendum, unless you guaranteed further referendums over the issue in the future, which would leave the country in a state of perpetual uncertainty.

I would say that's an inherent flaw of referenda, and why they should be generally avoided, rather than something undemocratic per se. I guess a referendum can exploit the weakness of democracy though.

 

[Bodian]

It would be undemocratic to ride a wave of public mood to hold a referendum at a time where it would overturn the results of the initial referendum, unless you guaranteed further referendums over the issue in the future, which would leave the country in a state of perpetual uncertainty.

You seem here to be accepting that a new referendum would result in a remain vote here. Is that right? If that really is your view, and you're of the opinion that people have changed their mind because of what they now know - then surely you must accept that the fairest (most democratic) way of dealing with it is to ask the people.

However, from your other posts you seem to be saying 'people have said 'leave', and therefore we must leave even if the people have now changed their mind and think we should stay'. That is hardly democracy - forcing through something that the majority no longer want (if that's the case of course).

 

[Dr Bandler]

It's a separate vote about the same thing, only at a different time - but it would be absolutely looking to overturn the original vote.

A referendum is a one time vote over an issue. We have had that vote, and we are leaving. New facts and ideas are always going to transpire, indefinitely. Right now the mood is very much in the remain side... but if we had a referendum and this time we chose to remain, that mood will inevitably change again in the future... so would we have yet another referendum once the mood swings back round to "leave"?

You could continue this indefinitely. Best out of three? Best out of 5? At what point would the democratic vote become the final one?

One of the criticisms of democracy is that it takes a long time to get things done - because we disagree over so much. Referendums are one time votes and they are final. You cannot keep holding referendums until you get the result you want.

Why is a referendum a one-time vote? It is a snapshot in time of public opinion, but does not have to be one-time. In Switzerland, that exemplar of referenda, they often re-visit topics sometime later. That is more democratic.

 

[darkwolf666]

A second referendum would be the most democratic way of determining the country's next step. The initial (advisory) referendum was 'do you want to leave the EU?'. A second referendum would basically be along the lines of 'we have more information now, this is the best deal we're likely to get, do you still want to leave the EU with it?'.

I can't see how that can be more democratic. It is putting the entire decision in the power of the people. A simple definition of democracy is "A system of government by the whole population". Asking the whole population 'are you happy with this before we take the final plunge?' is hugely democratic - and nothing to do with 'overturning' the original vote. It's a separate vote.

A good analogy would be making an offer on a house. Then three weeks later you get a survey that shows that the roof is falling off. You then make a decision as to whether you want to continue with purchasing the house or not in the light of the information you now have - you don't have to slavishly be bound by your offer and it's acceptance.

So what happens if your surveyor then comes back and says, sorry the person who did your survey didn’t do a very good job and lied, as they didn’t want the house to sell as they live next door to the house and like their current neighbours?