[Politics] Brexit

[Commander]

I'm not convinced on the idea of a 2nd referendum, but I don't really understand what all the Leavers are so scared of? I keep hearing about 'the will of the people', well if the will of the people now is to remain, then does that not matter? Or is it only the will of the people as long as the will of the people is to leave?

Problem with a 2nd referendum is that it will likely be very close again. If Remain were to win by 52/48 then would that really solve anything? The only result that could really change anything is a big majority either way.

 

[ManOfSussex]

So you can't provide the evidence that these extra instruments have to be in place in order to leave then ?

From the BBC this morning ( a list of possibilities moving forwards ) :

"1. No deal
If nothing else happens, the default position would be a no-deal Brexit.

The law is already in place which means the UK would leave the EU on 29 March 2019.

And, in any case, EU rules mean the UK would leave then.

The government would probably want to pass some legislation to prepare for no-deal but that's not strictly essential."

Have you seriously not heard or read anyone mention the additional pieces of primary legislation required and 800-1000 statuary instruments for The UK to function in a no deal? Tom Newton-Dunn was explaining it on Sky News last week. Nicky Morgan and Chuka Umunna mentioned it on C4 News on Monday. It's why no deal is talked about as 'managed no deal' ie with 'implementation' period by those idiots championing it in parliament because we're royally ****ed without it and are in a state of total chaos and legal limbo.

I'm reaching the stage where I'm really not bothered what no deal anarchist, masochist advocates like you think though anymore. It's like talking to a 3 year old about the existence of Father Christmas.

 

[The Clamp]

I'm not convinced on the idea of a 2nd referendum, but I don't really understand what all the Leavers are so scared of? I keep hearing about 'the will of the people', well if the will of the people now is to remain, then does that not matter? Or is it only the will of the people as long as the will of the people is to leave?

Problem with a 2nd referendum is that it will likely be very close again. If Remain were to win by 52/48 then would that really solve anything? The only result that could really change anything is a big majority either way.

You’re making a lot of sense on this thread.

 

[The Clamp]

Democracy advised the government. The Referendum Act 2015 said the referendum was advisory, no matter what the pamphlets or politicians said.

Exactly. Any politician who promised otherwise is lying. It’s an affront to democracy to spin it any other way.

 

[ManOfSussex]

More no deal good news from Ireland that's slipped under the radar with all the excitement from Westminster from yesterday regarding checks at the border:

Border checks on trade to follow no-deal Brexit - Coveney and Ross in private conversation caught on tape

https://www.independent.ie/business...ate-conversation-caught-on-tape-37716771.html

 

[Is it PotG?]

Which issues does it solve for you?

To leave the EU.

 

[Baker lite]

Stale mate it seems..
On our way.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Have you seriously not heard or read anyone mention the additional pieces of primary legislation required and 800-1000 statuary instruments for The UK to function in a no deal? Tom Newton-Dunn was explaining it on Sky News last week. Nicky Morgan and Chuka Umunna mentioned it on C4 News on Monday. It's why no deal is talked about as 'managed no deal' ie with 'implementation' period by those idiots championing it in parliament because we're royally ****ed without it and are in a state of total chaos and legal limbo.

I'm reaching the stage where I'm really not bothered what no deal anarchist, masochist advocates like you think though anymore. It's like talking to a 3 year old about the existence of Father Christmas.

Wow, we're Mr Grumpy all of a sudden. I've asked you a very simple question about where in current legislation is says these instruments HAVE to be in place or we don't leave. You've spectacularly failed to provide that - instead you get all huffy.

So you're suggesting the BBC, amoungst others, is wrong ? That if we get to 29th March without these instruments being in place, and without an agreement in place, we won't actually leave ?

 

[Bold Seagull]

I see, so you fully expected the gov to honour the democratic decision just like most people who respect democracy would expect the decision to be honoured and we Leave the EU yet you say the democratic decision shouldnt be followed up on and "The government should halt Brexit." "The result should not be acted upon." all because in your opinion, and against a democratic decision that you lost "Brexit is not in our best interests."........even though you recognise how democracy works is "the side with the most votes wins" and you expect the gov to "honour the result of the referendum" of the winning side.
Not forgetting of course on a purely advisory vote that has no relevance to the outcome decision apparently, you believe it important to have your vote heard
You are royally messed up and incredibly self absorbed.

What all this should highlight is what our democracy actually is.

It should be reasonably clear to everyone by now that referendum democracy does not sit along side representational parliamentary democracy. Both are democratic models, however when the 2 cannot work together what is the 'democratic' solution? Is honouring the advisary referendum result at the expense of our democratically elected sovereign parliament in itself democratic?

The will of the people gave a referendum result, but the will of the people also elected our representatives to Parliament.

It's a mess, a gigantic constitutional mess. I don't think it's right to ignore the referendum result, but I don't think it is right either to say the actions of Parliament are not democratic either.

What has happened to the detriment of the referendum result is that too many people have had an opinion on what Brexit means. All it meant was leave the EU. It didn't ask anything about customs unions, movement, workers rights, regulations etc. etc. it simply asked do we want to leave the EU. Had there been a reasonable approach to this, not pandering to rampant Brexiteers, we may have got somewhere. May's failure is refusing to get the rest of the house on board. Had she ignored her hardliners, we would probably have had a deal that much of the house could have voted for.

 

[btnbelle]

Democracy advised the government. The Referendum Act 2015 said the referendum was advisory, no matter what the pamphlets or politicians said.

We were told the result would be implemented.

 

[nickbrighton]

I think the big problem with the whole thing is , as has been posted before, that the ONLY people who knew what they were voting for were those voting Remain. Everyone else , including the politicians who campaigned leave, had no idea what they actually wanted. When these people were then asked-ok you won, whats your plan- how do you see the UKs relationship with the EU and the World now, they simply didn't have a clue, and still don't. They simply say -give us Brexit, but constantly say no to whatever is proposed, but offer no coherent alternative that is acceptable to even individual elements of the same party-let alone a consensus that all of just the leavers can agree. They basically walked away telling those who voted and campaign remain to deliver a solution that they themselves couldn't agree on. The Government havent covered themselves in glory by any means, but a lot of that is down to trying to do a job that none of them want to do, and being hamstrung by the very people who said they wanted it! Will the UK leave when its all settled- I really dont know, and I dont think any poltician does either

 

[Baldseagull]

To leave the EU.

If only this devastating argument had been put before me sooner, I could have jumped on board with Brexit.

 

[ManOfSussex]

Wow, we're Mr Grumpy all of a sudden. I've asked you a very simple question about where in current legislation is says these instruments HAVE to be in place or we don't leave. You've spectacularly failed to provide that - instead you get all huffy.

So you're suggesting the BBC, amoungst others, is wrong ? That if we get to 29th March without these instruments being in place, and without an agreement in place, we won't actually leave ?

They have to be in place for us to function legally on a myriad of things across all sectors to avoid total chaos and the subsequent legal limbo and will take a lot of time to implement. Current no deal contingencies are damage limitation exercises, nothing else, for an unsustainable situation. I am, as are others, suggesting we will not leave on March 29 for that and other reasons despite the current 'legal default position'. I could be wrong, but ultimately I don't believe parliament will inflict that on the people it represents, despite you and others wanting it to happen and despite that current 'legal default position' - it will be amended accordingly.

You can believe what you want though.

 

[Simster]

If only this devastating argument had been put before me sooner, I could have jumped on board with Brexit.

Exactly why we shouldn't have referendums in a parliamentary democracy.

 

[Is it PotG?]

If only this devastating argument had been put before me sooner, I could have jumped on board with Brexit.

You asked what I wanted. I replied.

My personal business issues, which will benefit significantly, are that. Personal.

 

[rippleman]

Bloody hope so or we will need to find an entirely new form of government as the democratic process will have been so seriously undermined

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Bloody hope so or we will need to find an entirely new form of government as the democratic process will have been so seriously undermined

well, I think to be clear we don't want to overturn the referendum result undemocratically, we want to do it with a fully democratic vote

 

[Is it PotG?]

well, I think to be clear we don't want to overturn the referendum result undemocratically, we want to do it with a fully democratic vote

Another one.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Another one.

Yes

 

[btnbelle]

Democracy didn't provide us with a decision. Proven manipulation, lies and cheating of the electoral process tipped the balance in favour of leave. But politicians continue to trot out this line about respecting the decision of the people. It's BS that a second referendum would be an affront to democracy.

Only way out of this is a second referendum, with This Deal or Remain - and a massive majority one way or another. No Deal is just going to bankrupt the country so should be taken off the table. Danger of no large majority one way or another is obviously the rumblings on will continue if Remain wins..

There isn't a deal that will satisfy a majority of Leavers, because they all had their own view of what Leaving actually meant. And Remainers will surely only be truly satisfied if we do just that.

The biggest lies came from the remain side with project fear.

Leave campaign had all their arguments grilled over in the media and we still voted LEAVE.

It seems to me that this is one subject that people feel in their hearts as being the right thing. Very few people have changed their minds. Most remain voters have accepted the result of the 1st referendum.

A second referendum wouldn't be democratic because people would not turn out to vote in protest at being ignored.

I have voted consistently in every election, my mother was keen to get across how important it was to exercise my democratic right, after all women had died so I could put my X in the box.

A second referendum would be my first abstention...