[Politics] Brexit

[dsr-burnley]

I don't think they realise just how damaging to democracy all this pissing about is. In what sane country could 52-48 be enough to take you out of the EU but 59-41 be insufficient to rejoin the EU?

This is the sort of counter-intuitive guff you'd expect from MPs elected by First Past The Post and used to winning seats with 40-45% of the votes cast.

The point is that the 52-48 referendum result was the first referendum we had about being in the EU.

If it's 60% to leave the EU, then that would make it possible for politicians to join the EU without a referendum and make it hard to get enough support for leaving again. And of course the converse - it would be possible for politicians to leave the EU and make it hard to get support for rejoining.

Once you have had a first and decisive referendum, then you can agree more demanding margin of victory for making changes. But for the first expression of the public view, it has to be 50.1% to win. Otherwise it's a politicians' sham.

(If they had done the referendum before we joined the EU, then firstly they would probably have won it, and secondly they could (like in Ireland and France) had further referendums until the public got it right.)

 

[The Clamp]

The point is that the 52-48 referendum result was the first referendum we had about being in the EU.

If it's 60% to leave the EU, then that would make it possible for politicians to join the EU without a referendum and make it hard to get enough support for leaving again. And of course the converse - it would be possible for politicians to leave the EU and make it hard to get support for rejoining.

Once you have had a first and decisive referendum, then you can agree more demanding margin of victory for making changes. But for the first expression of the public view, it has to be 50.1% to win. Otherwise it's a politicians' sham.

(If they had done the referendum before we joined the EU, then firstly they would probably have won it, and secondly they could (like in Ireland and France) had further referendums until the public got it right.)

Huh?

 

[Thunder Bolt]

The point is that the 52-48 referendum result was the first referendum we had about being in the EU.

If it's 60% to leave the EU, then that would make it possible for politicians to join the EU without a referendum and make it hard to get enough support for leaving again. And of course the converse - it would be possible for politicians to leave the EU and make it hard to get support for rejoining.

Once you have had a first and decisive referendum, then you can agree more demanding margin of victory for making changes. But for the first expression of the public view, it has to be 50.1% to win. Otherwise it's a politicians' sham.

(If they had done the referendum before we joined the EU, then firstly they would probably have won it, and secondly they could (like in Ireland and France) had further referendums until the public got it right.)

I don’t know how old you are but I have voted to remain in two referenda in my lifetime. The first was in 1975 and the second in 2016.
We had joined EFTA (trade agreement) in 1960 and tried to join the EEC several times until 1973. We joined without a referendum, but then Ted Heath put it to the country whether we wanted to leave or remain.

The referendums of 1975 and 2016 illustrate the continuity and change in British Euroscepticism

The British public has voted on membership of the EU on two occasions. In 1975, based on a turnout of 64 per cent, two-thirds voted to stay in the EEC, cementing Britain’s place for the next four d…

blogs.lse.ac.uk

 

[dsr-burnley]

I don’t know how old you are but I have voted to remain in two referenda in my lifetime. The first was in 1975 and the second in 2016.
We had joined EFTA (trade agreement) in 1960 and tried to join the EEC several times until 1973. We joined without a referendum, but then Ted Heath put it to the country whether we wanted to leave or remain.

The referendums of 1975 and 2016 illustrate the continuity and change in British Euroscepticism

The British public has voted on membership of the EU on two occasions. In 1975, based on a turnout of 64 per cent, two-thirds voted to stay in the EEC, cementing Britain’s place for the next four d…

blogs.lse.ac.uk

I'm old enough to have followed the EEC referendum, and also old enough to know that the EU is a different body from the EEC. We should have had (and eventually did have) a referendum about joining the EU, as many countries did. (Several times, in some cases.)

 

[Thunder Bolt]

I'm old enough to have followed the EEC referendum, and also old enough to know that the EU is a different body from the EEC. We should have had (and eventually did have) a referendum about joining the EU, as many countries did. (Several times, in some cases.)

You ignored the point about having joined EFTA, which was a trading agreement, in 1960. It was clear in 1973, joining EEC was more of a political move.
Changing our money system to decimal from the old £ S d, was a move towards unity. Gordon Brown used our veto to stop us changing to the euro.

Britain led many of the changes by introducing the Single Market.

https://www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/evolutionofparliament/legislativescrutiny/parliament-and-europe/overview/britain-and-eec-to-single-european-act/

 

[Guinness Boy]

The point is that the 52-48 referendum result was the first referendum we had about being in the EU.

If it's 60% to leave the EU, then that would make it possible for politicians to join the EU without a referendum and make it hard to get enough support for leaving again. And of course the converse - it would be possible for politicians to leave the EU and make it hard to get support for rejoining.

Once you have had a first and decisive referendum, then you can agree more demanding margin of victory for making changes. But for the first expression of the public view, it has to be 50.1% to win. Otherwise it's a politicians' sham.

(If they had done the referendum before we joined the EU, then firstly they would probably have won it, and secondly they could (like in Ireland and France) had further referendums until the public got it right.)

No. No you can't. That's undemocratic.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

The point is that the 52-48 referendum result was the first referendum we had about being in the EU.

If it's 60% to leave the EU, then that would make it possible for politicians to join the EU without a referendum and make it hard to get enough support for leaving again. And of course the converse - it would be possible for politicians to leave the EU and make it hard to get support for rejoining.

Once you have had a first and decisive referendum, then you can agree more demanding margin of victory for making changes. But for the first expression of the public view, it has to be 50.1% to win. Otherwise it's a politicians' sham.

(If they had done the referendum before we joined the EU, then firstly they would probably have won it, and secondly they could (like in Ireland and France) had further referendums until the public got it right.)

That’s rubbish. Switzerland has done a lot on referenda for years, and they don’t work on a simple majority. We are talking about things which have a major effect on the way a country works, and the reason for requiring something like a 60-40 majority is to make absolutely sure that it is what the people want.

And it wasn’t a 52-48 referendum result. If you go down to decimal points it was closer than that - hardly a convincing majority.

Plenty of people before referendum day were criticising the decision to work on a straight majority. The organisation of the referendum went against any idea of good practice in the organisation of referenda that there is and David Cameron has to take his share of the blame for where we are now. The shysters who came after him have just made it several times worse. The one person who did at least seem to try to do it properly (in my view) was Theresa May, but the lunatic fringe blocked her all the way.

What me? Bitter? To be honest I am still angry about it all. But even after the result was known it was obvious that it had to happen (even though I seem to remember the vote was only advisory), but idiots like Johnson made it all a hell of a lot worse. But none of it would have happened had the organisation of the original referendum been sensibly approached.

 

[Weststander]

I'm old enough to have followed the EEC referendum, and also old enough to know that the EU is a different body from the EEC. We should have had (and eventually did have) a referendum about joining the EU, as many countries did. (Several times, in some cases.)

Funnily enough, I’ve always thought (pre Brexit movement) that we should’ve have referenda over Maastrict 1992 and Lisbon 2007. Ireland did over the latter, Denmark an opt-out version in 2015 over policies.

These would’ve been very comfortable wins on the EU. At the time the anti-EU movement was far, far smaller. Corbyn, Bone, Farage, Redwood, that ilk. It would’ve nailed the UK’s EU membership for good.

Major and Blair decided not to involve the people.

 

[Lever]

...and the lasting damage done by offering referenda to an inadequately informed population? Tory Ken Clarke says it all..... https://www.theguardian.com/politic...never-seen-anything-as-mad-or-chaotic-as-this

 

[dsr-burnley]

No. No you can't. That's undemocratic.

You not only can agree a greater margin of victory, but for the sake of practicalities you have to. An annual referendum to decide whether we want to be in the EU or not, is not going to work. The practicalities of agreeing to join and then backing out and then rejoining just can't work.

The first time you ask the people, you can take a simple majority. The next time, if nothing much has altered, you need a more decisive figure.

 

[Is it PotG?]

...and the lasting damage done by offering referenda to an inadequately informed population? Tory Ken Clarke says it all..... https://www.theguardian.com/politic...never-seen-anything-as-mad-or-chaotic-as-this

6½ years old, contemporary stuff!

 

[dsr-burnley]

That’s rubbish. Switzerland has done a lot on referenda for years, and they don’t work on a simple majority. We are talking about things which have a major effect on the way a country works, and the reason for requiring something like a 60-40 majority is to make absolutely sure that it is what the people want.

And it wasn’t a 52-48 referendum result. If you go down to decimal points it was closer than that - hardly a convincing majority.

Plenty of people before referendum day were criticising the decision to work on a straight majority. The organisation of the referendum went against any idea of good practice in the organisation of referenda that there is and David Cameron has to take his share of the blame for where we are now. The shysters who came after him have just made it several times worse. The one person who did at least seem to try to do it properly (in my view) was Theresa May, but the lunatic fringe blocked her all the way.

What me? Bitter? To be honest I am still angry about it all. But even after the result was known it was obvious that it had to happen (even though I seem to remember the vote was only advisory), but idiots like Johnson made it all a hell of a lot worse. But none of it would have happened had the organisation of the original referendum been sensibly approached.

All referendums are advisory in that sense. There is a fairly significant minority of people who would have been happy to stay in the EU on the grounds that the referendum was only advisory, but I suspect that was not a matter of principle, only a matter of wanting to stay. I suspect their principles would not have extended to a Johnson or other government pulling out of the EU if the referendum had voted to stay, but of course the principle is exactly the same.

I understand the arguments that the EU referendum and the Scottish referendum should have been on more than a simple majority view, but I think in both cases it was right to do it that way. But the next vote, and all subsequent votes, now that the people have been consulted, should be as you say on a higher threshhold.

 

[Weststander]

...and the lasting damage done by offering referenda to an inadequately informed population? Tory Ken Clarke says it all..... https://www.theguardian.com/politic...never-seen-anything-as-mad-or-chaotic-as-this

My view is simply that a referendum in 2007 over Lisbon, before Farage and his wealthy backers got really going in their sh1t stirring over (in effect) Poles and Romanians in small towns, would’ve killed that movement. It would not have been a leave EU vote. Ireland did it.

So very worthwhile.

Meaning the Brexit vote would never have occurred. Politicians of all creeds (bar Corbyn, Bone and Farage) could simply say "the British people have voted". Opportunists such as Boris would have had no viable movement to join.

 

[The Clamp]

All referendums are advisory in that sense. There is a fairly significant minority of people who would have been happy to stay in the EU on the grounds that the referendum was only advisory, but I suspect that was not a matter of principle, only a matter of wanting to stay. I suspect their principles would not have extended to a Johnson or other government pulling out of the EU if the referendum had voted to stay, but of course the principle is exactly the same.

I understand the arguments that the EU referendum and the Scottish referendum should have been on more than a simple majority view, but I think in both cases it was right to do it that way. But the next vote, and all subsequent votes, now that the people have been consulted, should be as you say on a higher threshhold.

What utter drivel.

 

[Guinness Boy]

You not only can agree a greater margin of victory, but for the sake of practicalities you have to. An annual referendum to decide whether we want to be in the EU or not, is not going to work. The practicalities of agreeing to join and then backing out and then rejoining just can't work.

The first time you ask the people, you can take a simple majority. The next time, if nothing much has altered, you need a more decisive figure.

In that case we already asked in 1975 and should still be in.

I thought you Brexiteers believe in democracy at all costs?

 

[dsr-burnley]

What utter drivel.

You have beaten me down by the intelligence of your discussion.

 

[nicko31]

I notice a couple of posters trying to wedge Brexit into everything from Albion's first choice keeper poll to the alternatives to Falmer, so just for them, and to keep those threads on topic, an update from one of Brexit's longest term hardliners

This is the real reason that Brexit 'hard man' Steve Baker wants a border poll supermajority​

Baker claimed that he now regrets that the UK's Brexit vote did not require the support of 60% of those who voted, and went on to add that it would therefore not be advisable in any future vote on Irish unification to accept a '50% plus one' decision.

Blaming the Brexit fiasco on the 'losing side's' inability to accept the outcome is laughable. At no point does he acknowledge that Britain's imperial fantasies have led to them haemorrhaging relevance, power and credibility. The real reason that Brexit has been a failure is that it was based on lies and deceit. There is no buyer's remorse, no self-reflection and no honest assessment of the disastrous outworking of this calamity.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/othe...1&cvid=4cfce8980cea4a26b50a7eedfcc50850&ei=20

And still telling whatever lies he thinks may benefit him and be sucked up by the most gullible



*edit* Almost 60 seconds for a thumbsup. Sadly, I've had better stalkers

View attachment 168917

I actually agree with Baker on the 60% threshold. The racists are dying off fast, we're not far off 60% now.

But if I was the EU I'd say the following to the UK:

That fine in principal you can come back in and don't to join need to Schenhen as the ROI aren't in it, but not until you get a representative democratic system sorted. We've wasted enough time and have more important things to worry about. Love Brussels x

 

[Pogue Mahone]

You have beaten me down by the intelligence of your discussion.

His reply was all that you deserved for your utterly brainless ramblings.

 

[dsr-burnley]

In that case we already asked in 1975 and should still be in.

I thought you Brexiteers believe in democracy at all costs?

The reply you are quoting was that "The next time, if nothing much has altered, you need a more decisive figure". I would say that the dissolving of the EC and its replacement by the EU, a political and unionist body, was a significant alteration.

 

[Simster]

You not only can agree a greater margin of victory, but for the sake of practicalities you have to. An annual referendum to decide whether we want to be in the EU or not, is not going to work. The practicalities of agreeing to join and then backing out and then rejoining just can't work.

The first time you ask the people, you can take a simple majority. The next time, if nothing much has altered, you need a more decisive figure.

A convenient point of view given that your side won a dubious referendum with a paper thin majority and has proven to be disastrous. And it's complete bollocks given this was not the first referendum in this country on European unity.

Steve Baker's Brexit was extreme one, and has caused a serious rift in Northern Ireland that would be exacerbated by a referendum on it's future using the very same terms that he used to implement his extreme Brexit. He doesn't get to change the terms of referendums to hide this fact.

God I f**king hope Burnley go down. Hopefully it'll mean you end up staying on your own shit board where you can sound off in your own insular echo chamber full of northern mill town thickets.