|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On August 07 2017 20:54 bardtown wrote:
Who knows? Would people still have voted for Remain if they knew the recession and emergency budget nonsense was made up? When you see British media reporting some of the insane things said by Juncker and Verhofstadt as fact while dismissing everything said by even the most reasonable people in the UK govt. I think it becomes quite clear that this has devolved into a partisan issue where neither side has any real interest in the arguments of the other. From my perspective, and I suspect from the perspective of many Leavers, the current mess just reinforces the desire to get out. From the perspective of Remainers it reinforces the idea that leaving is risky.
The thing is that we had a vote, and so the direction of the country has been decided. It wasn't what everybody wanted, but it was what the majority wanted, so it's going to happen. Even if you think Brexit will have a negative impact, the way to minimise that impact is to get behind the British side of the negotiation to push for the best outcome. Trying to undermine the negotiation in the hope that some technicality will result in us remaining is only going to put the country in greater risk.
But I think the whole idea of risk is completely overblown, anyway. My only concerns are technicalities like customs and flights and so on, and I think both sides are at least mature enough to agree to arrangements for these things no matter how uncompromising they want to appear.
The difference is that we knew beforehand that the NHS getting 350m was a lie while, as we're seeing now, the negative economic impact of Brexit is real. I don't see how you can claim the two to be the same. One is real but delayed and the other has always been bs.
|
On August 08 2017 02:10 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On August 07 2017 20:54 bardtown wrote:
Who knows? Would people still have voted for Remain if they knew the recession and emergency budget nonsense was made up? When you see British media reporting some of the insane things said by Juncker and Verhofstadt as fact while dismissing everything said by even the most reasonable people in the UK govt. I think it becomes quite clear that this has devolved into a partisan issue where neither side has any real interest in the arguments of the other. From my perspective, and I suspect from the perspective of many Leavers, the current mess just reinforces the desire to get out. From the perspective of Remainers it reinforces the idea that leaving is risky.
The thing is that we had a vote, and so the direction of the country has been decided. It wasn't what everybody wanted, but it was what the majority wanted, so it's going to happen. Even if you think Brexit will have a negative impact, the way to minimise that impact is to get behind the British side of the negotiation to push for the best outcome. Trying to undermine the negotiation in the hope that some technicality will result in us remaining is only going to put the country in greater risk.
But I think the whole idea of risk is completely overblown, anyway. My only concerns are technicalities like customs and flights and so on, and I think both sides are at least mature enough to agree to arrangements for these things no matter how uncompromising they want to appear. The difference is that we knew beforehand that the NHS getting 350m was a lie while, as we're seeing now, the negative economic impact of Brexit is real. I don't see how you can claim the two to be the same. One is real but delayed and the other has always been bs.
What are you referring to, though? The predicted recession never happened, nor did the emergency budget. If you are referring to inflation outstripping wage growth for a few months I hardly think that resembles the economic threats of the referendum. We'll see how it goes on the economic front, but I don't think it can be said that the situation was accurately represented by the Remain side.
That's to say nothing of claims not related to the economy, like the Remain assurance that the EU would not move towards an integrated military and that we would stay and reform it from the inside (we already tried that and got nothing).
|
Bardtown, please stop talking as if UK have left the EU. But it is true that due to the results of the referendum living standards have dropped. Food prices have increased. Virtually everything imported have increased. Electronics have gone from about 25%-50% more expensive. Taking holidays are more expensive with the devaluing of the pound. What happens when UK truly does leave the EU? We don't know, because the Conservative government doesn't seem to care.
It's a bit strange to assume that a country leaving the EU should have a say in the policies of the EU, would it not? In any case, EU military cooperation was not an issue of either side of the debate, so I have no idea why you are refering to it.
|
On August 08 2017 02:34 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2017 02:10 RvB wrote:On August 07 2017 20:54 bardtown wrote:
Who knows? Would people still have voted for Remain if they knew the recession and emergency budget nonsense was made up? When you see British media reporting some of the insane things said by Juncker and Verhofstadt as fact while dismissing everything said by even the most reasonable people in the UK govt. I think it becomes quite clear that this has devolved into a partisan issue where neither side has any real interest in the arguments of the other. From my perspective, and I suspect from the perspective of many Leavers, the current mess just reinforces the desire to get out. From the perspective of Remainers it reinforces the idea that leaving is risky.
The thing is that we had a vote, and so the direction of the country has been decided. It wasn't what everybody wanted, but it was what the majority wanted, so it's going to happen. Even if you think Brexit will have a negative impact, the way to minimise that impact is to get behind the British side of the negotiation to push for the best outcome. Trying to undermine the negotiation in the hope that some technicality will result in us remaining is only going to put the country in greater risk.
But I think the whole idea of risk is completely overblown, anyway. My only concerns are technicalities like customs and flights and so on, and I think both sides are at least mature enough to agree to arrangements for these things no matter how uncompromising they want to appear. The difference is that we knew beforehand that the NHS getting 350m was a lie while, as we're seeing now, the negative economic impact of Brexit is real. I don't see how you can claim the two to be the same. One is real but delayed and the other has always been bs. What are you referring to, though? The predicted recession never happened, nor did the emergency budget. If you are referring to inflation outstripping wage growth for a few months I hardly think that resembles the economic threats of the referendum. We'll see how it goes on the economic front, but I don't think it can be said that the situation was accurately represented by the Remain side. That's to say nothing of claims not related to the economy, like the Remain assurance that the EU would not move towards an integrated military and that we would stay and reform it from the inside (we already tried that and got nothing).
While there was no recessions the underlying reasons for predicting one were (and are) very real. The UK went from the fastest growing economy in the G7 to the slowest and the slowest in the EU as well. Wage growth has been rapidly dropping (and going negative) since the Brexit vote, consumer spending is falling and savings rates are at their lowest since they started keeping records. And this does not even include the consequences of leaving the single market.
The impact of the Brexit vote has been delayed (and at this point is not as severe) but it's not as if it didn't happen altogether. The 350m pounds for the NHS meanwhile was an obvious lie. There's a world of difference between a prediction not coming true (or being delayed) and knowingly saying something false.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/uk-wage-growth-data-ons-brexit-pound-sterling-a7836606.html
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-economy-consumers-idUKKBN1AM0WM
https://www.businessinsider.nl/uk-savings-rate-falls-to-new-record-low-fuelling-brexit-slump-fears-2017-6/?international=true&r=UK
|
Everybody understood there would be some short term costs from leaving, so the extent of those costs was really the point of contention, and it has not been anywhere near as severe as Remain campaigners implied thus far. As for the emergency budget - you can look that up. It wasn't feasible economic policy, it was basically a threat: vote Remain or we'll take your money away. Also, to say wage growth has been rapidly dropping is slightly misleading. Wage growth is steady; inflation increased due to the weak pound, and so wage growth in real terms has become negative for the past few months. This, admittedly, is a pretty straightforward cost of Brexit, but its at its peak and so we should be back to real growth soon.
I don't understand though. Why are you pointing out consumer spending now? It grew continuously since the Brexit vote until recently. Likewise for growth. So now that it's going down it's the result of Brexit, but when it was going well it wasn't? That's just confirmation bias.
I don't really think the £350m was any more egregious than the claim that we get £10 for every £1 we spend on the EU, for example.
|
On August 08 2017 05:51 bardtown wrote:
Everybody understood there would be some short term costs from leaving, so the extent of those costs was really the point of contention, and it has not been anywhere near as severe as Remain campaigners implied thus far. As for the emergency budget - you can look that up. It wasn't feasible economic policy, it was basically a threat: vote Remain or we'll take your money away. Also, to say wage growth has been rapidly dropping is slightly misleading. Wage growth is steady; inflation increased due to the weak pound, and so wage growth in real terms has become negative for the past few months. This, admittedly, is a pretty straightforward cost of Brexit, but its at its peak and so we should be back to real growth soon.
I don't understand though. Why are you pointing out consumer spending now? It grew continuously since the Brexit vote until recently. Likewise for growth. So now that it's going down it's the result of Brexit, but when it was going well it wasn't? That's just confirmation bias.
I don't really think the £350m was any more egregious than the claim that we get £10 for every £1 we spend on the EU, for example.
Remain hasn't been proven right because Brexit hasn't happened yet... We cant answer the question for another ~3 years.
|
Some of their arguments can be dis/proved, some of their arguments can't. Same for Leave. This is so silly.
|
|
|
On August 08 2017 01:04 bardtown wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2017 00:18 Gorsameth wrote:On August 08 2017 00:06 Jockmcplop wrote:
Whatever we should have voted for in the Brexit vote, it was nowhere near as catastrophic as letting the current bunch of jokers take charge of the process. That's what you risk happening when you vote in a government that never wanted Brexit in the first place. On August 07 2017 23:59 Danglars wrote:On August 07 2017 20:54 bardtown wrote:
Who knows? Would people still have voted for Remain if they knew the recession and emergency budget nonsense was made up? When you see British media reporting some of the insane things said by Juncker and Verhofstadt as fact while dismissing everything said by even the most reasonable people in the UK govt. I think it becomes quite clear that this has devolved into a partisan issue where neither side has any real interest in the arguments of the other. From my perspective, and I suspect from the perspective of many Leavers, the current mess just reinforces the desire to get out. From the perspective of Remainers it reinforces the idea that leaving is risky.
The thing is that we had a vote, and so the direction of the country has been decided. It wasn't what everybody wanted, but it was what the majority wanted, so it's going to happen. Even if you think Brexit will have a negative impact, the way to minimise that impact is to get behind the British side of the negotiation to push for the best outcome. Trying to undermine the negotiation in the hope that some technicality will result in us remaining is only going to put the country in greater risk.
But I think the whole idea of risk is completely overblown, anyway. My only concerns are technicalities like customs and flights and so on, and I think both sides are at least mature enough to agree to arrangements for these things no matter how uncompromising they want to appear. Well put. It's one of the things Remain surrendered in their rush to undo the vote with demagoguery: the ability to win over opposed parties with arguments. They never really Paid attention to or valued the arguments for why the UK had to leave. Now problems show why it's a good thing the process is triggered or why the enterprise jeopardized everything just depends on partisanship. Could it possible be because most of the Leave campaign was based on lies? Its the same problem as the US faces, how do you have a good argument when one side is dominated by lies? The irony of this made me laugh. Thank you for providing an example of exactly what he was describing.
After the third time of being told my side is deceptive and people who think like me are easily deceived, I got a little more settled into bardtown's way of thinking. Why we should've stayed is totally subsumed by Why my ideology tells me everything is bad and you're the reason.
Fuck I'd settle for a tacit admission that both sides employed fear-based arguments as their salient cause (and does ANYONE remember the campaigns, seriously) at this point. But that's not enough for tribalism. One side is dominated by lies, oceania has always been at war with eastasia, and the same is true of the US's two parties. And even alleging the truth is more complicated is now a contrary political statement.
|
On August 08 2017 05:51 bardtown wrote:
Everybody understood there would be some short term costs from leaving, so the extent of those costs was really the point of contention, and it has not been anywhere near as severe as Remain campaigners implied thus far. As for the emergency budget - you can look that up. It wasn't feasible economic policy, it was basically a threat: vote Remain or we'll take your money away. Also, to say wage growth has been rapidly dropping is slightly misleading. Wage growth is steady; inflation increased due to the weak pound, and so wage growth in real terms has become negative for the past few months. This, admittedly, is a pretty straightforward cost of Brexit, but its at its peak and so we should be back to real growth soon.
I don't understand though. Why are you pointing out consumer spending now? It grew continuously since the Brexit vote until recently. Likewise for growth. So now that it's going down it's the result of Brexit, but when it was going well it wasn't? That's just confirmation bias.
I don't really think the £350m was any more egregious than the claim that we get £10 for every £1 we spend on the EU, for example.
Consumer spending was sustained because consumers dipped into their savings to spend. If you look at the following graph you can clearly see the fall in savings rate since the Brexit vote:
![[image loading]](http://static4.uk.businessinsider.com/image/59562a9e73455c29008b4ba0-1092/screen%20shot%202017-06-30%20at%20110451.png)
Now that it's at an all time low and real wages are decreasing it's having effects on consumer spending and confidence.
Anyway I don't think it's very constructive to keep this argument going.
edit: the graph is from the 3rd article I posted in my last post.
|
I still don't understand why a tiny simple majority is enough for such a large decision. I know the UK is a bit weird in that respect, not having a Constitution, and joining also only required 50%+1 (but got 67%), but it still baffles me. In most countries a change this size is submitted to a rather rigorous procedure, requiring a number of votes and at least one supermajority. Precisely to prevent the "whim of the day" deciding something so important. Moreover, a straightforward referendum gives power proportional to population, which is problematic for the rights of low population countries (Schotland, Wales and NI in comparison to England). The whole county system exists to give more power to underpopulated regions, and while this balance is very hard to find, overruling parliament is a big decision. The lack of a clear and strong majority is part of what makes the government unable toact decisively. Because while maybe 51% of the population are bardtowns and would leave the EU regardless of the cost, 49% who don't want to leave at all are also British citizens... and if 1% of the bardtowns decide they actually don't like leaving, there is suddenly a majority the other way...
|
On August 08 2017 09:55 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2017 01:04 bardtown wrote:On August 08 2017 00:18 Gorsameth wrote:On August 08 2017 00:06 Jockmcplop wrote:
Whatever we should have voted for in the Brexit vote, it was nowhere near as catastrophic as letting the current bunch of jokers take charge of the process. That's what you risk happening when you vote in a government that never wanted Brexit in the first place. On August 07 2017 23:59 Danglars wrote:On August 07 2017 20:54 bardtown wrote:
Who knows? Would people still have voted for Remain if they knew the recession and emergency budget nonsense was made up? When you see British media reporting some of the insane things said by Juncker and Verhofstadt as fact while dismissing everything said by even the most reasonable people in the UK govt. I think it becomes quite clear that this has devolved into a partisan issue where neither side has any real interest in the arguments of the other. From my perspective, and I suspect from the perspective of many Leavers, the current mess just reinforces the desire to get out. From the perspective of Remainers it reinforces the idea that leaving is risky.
The thing is that we had a vote, and so the direction of the country has been decided. It wasn't what everybody wanted, but it was what the majority wanted, so it's going to happen. Even if you think Brexit will have a negative impact, the way to minimise that impact is to get behind the British side of the negotiation to push for the best outcome. Trying to undermine the negotiation in the hope that some technicality will result in us remaining is only going to put the country in greater risk.
But I think the whole idea of risk is completely overblown, anyway. My only concerns are technicalities like customs and flights and so on, and I think both sides are at least mature enough to agree to arrangements for these things no matter how uncompromising they want to appear. Well put. It's one of the things Remain surrendered in their rush to undo the vote with demagoguery: the ability to win over opposed parties with arguments. They never really Paid attention to or valued the arguments for why the UK had to leave. Now problems show why it's a good thing the process is triggered or why the enterprise jeopardized everything just depends on partisanship. Could it possible be because most of the Leave campaign was based on lies? Its the same problem as the US faces, how do you have a good argument when one side is dominated by lies? The irony of this made me laugh. Thank you for providing an example of exactly what he was describing. After the third time of being told my side is deceptive and people who think like me are easily deceived, I got a little more settled into bardtown's way of thinking. Why we should've stayed is totally subsumed by Why my ideology tells me everything is bad and you're the reason. Fuck I'd settle for a tacit admission that both sides employed fear-based arguments as their salient cause (and does ANYONE remember the campaigns, seriously) at this point. But that's not enough for tribalism. One side is dominated by lies, oceania has always been at war with eastasia, and the same is true of the US's two parties. And even alleging the truth is more complicated is now a contrary political statement.
The UK is not the US. For instance there is the expectation that manifestos are followed as serious policies. The Conservatives and Labour party co-operate on many issues. Attacks on each other members during the election period are not to the same extent as USA, and by comparison rather civil. And yes I remember the election. It's not so long ago, but I guess you have a short memory span. What is your side? It's not 1984. Why are you talking about the US anyways? It's irrelevant.
|
On August 08 2017 19:02 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2017 09:55 Danglars wrote:On August 08 2017 01:04 bardtown wrote:On August 08 2017 00:18 Gorsameth wrote:On August 08 2017 00:06 Jockmcplop wrote:
Whatever we should have voted for in the Brexit vote, it was nowhere near as catastrophic as letting the current bunch of jokers take charge of the process. That's what you risk happening when you vote in a government that never wanted Brexit in the first place. On August 07 2017 23:59 Danglars wrote:On August 07 2017 20:54 bardtown wrote:
Who knows? Would people still have voted for Remain if they knew the recession and emergency budget nonsense was made up? When you see British media reporting some of the insane things said by Juncker and Verhofstadt as fact while dismissing everything said by even the most reasonable people in the UK govt. I think it becomes quite clear that this has devolved into a partisan issue where neither side has any real interest in the arguments of the other. From my perspective, and I suspect from the perspective of many Leavers, the current mess just reinforces the desire to get out. From the perspective of Remainers it reinforces the idea that leaving is risky.
The thing is that we had a vote, and so the direction of the country has been decided. It wasn't what everybody wanted, but it was what the majority wanted, so it's going to happen. Even if you think Brexit will have a negative impact, the way to minimise that impact is to get behind the British side of the negotiation to push for the best outcome. Trying to undermine the negotiation in the hope that some technicality will result in us remaining is only going to put the country in greater risk.
But I think the whole idea of risk is completely overblown, anyway. My only concerns are technicalities like customs and flights and so on, and I think both sides are at least mature enough to agree to arrangements for these things no matter how uncompromising they want to appear. Well put. It's one of the things Remain surrendered in their rush to undo the vote with demagoguery: the ability to win over opposed parties with arguments. They never really Paid attention to or valued the arguments for why the UK had to leave. Now problems show why it's a good thing the process is triggered or why the enterprise jeopardized everything just depends on partisanship. Could it possible be because most of the Leave campaign was based on lies? Its the same problem as the US faces, how do you have a good argument when one side is dominated by lies? The irony of this made me laugh. Thank you for providing an example of exactly what he was describing. After the third time of being told my side is deceptive and people who think like me are easily deceived, I got a little more settled into bardtown's way of thinking. Why we should've stayed is totally subsumed by Why my ideology tells me everything is bad and you're the reason. Fuck I'd settle for a tacit admission that both sides employed fear-based arguments as their salient cause (and does ANYONE remember the campaigns, seriously) at this point. But that's not enough for tribalism. One side is dominated by lies, oceania has always been at war with eastasia, and the same is true of the US's two parties. And even alleging the truth is more complicated is now a contrary political statement. The UK is not the US. For instance there is the expectation that manifestos are followed as serious policies. The Conservatives and Labour party co-operate on many issues. Attacks on each other members during the election period are not to the same extent as USA, and by comparison rather civil. And yes I remember the election. It's not so long ago, but I guess you have a short memory span. What is your side? It's not 1984. Why are you talking about the US anyways? It's irrelevant.
Maybe because the US has the same shitty first past the post system as the UK?
e.g. if in a constituency the difference between two parties is just 1 single vote - that party with more votes gets the seat - and in turn all of the votes for the party second are basically useless.
A system like in Germany would counter this crappy attempt at democracy:
You have 650 seats, half of those seats are give same as in the UK - to the party with the most votes in a constituency.
The second half of these seats are distributed between parties by total share of votes in the country.
Makes it much fairer imo.
Similarly I majorly disagree with how the referendum was done.
52% vs 48% is basically 50/50.... How can you possibly think it's a good idea basing something with such huge implications on a narrow vote like that?
Additionally looking at demographics, a huge chunk of Leave voters will be dead before the UK has even finalised negotiations. Great stuff... fuck up the country for future generations.
|
On August 08 2017 16:54 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On August 08 2017 05:51 bardtown wrote:
Everybody understood there would be some short term costs from leaving, so the extent of those costs was really the point of contention, and it has not been anywhere near as severe as Remain campaigners implied thus far. As for the emergency budget - you can look that up. It wasn't feasible economic policy, it was basically a threat: vote Remain or we'll take your money away. Also, to say wage growth has been rapidly dropping is slightly misleading. Wage growth is steady; inflation increased due to the weak pound, and so wage growth in real terms has become negative for the past few months. This, admittedly, is a pretty straightforward cost of Brexit, but its at its peak and so we should be back to real growth soon.
I don't understand though. Why are you pointing out consumer spending now? It grew continuously since the Brexit vote until recently. Likewise for growth. So now that it's going down it's the result of Brexit, but when it was going well it wasn't? That's just confirmation bias.
I don't really think the £350m was any more egregious than the claim that we get £10 for every £1 we spend on the EU, for example. Consumer spending was sustained because consumers dipped into their savings to spend. If you look at the following graph you can clearly see the fall in savings rate since the Brexit vote: Now that it's at an all time low and real wages are decreasing it's having effects on consumer spending and confidence. Anyway I don't think it's very constructive to keep this argument going. edit: the graph is from the 3rd article I posted in my last post.
This is a problem, but when interest rates are at 0.25% there's simply no point in saving. Obviously I'm not in a position to judge the BoE's decision because my understanding is limited, but intuitively I'm not sure that lowering interest for such a long time and encouraging reliance on credit is preferable to slightly lower spending/growth immediately after the vote. We might have just had middle-of-the-pack growth for this entire period.
On August 08 2017 17:47 Acrofales wrote:
I still don't understand why a tiny simple majority is enough for such a large decision. I know the UK is a bit weird in that respect, not having a Constitution, and joining also only required 50%+1 (but got 67%), but it still baffles me. In most countries a change this size is submitted to a rather rigorous procedure, requiring a number of votes and at least one supermajority. Precisely to prevent the "whim of the day" deciding something so important. Moreover, a straightforward referendum gives power proportional to population, which is problematic for the rights of low population countries (Schotland, Wales and NI in comparison to England). The whole county system exists to give more power to underpopulated regions, and while this balance is very hard to find, overruling parliament is a big decision. The lack of a clear and strong majority is part of what makes the government unable toact decisively. Because while maybe 51% of the population are bardtowns and would leave the EU regardless of the cost, 49% who don't want to leave at all are also British citizens... and if 1% of the bardtowns decide they actually don't like leaving, there is suddenly a majority the other way...
This criticism still makes no sense. You realise that if we use our county system for this vote it becomes something like 65%+ of constituencies in favour of Brexit? We might even be approaching your supermajority in that case. But I hate this idea, anyway. A country that waits for 67% of the population to be in favour of any given policy is waiting until it's too late to be fixed, and is frustrating the majority who want change in favour of a conservative minority. This is some seriously backwards thinking, in my opinion, just baiting revolutionaries to seek alternative action. Also, for every complaining Remain voter there are moderates who, although they still think Remain is the better option, accept that the vote went the way it did and would not want to frustrate it. It's really a vocal minority, who are unfortunately very prevalent in the media, who are still trying to prevent Brexit from happening.
|
It is not about needing a supermajority for every single thing. Most countries have a system where you need a normal majority for day to day government, and a supermajority for changes on the level of constitutional changes.
To me, this makes intuitive sense. There needs to be some stability to the basic functioning and arrangements of government that is not changed, but still the flexibility to change it if necessary. If a change is really necessary, you should be able to convince a supermajority of it.
I would say that brexit is a major upheaval of the type that would require a supermajority in other countries. I think that is a sensible approach, because it also means that when it happens, there is broad support for such a change. Apparently britain disagrees, which is fine. But the current process of the brexit does not seem like something that is going very well. Of course bardtown disagrees here, and fundamentally only time will really tell how smart of an idea it was.
I do, however, hope that decisions of such gravity will require a supermajority in Germany. Constitutional changes do, but i am not certain how the EU is intertwined with our constitution.
|
What about the Maastricht and Lisbon treaties that got us into this situation in the first place? They pass without a supermajority but then we need a supermajority to reverse them? This really sounds less like a matter of principle and more like supporting whichever policy gets the result you want. If the EU required a supermajority referendum from every single country to pass each of its power-hoarding treaties then I could accept the requirement for reversal. They don't though. The Lisbon treaty is basically the constitution that the French people voted down with a different name, so not only do they not require a supermajority but they cannot even secure a majority. In fact, in every instance where an EU treaty has been put to a European people to vote on, it has been voted down. There is no way in hell that the UK would have a supermajority in favour of surrendering control of its borders or laws; in fact, I doubt if there's a single country in the EU where there would be one.
|
Norway28795 Posts
I'm generally not a fan of requiring supermajorities (can't see any real argument for why 49% should be listened to rather than 51%), but I am a fan of requiring two consecutive periods of support for constitutional changes.
And I totally think this should apply just as much to applying for EU membership as it should for leaving the EU.
|
On August 08 2017 20:34 Liquid`Drone wrote:
I'm generally not a fan of requiring supermajorities (can't see any real argument for why 49% should be listened to rather than 51%), but I am a fan of requiring two consecutive periods of support for constitutional changes.
And I totally think this should apply just as much to applying for EU membership as it should for leaving the EU.
This makes a lot more sense to me. I think there needs to be a mechanism for allowing people to demand a referendum, though, otherwise the pressure of this being your only opportunity to effect change has a big impact on the result. If we hadn't voted to leave the EU no government would have dared to give us another vote for decades because it would have been too close for their liking. Obviously with some sort of period required (i.e. 10 years) between votes on the same topic.
|
On August 07 2017 20:54 bardtown wrote:
Who knows? Would people still have voted for Remain if they knew the recession and emergency budget nonsense was made up? When you see British media reporting some of the insane things said by Juncker and Verhofstadt as fact while dismissing everything said by even the most reasonable people in the UK govt. I think it becomes quite clear that this has devolved into a partisan issue where neither side has any real interest in the arguments of the other. From my perspective, and I suspect from the perspective of many Leavers, the current mess just reinforces the desire to get out. From the perspective of Remainers it reinforces the idea that leaving is risky.
The thing is that we had a vote, and so the direction of the country has been decided. It wasn't what everybody wanted, but it was what the majority wanted, so it's going to happen. Even if you think Brexit will have a negative impact, the way to minimise that impact is to get behind the British side of the negotiation to push for the best outcome. Trying to undermine the negotiation in the hope that some technicality will result in us remaining is only going to put the country in greater risk.
But I think the whole idea of risk is completely overblown, anyway. My only concerns are technicalities like customs and flights and so on, and I think both sides are at least mature enough to agree to arrangements for these things no matter how uncompromising they want to appear.
We haven't actually left the EU yet - there easily COULD be a recession as a result, and various articles I've seen on businessinsider, the FT and so on seem to suggest it's quite likely there will be. I think the technicalities such as customs will prove to be a huge issue too - have you seen one solution to the border in Ireland that is practical and doesn't risk the return of paramilitary action?
|
I also strongly believe there should be a second referendum on the terms of leaving - the absolute worst way to conduct referendums in a parliamentary system is having them infrequently. You should either have them frequently over particular issues, or not at all. I think Leavers opposed to it are mostly opposed to it because they're worried they'll lose.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
