|
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 November 17 2018 03:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2018 01:39 iamthedave wrote:
I've yet to hear an argument for why a pathetic 4% win margin should be considered binding concerning Brexit, when most of the voting public didn't really know what they were voting for. This moment, right now, is when the referendum should be called, when the public can see what the government is actually offering. I’m anti Brexit but the 4% argument presumes a unique value to the status quo that doesn’t exist. If 52% isn’t enough support to leave the EU then 48% isn’t enough to be in the EU. When asked whether they wanted to be in or out the British public, by a huge majority, returned the answer “we disagree”. A full 96% of the voting public disagreed with another member of the voting public, if you were to pair them up. Basically referendums are dumb. We shouldn’t do more of them, we should do less. We don’t need another referendum to cancel out the first one.
60% is the minimum I would consider binding on such an important matter. Staying in the EU isn't a massive change that comes with massive risks to every sector of British life.
On November 17 2018 03:51 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2018 01:39 iamthedave wrote:
I've yet to hear an argument for why a pathetic 4% win margin should be considered binding concerning Brexit, when most of the voting public didn't really know what they were voting for. While it's true that votes with massive consequences should probably require higher majorities, or involve more precise questions, you cannot use the "demagogy, lies, blind people" argument only when you're displeased with the result. Plus in many electoral results, the winner got there by a short margin, and thus won perhaps more through luck or perception than something else. It's part of the electoral process to come with some arbitrariness.
Well ding dang skippy, it's a good thing that I apply the principle equally then, isn't it?
This vote is way more important than an election, far more significant, far more impactful. People did vote based largely on demagogy and lies, and an unrealistic picture of what Brexit would look like. Now that there's something concrete on the table people deserve a fair vote on whether they want that to be their future. The referendum was done at the wrong time, about issues people didn't understand, on a future that didn't exist.
You think Cornwall - I think it was - is going to vote overwhelmingly for Brexit now they've learned that A) they're not getting those sweet, sweet EU subsidies anymore and B) the government isn't going to be providing support that equals them?
People voted for Brexit without even looking into what it directly did to their own region!
|
Sorry to derail, but thinking people at large will grasp the situations that are fundamental to what makes a society (something that is super complex) is akin to asking for informed consent from a toddler when explaining a complicated procedure.
Not even the highest educated agree, fully grasp and know the consequences of what's going on here.
Relying on people who just want to make money so they have a roof, food, water, can support children and leisure time (watch television most of the time) is never a good idea imo. These people's minds are full of dichotomous fallacious reasonings that will take years to unroot because they've entrenched themselves so deeply in their wrong beliefs.
And with wrong I don't inherently mean wrong, I mean their reasoning for how they come to a certain conclusion/belief is almost always not at all thought out well; which is just what any impactful change deserves.
|
On November 17 2018 16:58 Melliflue wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2018 04:25 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 03:13 Acrofales wrote:On November 17 2018 02:40 kollin wrote:
Given Brexit has now been legitimised by the voting public twice, in two years, through both institutions that have historically been used to legitimise decisions, a third vote on Brexit (the terms? whether we call it off?) isn't going to solve much. Our future within the EU is, quite frankly, as uncertain as our future outside the EU (the economic perils are not as significant, but the political ones are staggeringly more so). Given how we carry out referendums in this country, another referendum will do very, very little to clarify anything. Substantively different positions on Brexit are being offered by the major political parties - a referendum was silly in 2016 and is silly now. Has brexit been legitimized by the elections? I don't think rolling back brexit was a thing in the parliamentary elections, but rather it was treated as a fait accompli, and the question put forth was "how will you manage with brexit", to which neither main party had any kind of answer. Pro-Brexit parties got 80% of the vote - the party offering to reverse Brexit lost vote share. Obviously the 2017 election can't be read as a mass endorsement of Brexit, but if Britain's democratic institutions are to actually mean anything then I don't see how we can pretend a 'people's vote' isn't anything but the third legitimation of Brexit in three years. The idea that very recent democratic results should be recontested because the economic consequences are appalling - while understandable - wasn't bounced around during austerity by the New Labour types that are bouncing it around now, and it's very obviously selective myopia rather than sudden engagement with reality motivating this. The last general election was not about Brexit though. If we had proportional representation then maybe, but there wasn't a party in my constituency that wanted to cancel Brexit and had a chance at winning the seat.
My point is that Britain's direct democratic process delivered an endorsement of Brexit; Britain's representative democratic process delivered an endorsement of Brexit; why should there be a third vote except to reverse Brexit? Unless the call is for a referendum without remain on it, but it isn't.
|
On November 17 2018 19:40 Uldridge wrote:
Sorry to derail, but thinking people at large will grasp the situations that are fundamental to what makes a society (something that is super complex) is akin to asking for informed consent from a toddler when explaining a complicated procedure.
Not even the highest educated agree, fully grasp and know the consequences of what's going on here.
Relying on people who just want to make money so they have a roof, food, water, can support children and leisure time (watch television most of the time) is never a good idea imo. These people's minds are full of dichotomous fallacious reasonings that will take years to unroot because they've entrenched themselves so deeply in their wrong beliefs.
And with wrong I don't inherently mean wrong, I mean their reasoning for how they come to a certain conclusion/belief is almost always not at all thought out well; which is just what any impactful change deserves.
We're all too reluctant to recognise our massive ignorance. For exemple, most far right or far left movements can get massive support with promising less taxes and more assistance from the government. I wish we would have at least a small easy test which would be taken right before voting. Questions and answers would be public long before the vote but I'm sure a lot of people would still get it wrong.
|
On November 17 2018 21:13 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2018 16:58 Melliflue wrote:On November 17 2018 04:25 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 03:13 Acrofales wrote:On November 17 2018 02:40 kollin wrote:
Given Brexit has now been legitimised by the voting public twice, in two years, through both institutions that have historically been used to legitimise decisions, a third vote on Brexit (the terms? whether we call it off?) isn't going to solve much. Our future within the EU is, quite frankly, as uncertain as our future outside the EU (the economic perils are not as significant, but the political ones are staggeringly more so). Given how we carry out referendums in this country, another referendum will do very, very little to clarify anything. Substantively different positions on Brexit are being offered by the major political parties - a referendum was silly in 2016 and is silly now. Has brexit been legitimized by the elections? I don't think rolling back brexit was a thing in the parliamentary elections, but rather it was treated as a fait accompli, and the question put forth was "how will you manage with brexit", to which neither main party had any kind of answer. Pro-Brexit parties got 80% of the vote - the party offering to reverse Brexit lost vote share. Obviously the 2017 election can't be read as a mass endorsement of Brexit, but if Britain's democratic institutions are to actually mean anything then I don't see how we can pretend a 'people's vote' isn't anything but the third legitimation of Brexit in three years. The idea that very recent democratic results should be recontested because the economic consequences are appalling - while understandable - wasn't bounced around during austerity by the New Labour types that are bouncing it around now, and it's very obviously selective myopia rather than sudden engagement with reality motivating this. The last general election was not about Brexit though. If we had proportional representation then maybe, but there wasn't a party in my constituency that wanted to cancel Brexit and had a chance at winning the seat. My point is that Britain's direct democratic process delivered an endorsement of Brexit; Britain's representative democratic process delivered an endorsement of Brexit; why should there be a third vote except to reverse Brexit? Unless the call is for a referendum without remain on it, but it isn't.
The process delivered an endorsement of a shapeless concept. Cool.
That doesn't mean it delivered an endorsement of what we're actually getting.
|
On November 17 2018 21:56 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2018 21:13 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 16:58 Melliflue wrote:On November 17 2018 04:25 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 03:13 Acrofales wrote:On November 17 2018 02:40 kollin wrote:
Given Brexit has now been legitimised by the voting public twice, in two years, through both institutions that have historically been used to legitimise decisions, a third vote on Brexit (the terms? whether we call it off?) isn't going to solve much. Our future within the EU is, quite frankly, as uncertain as our future outside the EU (the economic perils are not as significant, but the political ones are staggeringly more so). Given how we carry out referendums in this country, another referendum will do very, very little to clarify anything. Substantively different positions on Brexit are being offered by the major political parties - a referendum was silly in 2016 and is silly now. Has brexit been legitimized by the elections? I don't think rolling back brexit was a thing in the parliamentary elections, but rather it was treated as a fait accompli, and the question put forth was "how will you manage with brexit", to which neither main party had any kind of answer. Pro-Brexit parties got 80% of the vote - the party offering to reverse Brexit lost vote share. Obviously the 2017 election can't be read as a mass endorsement of Brexit, but if Britain's democratic institutions are to actually mean anything then I don't see how we can pretend a 'people's vote' isn't anything but the third legitimation of Brexit in three years. The idea that very recent democratic results should be recontested because the economic consequences are appalling - while understandable - wasn't bounced around during austerity by the New Labour types that are bouncing it around now, and it's very obviously selective myopia rather than sudden engagement with reality motivating this. The last general election was not about Brexit though. If we had proportional representation then maybe, but there wasn't a party in my constituency that wanted to cancel Brexit and had a chance at winning the seat. My point is that Britain's direct democratic process delivered an endorsement of Brexit; Britain's representative democratic process delivered an endorsement of Brexit; why should there be a third vote except to reverse Brexit? Unless the call is for a referendum without remain on it, but it isn't. The process delivered an endorsement of a shapeless concept. Cool. That doesn't mean it delivered an endorsement of what we're actually getting.
That's politics! The Conservatives made concrete promises in their manifesto, didn't deliver on them and now they may or may not be punished at election time which may be next month or next decade. Corroding our democratic institutions because they're resulting in Things People Don't Like isn't wise, as the referendum has shown. I, personally, just wish all the New Labour types who have found it in themselves to throw their energy into campaigning to reverse Brexit had done the same with austerity, given the latter has been enormously damaging to millions of people and was obviously economically inept at the time (like Brexit!). Oh well
|
On November 17 2018 22:01 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2018 21:56 iamthedave wrote:On November 17 2018 21:13 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 16:58 Melliflue wrote:On November 17 2018 04:25 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 03:13 Acrofales wrote:On November 17 2018 02:40 kollin wrote:
Given Brexit has now been legitimised by the voting public twice, in two years, through both institutions that have historically been used to legitimise decisions, a third vote on Brexit (the terms? whether we call it off?) isn't going to solve much. Our future within the EU is, quite frankly, as uncertain as our future outside the EU (the economic perils are not as significant, but the political ones are staggeringly more so). Given how we carry out referendums in this country, another referendum will do very, very little to clarify anything. Substantively different positions on Brexit are being offered by the major political parties - a referendum was silly in 2016 and is silly now. Has brexit been legitimized by the elections? I don't think rolling back brexit was a thing in the parliamentary elections, but rather it was treated as a fait accompli, and the question put forth was "how will you manage with brexit", to which neither main party had any kind of answer. Pro-Brexit parties got 80% of the vote - the party offering to reverse Brexit lost vote share. Obviously the 2017 election can't be read as a mass endorsement of Brexit, but if Britain's democratic institutions are to actually mean anything then I don't see how we can pretend a 'people's vote' isn't anything but the third legitimation of Brexit in three years. The idea that very recent democratic results should be recontested because the economic consequences are appalling - while understandable - wasn't bounced around during austerity by the New Labour types that are bouncing it around now, and it's very obviously selective myopia rather than sudden engagement with reality motivating this. The last general election was not about Brexit though. If we had proportional representation then maybe, but there wasn't a party in my constituency that wanted to cancel Brexit and had a chance at winning the seat. My point is that Britain's direct democratic process delivered an endorsement of Brexit; Britain's representative democratic process delivered an endorsement of Brexit; why should there be a third vote except to reverse Brexit? Unless the call is for a referendum without remain on it, but it isn't. The process delivered an endorsement of a shapeless concept. Cool. That doesn't mean it delivered an endorsement of what we're actually getting. That's politics! The Conservatives made concrete promises in their manifesto, didn't deliver on them and now they may or may not be punished at election time which may be next month or next decade. Corroding our democratic institutions because they're resulting in Things People Don't Like isn't wise, as the referendum has shown. I, personally, just wish all the New Labour types who have found it in themselves to throw their energy into campaigning to reverse Brexit had done the same with austerity, given the latter has been enormously damaging to millions of people and was obviously economically inept at the time (like Brexit!). Oh well
Any guesses when the next Scottish referendum for a split happens due to the EU? If they split England would need a hard border on the island?
|
On November 17 2018 22:25 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2018 22:01 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 21:56 iamthedave wrote:On November 17 2018 21:13 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 16:58 Melliflue wrote:On November 17 2018 04:25 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 03:13 Acrofales wrote:On November 17 2018 02:40 kollin wrote:
Given Brexit has now been legitimised by the voting public twice, in two years, through both institutions that have historically been used to legitimise decisions, a third vote on Brexit (the terms? whether we call it off?) isn't going to solve much. Our future within the EU is, quite frankly, as uncertain as our future outside the EU (the economic perils are not as significant, but the political ones are staggeringly more so). Given how we carry out referendums in this country, another referendum will do very, very little to clarify anything. Substantively different positions on Brexit are being offered by the major political parties - a referendum was silly in 2016 and is silly now. Has brexit been legitimized by the elections? I don't think rolling back brexit was a thing in the parliamentary elections, but rather it was treated as a fait accompli, and the question put forth was "how will you manage with brexit", to which neither main party had any kind of answer. Pro-Brexit parties got 80% of the vote - the party offering to reverse Brexit lost vote share. Obviously the 2017 election can't be read as a mass endorsement of Brexit, but if Britain's democratic institutions are to actually mean anything then I don't see how we can pretend a 'people's vote' isn't anything but the third legitimation of Brexit in three years. The idea that very recent democratic results should be recontested because the economic consequences are appalling - while understandable - wasn't bounced around during austerity by the New Labour types that are bouncing it around now, and it's very obviously selective myopia rather than sudden engagement with reality motivating this. The last general election was not about Brexit though. If we had proportional representation then maybe, but there wasn't a party in my constituency that wanted to cancel Brexit and had a chance at winning the seat. My point is that Britain's direct democratic process delivered an endorsement of Brexit; Britain's representative democratic process delivered an endorsement of Brexit; why should there be a third vote except to reverse Brexit? Unless the call is for a referendum without remain on it, but it isn't. The process delivered an endorsement of a shapeless concept. Cool. That doesn't mean it delivered an endorsement of what we're actually getting. That's politics! The Conservatives made concrete promises in their manifesto, didn't deliver on them and now they may or may not be punished at election time which may be next month or next decade. Corroding our democratic institutions because they're resulting in Things People Don't Like isn't wise, as the referendum has shown. I, personally, just wish all the New Labour types who have found it in themselves to throw their energy into campaigning to reverse Brexit had done the same with austerity, given the latter has been enormously damaging to millions of people and was obviously economically inept at the time (like Brexit!). Oh well Any guesses when the next Scottish referendum for a split happens due to the EU? If they split England would need a hard border on the island?
I have no idea
|
On November 17 2018 22:01 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2018 21:56 iamthedave wrote:On November 17 2018 21:13 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 16:58 Melliflue wrote:On November 17 2018 04:25 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 03:13 Acrofales wrote:On November 17 2018 02:40 kollin wrote:
Given Brexit has now been legitimised by the voting public twice, in two years, through both institutions that have historically been used to legitimise decisions, a third vote on Brexit (the terms? whether we call it off?) isn't going to solve much. Our future within the EU is, quite frankly, as uncertain as our future outside the EU (the economic perils are not as significant, but the political ones are staggeringly more so). Given how we carry out referendums in this country, another referendum will do very, very little to clarify anything. Substantively different positions on Brexit are being offered by the major political parties - a referendum was silly in 2016 and is silly now. Has brexit been legitimized by the elections? I don't think rolling back brexit was a thing in the parliamentary elections, but rather it was treated as a fait accompli, and the question put forth was "how will you manage with brexit", to which neither main party had any kind of answer. Pro-Brexit parties got 80% of the vote - the party offering to reverse Brexit lost vote share. Obviously the 2017 election can't be read as a mass endorsement of Brexit, but if Britain's democratic institutions are to actually mean anything then I don't see how we can pretend a 'people's vote' isn't anything but the third legitimation of Brexit in three years. The idea that very recent democratic results should be recontested because the economic consequences are appalling - while understandable - wasn't bounced around during austerity by the New Labour types that are bouncing it around now, and it's very obviously selective myopia rather than sudden engagement with reality motivating this. The last general election was not about Brexit though. If we had proportional representation then maybe, but there wasn't a party in my constituency that wanted to cancel Brexit and had a chance at winning the seat. My point is that Britain's direct democratic process delivered an endorsement of Brexit; Britain's representative democratic process delivered an endorsement of Brexit; why should there be a third vote except to reverse Brexit? Unless the call is for a referendum without remain on it, but it isn't. The process delivered an endorsement of a shapeless concept. Cool. That doesn't mean it delivered an endorsement of what we're actually getting. That's politics! The Conservatives made concrete promises in their manifesto, didn't deliver on them and now they may or may not be punished at election time which may be next month or next decade. Corroding our democratic institutions because they're resulting in Things People Don't Like isn't wise, as the referendum has shown. I, personally, just wish all the New Labour types who have found it in themselves to throw their energy into campaigning to reverse Brexit had done the same with austerity, given the latter has been enormously damaging to millions of people and was obviously economically inept at the time (like Brexit!). Oh well
This is more than politics, and I don't understand why you can't see that. This is a singular event that will affect generations of British citizens, that will permanently change Britain's standing in the world and on the world stage, that can't be reversed at the polls at a later date. It is special and exceptional, and shouldn't be treated like it isn't. If the next government asks to get back into the EU, the EU almost certainly will - and should - tell us to fuck right off.
The argument 'Well, we voted to drive off this cliff so we damn well have to do it' is stupid. If we have to go off the cliff, we should make damn sure, 100% that the British people in the significant majority want to do so. As it is, a slim majority wanted to do so when they were pumped up on bullshit.
It's very hard to tell how it would go now, and that's exactly why we should have another referendum, with a clear dictum that 60% is needed for something (be it 60% for cancelling or 60% for leaving regardless).
|
On November 17 2018 21:13 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2018 16:58 Melliflue wrote:On November 17 2018 04:25 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 03:13 Acrofales wrote:On November 17 2018 02:40 kollin wrote:
Given Brexit has now been legitimised by the voting public twice, in two years, through both institutions that have historically been used to legitimise decisions, a third vote on Brexit (the terms? whether we call it off?) isn't going to solve much. Our future within the EU is, quite frankly, as uncertain as our future outside the EU (the economic perils are not as significant, but the political ones are staggeringly more so). Given how we carry out referendums in this country, another referendum will do very, very little to clarify anything. Substantively different positions on Brexit are being offered by the major political parties - a referendum was silly in 2016 and is silly now. Has brexit been legitimized by the elections? I don't think rolling back brexit was a thing in the parliamentary elections, but rather it was treated as a fait accompli, and the question put forth was "how will you manage with brexit", to which neither main party had any kind of answer. Pro-Brexit parties got 80% of the vote - the party offering to reverse Brexit lost vote share. Obviously the 2017 election can't be read as a mass endorsement of Brexit, but if Britain's democratic institutions are to actually mean anything then I don't see how we can pretend a 'people's vote' isn't anything but the third legitimation of Brexit in three years. The idea that very recent democratic results should be recontested because the economic consequences are appalling - while understandable - wasn't bounced around during austerity by the New Labour types that are bouncing it around now, and it's very obviously selective myopia rather than sudden engagement with reality motivating this. The last general election was not about Brexit though. If we had proportional representation then maybe, but there wasn't a party in my constituency that wanted to cancel Brexit and had a chance at winning the seat. My point is that Britain's direct democratic process delivered an endorsement of Brexit; Britain's representative democratic process delivered an endorsement of Brexit; why should there be a third vote except to reverse Brexit? Unless the call is for a referendum without remain on it, but it isn't.
Britain's direct democratic process wasn't followed by Vote Leave or Leave.Eu though. They both violated campaigning laws, which I argue is "corroding our democratic institutions" itself.
The following general election did not give many people a meaningful vote on Brexit because both major parties adopted Brexit as policy as a consequence of the referendum result. If the referendum went the other way then there is no possibility that both Labour and the Conservatives adopt Brexit as policy for the next general election (whenever that would have been).
|
On November 17 2018 21:13 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2018 16:58 Melliflue wrote:On November 17 2018 04:25 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 03:13 Acrofales wrote:On November 17 2018 02:40 kollin wrote:
Given Brexit has now been legitimised by the voting public twice, in two years, through both institutions that have historically been used to legitimise decisions, a third vote on Brexit (the terms? whether we call it off?) isn't going to solve much. Our future within the EU is, quite frankly, as uncertain as our future outside the EU (the economic perils are not as significant, but the political ones are staggeringly more so). Given how we carry out referendums in this country, another referendum will do very, very little to clarify anything. Substantively different positions on Brexit are being offered by the major political parties - a referendum was silly in 2016 and is silly now. Has brexit been legitimized by the elections? I don't think rolling back brexit was a thing in the parliamentary elections, but rather it was treated as a fait accompli, and the question put forth was "how will you manage with brexit", to which neither main party had any kind of answer. Pro-Brexit parties got 80% of the vote - the party offering to reverse Brexit lost vote share. Obviously the 2017 election can't be read as a mass endorsement of Brexit, but if Britain's democratic institutions are to actually mean anything then I don't see how we can pretend a 'people's vote' isn't anything but the third legitimation of Brexit in three years. The idea that very recent democratic results should be recontested because the economic consequences are appalling - while understandable - wasn't bounced around during austerity by the New Labour types that are bouncing it around now, and it's very obviously selective myopia rather than sudden engagement with reality motivating this. The last general election was not about Brexit though. If we had proportional representation then maybe, but there wasn't a party in my constituency that wanted to cancel Brexit and had a chance at winning the seat. My point is that Britain's direct democratic process delivered an endorsement of Brexit; Britain's representative democratic process delivered an endorsement of Brexit; why should there be a third vote except to reverse Brexit? Unless the call is for a referendum without remain on it, but it isn't.
E: Nvm I was mostly confusing stuff...
|
On November 17 2018 23:18 iamthedave wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2018 22:01 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 21:56 iamthedave wrote:On November 17 2018 21:13 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 16:58 Melliflue wrote:On November 17 2018 04:25 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 03:13 Acrofales wrote:On November 17 2018 02:40 kollin wrote:
Given Brexit has now been legitimised by the voting public twice, in two years, through both institutions that have historically been used to legitimise decisions, a third vote on Brexit (the terms? whether we call it off?) isn't going to solve much. Our future within the EU is, quite frankly, as uncertain as our future outside the EU (the economic perils are not as significant, but the political ones are staggeringly more so). Given how we carry out referendums in this country, another referendum will do very, very little to clarify anything. Substantively different positions on Brexit are being offered by the major political parties - a referendum was silly in 2016 and is silly now. Has brexit been legitimized by the elections? I don't think rolling back brexit was a thing in the parliamentary elections, but rather it was treated as a fait accompli, and the question put forth was "how will you manage with brexit", to which neither main party had any kind of answer. Pro-Brexit parties got 80% of the vote - the party offering to reverse Brexit lost vote share. Obviously the 2017 election can't be read as a mass endorsement of Brexit, but if Britain's democratic institutions are to actually mean anything then I don't see how we can pretend a 'people's vote' isn't anything but the third legitimation of Brexit in three years. The idea that very recent democratic results should be recontested because the economic consequences are appalling - while understandable - wasn't bounced around during austerity by the New Labour types that are bouncing it around now, and it's very obviously selective myopia rather than sudden engagement with reality motivating this. The last general election was not about Brexit though. If we had proportional representation then maybe, but there wasn't a party in my constituency that wanted to cancel Brexit and had a chance at winning the seat. My point is that Britain's direct democratic process delivered an endorsement of Brexit; Britain's representative democratic process delivered an endorsement of Brexit; why should there be a third vote except to reverse Brexit? Unless the call is for a referendum without remain on it, but it isn't. The process delivered an endorsement of a shapeless concept. Cool. That doesn't mean it delivered an endorsement of what we're actually getting. That's politics! The Conservatives made concrete promises in their manifesto, didn't deliver on them and now they may or may not be punished at election time which may be next month or next decade. Corroding our democratic institutions because they're resulting in Things People Don't Like isn't wise, as the referendum has shown. I, personally, just wish all the New Labour types who have found it in themselves to throw their energy into campaigning to reverse Brexit had done the same with austerity, given the latter has been enormously damaging to millions of people and was obviously economically inept at the time (like Brexit!). Oh well This is more than politics, and I don't understand why you can't see that. This is a singular event that will affect generations of British citizens, that will permanently change Britain's standing in the world and on the world stage, that can't be reversed at the polls at a later date. It is special and exceptional, and shouldn't be treated like it isn't. If the next government asks to get back into the EU, the EU almost certainly will - and should - tell us to fuck right off. The argument 'Well, we voted to drive off this cliff so we damn well have to do it' is stupid. If we have to go off the cliff, we should make damn sure, 100% that the British people in the significant majority want to do so. As it is, a slim majority wanted to do so when they were pumped up on bullshit. It's very hard to tell how it would go now, and that's exactly why we should have another referendum, with a clear dictum that 60% is needed for something (be it 60% for cancelling or 60% for leaving regardless).
Remaining is nothing the UK could decide on unilaterally.
But I guess this is the whole idea of British referendums: Just let the people vote on not available options and then figure out the mess you created.
|
On November 18 2018 00:35 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2018 23:18 iamthedave wrote:On November 17 2018 22:01 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 21:56 iamthedave wrote:On November 17 2018 21:13 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 16:58 Melliflue wrote:On November 17 2018 04:25 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 03:13 Acrofales wrote:On November 17 2018 02:40 kollin wrote:
Given Brexit has now been legitimised by the voting public twice, in two years, through both institutions that have historically been used to legitimise decisions, a third vote on Brexit (the terms? whether we call it off?) isn't going to solve much. Our future within the EU is, quite frankly, as uncertain as our future outside the EU (the economic perils are not as significant, but the political ones are staggeringly more so). Given how we carry out referendums in this country, another referendum will do very, very little to clarify anything. Substantively different positions on Brexit are being offered by the major political parties - a referendum was silly in 2016 and is silly now. Has brexit been legitimized by the elections? I don't think rolling back brexit was a thing in the parliamentary elections, but rather it was treated as a fait accompli, and the question put forth was "how will you manage with brexit", to which neither main party had any kind of answer. Pro-Brexit parties got 80% of the vote - the party offering to reverse Brexit lost vote share. Obviously the 2017 election can't be read as a mass endorsement of Brexit, but if Britain's democratic institutions are to actually mean anything then I don't see how we can pretend a 'people's vote' isn't anything but the third legitimation of Brexit in three years. The idea that very recent democratic results should be recontested because the economic consequences are appalling - while understandable - wasn't bounced around during austerity by the New Labour types that are bouncing it around now, and it's very obviously selective myopia rather than sudden engagement with reality motivating this. The last general election was not about Brexit though. If we had proportional representation then maybe, but there wasn't a party in my constituency that wanted to cancel Brexit and had a chance at winning the seat. My point is that Britain's direct democratic process delivered an endorsement of Brexit; Britain's representative democratic process delivered an endorsement of Brexit; why should there be a third vote except to reverse Brexit? Unless the call is for a referendum without remain on it, but it isn't. The process delivered an endorsement of a shapeless concept. Cool. That doesn't mean it delivered an endorsement of what we're actually getting. That's politics! The Conservatives made concrete promises in their manifesto, didn't deliver on them and now they may or may not be punished at election time which may be next month or next decade. Corroding our democratic institutions because they're resulting in Things People Don't Like isn't wise, as the referendum has shown. I, personally, just wish all the New Labour types who have found it in themselves to throw their energy into campaigning to reverse Brexit had done the same with austerity, given the latter has been enormously damaging to millions of people and was obviously economically inept at the time (like Brexit!). Oh well This is more than politics, and I don't understand why you can't see that. This is a singular event that will affect generations of British citizens, that will permanently change Britain's standing in the world and on the world stage, that can't be reversed at the polls at a later date. It is special and exceptional, and shouldn't be treated like it isn't. If the next government asks to get back into the EU, the EU almost certainly will - and should - tell us to fuck right off. The argument 'Well, we voted to drive off this cliff so we damn well have to do it' is stupid. If we have to go off the cliff, we should make damn sure, 100% that the British people in the significant majority want to do so. As it is, a slim majority wanted to do so when they were pumped up on bullshit. It's very hard to tell how it would go now, and that's exactly why we should have another referendum, with a clear dictum that 60% is needed for something (be it 60% for cancelling or 60% for leaving regardless). Remaining is nothing the UK could decide on unilaterally. But I guess this is the whole idea of British referendums: Just let the people vote on not available options and then figure out the mess you created.
In all fairness, I think it's far more likely other EU nations would vote in favor of scrapping Brexit than that all other EU nations vote in favor of the deal. In both cases, you'll have some political horsetrading (e.g. Italy going to be a problem just to fuck with the EU), but agreeing to let the UK remain in exactly the same position they've been in for the last 30-odd years is far less likely to inflame political strife than agreeing to a nebulous Brexit deal, one that mostly kicks the can down the road.
|
On November 18 2018 00:35 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2018 23:18 iamthedave wrote:On November 17 2018 22:01 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 21:56 iamthedave wrote:On November 17 2018 21:13 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 16:58 Melliflue wrote:On November 17 2018 04:25 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 03:13 Acrofales wrote:On November 17 2018 02:40 kollin wrote:
Given Brexit has now been legitimised by the voting public twice, in two years, through both institutions that have historically been used to legitimise decisions, a third vote on Brexit (the terms? whether we call it off?) isn't going to solve much. Our future within the EU is, quite frankly, as uncertain as our future outside the EU (the economic perils are not as significant, but the political ones are staggeringly more so). Given how we carry out referendums in this country, another referendum will do very, very little to clarify anything. Substantively different positions on Brexit are being offered by the major political parties - a referendum was silly in 2016 and is silly now. Has brexit been legitimized by the elections? I don't think rolling back brexit was a thing in the parliamentary elections, but rather it was treated as a fait accompli, and the question put forth was "how will you manage with brexit", to which neither main party had any kind of answer. Pro-Brexit parties got 80% of the vote - the party offering to reverse Brexit lost vote share. Obviously the 2017 election can't be read as a mass endorsement of Brexit, but if Britain's democratic institutions are to actually mean anything then I don't see how we can pretend a 'people's vote' isn't anything but the third legitimation of Brexit in three years. The idea that very recent democratic results should be recontested because the economic consequences are appalling - while understandable - wasn't bounced around during austerity by the New Labour types that are bouncing it around now, and it's very obviously selective myopia rather than sudden engagement with reality motivating this. The last general election was not about Brexit though. If we had proportional representation then maybe, but there wasn't a party in my constituency that wanted to cancel Brexit and had a chance at winning the seat. My point is that Britain's direct democratic process delivered an endorsement of Brexit; Britain's representative democratic process delivered an endorsement of Brexit; why should there be a third vote except to reverse Brexit? Unless the call is for a referendum without remain on it, but it isn't. The process delivered an endorsement of a shapeless concept. Cool. That doesn't mean it delivered an endorsement of what we're actually getting. That's politics! The Conservatives made concrete promises in their manifesto, didn't deliver on them and now they may or may not be punished at election time which may be next month or next decade. Corroding our democratic institutions because they're resulting in Things People Don't Like isn't wise, as the referendum has shown. I, personally, just wish all the New Labour types who have found it in themselves to throw their energy into campaigning to reverse Brexit had done the same with austerity, given the latter has been enormously damaging to millions of people and was obviously economically inept at the time (like Brexit!). Oh well This is more than politics, and I don't understand why you can't see that. This is a singular event that will affect generations of British citizens, that will permanently change Britain's standing in the world and on the world stage, that can't be reversed at the polls at a later date. It is special and exceptional, and shouldn't be treated like it isn't. If the next government asks to get back into the EU, the EU almost certainly will - and should - tell us to fuck right off. The argument 'Well, we voted to drive off this cliff so we damn well have to do it' is stupid. If we have to go off the cliff, we should make damn sure, 100% that the British people in the significant majority want to do so. As it is, a slim majority wanted to do so when they were pumped up on bullshit. It's very hard to tell how it would go now, and that's exactly why we should have another referendum, with a clear dictum that 60% is needed for something (be it 60% for cancelling or 60% for leaving regardless). Remaining is nothing the UK could decide on unilaterally. But I guess this is the whole idea of British referendums: Just let the people vote on not available options and then figure out the mess you created.
The obstacles of UK cancelling brexit are mainly theoretical ones though. Tusk hinted at it the other day when he said the EU is best prepared for a cancelled brexit out of the three options mentioned by May. Many EU folks have been saying the same. If the UK decides to remain there won't be any(big) issues.
|
On November 18 2018 01:25 Longshank wrote:Show nested quote +On November 18 2018 00:35 mahrgell wrote:On November 17 2018 23:18 iamthedave wrote:On November 17 2018 22:01 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 21:56 iamthedave wrote:On November 17 2018 21:13 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 16:58 Melliflue wrote:On November 17 2018 04:25 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 03:13 Acrofales wrote:On November 17 2018 02:40 kollin wrote:
Given Brexit has now been legitimised by the voting public twice, in two years, through both institutions that have historically been used to legitimise decisions, a third vote on Brexit (the terms? whether we call it off?) isn't going to solve much. Our future within the EU is, quite frankly, as uncertain as our future outside the EU (the economic perils are not as significant, but the political ones are staggeringly more so). Given how we carry out referendums in this country, another referendum will do very, very little to clarify anything. Substantively different positions on Brexit are being offered by the major political parties - a referendum was silly in 2016 and is silly now. Has brexit been legitimized by the elections? I don't think rolling back brexit was a thing in the parliamentary elections, but rather it was treated as a fait accompli, and the question put forth was "how will you manage with brexit", to which neither main party had any kind of answer. Pro-Brexit parties got 80% of the vote - the party offering to reverse Brexit lost vote share. Obviously the 2017 election can't be read as a mass endorsement of Brexit, but if Britain's democratic institutions are to actually mean anything then I don't see how we can pretend a 'people's vote' isn't anything but the third legitimation of Brexit in three years. The idea that very recent democratic results should be recontested because the economic consequences are appalling - while understandable - wasn't bounced around during austerity by the New Labour types that are bouncing it around now, and it's very obviously selective myopia rather than sudden engagement with reality motivating this. The last general election was not about Brexit though. If we had proportional representation then maybe, but there wasn't a party in my constituency that wanted to cancel Brexit and had a chance at winning the seat. My point is that Britain's direct democratic process delivered an endorsement of Brexit; Britain's representative democratic process delivered an endorsement of Brexit; why should there be a third vote except to reverse Brexit? Unless the call is for a referendum without remain on it, but it isn't. The process delivered an endorsement of a shapeless concept. Cool. That doesn't mean it delivered an endorsement of what we're actually getting. That's politics! The Conservatives made concrete promises in their manifesto, didn't deliver on them and now they may or may not be punished at election time which may be next month or next decade. Corroding our democratic institutions because they're resulting in Things People Don't Like isn't wise, as the referendum has shown. I, personally, just wish all the New Labour types who have found it in themselves to throw their energy into campaigning to reverse Brexit had done the same with austerity, given the latter has been enormously damaging to millions of people and was obviously economically inept at the time (like Brexit!). Oh well This is more than politics, and I don't understand why you can't see that. This is a singular event that will affect generations of British citizens, that will permanently change Britain's standing in the world and on the world stage, that can't be reversed at the polls at a later date. It is special and exceptional, and shouldn't be treated like it isn't. If the next government asks to get back into the EU, the EU almost certainly will - and should - tell us to fuck right off. The argument 'Well, we voted to drive off this cliff so we damn well have to do it' is stupid. If we have to go off the cliff, we should make damn sure, 100% that the British people in the significant majority want to do so. As it is, a slim majority wanted to do so when they were pumped up on bullshit. It's very hard to tell how it would go now, and that's exactly why we should have another referendum, with a clear dictum that 60% is needed for something (be it 60% for cancelling or 60% for leaving regardless). Remaining is nothing the UK could decide on unilaterally. But I guess this is the whole idea of British referendums: Just let the people vote on not available options and then figure out the mess you created. The obstacles of UK cancelling brexit are mainly theoretical ones though. Tusk hinted at it the other day when he said the EU is best prepared for a cancelled brexit out of the three options mentioned by May. Many EU folks have been saying the same. If the UK decides to remain there won't be any(big) issues.
I think this idea ignores that there has been no real debate, and the structure of the EU stifles the chance for real debate, over the future of the UK inside the EU, were it to remain. There really is not the political appetite within the UK for ever closer union, but the EU doesn't make much sense without increasing union (though whether it falls apart before that is a different discussion).
|
What does the structure of the EU got to do with a lack of debate? The UK has so far being hell bent on delivering Brexit, cancelling it has never been brought up as an actual option before. And if there's not enough political appetite for staying in the EU, a second referendum would show that and wether they can cancel Brexit unilaterally or not would be irrelevant.
|
On November 18 2018 04:50 Longshank wrote:
What does the structure of the EU got to do with a lack of debate? The UK has so far being hell bent on delivering Brexit, cancelling it has never been brought up as an actual option before. And if there's not enough political appetite for staying in the EU, a second referendum would show that and wether they can cancel Brexit unilaterally or not would be irrelevant.
Historically the EU has been formed out of and from treaties between governments. Treaties are fairly terrible in terms of democracy and debate - thus the requirement for referendums to validate them in some countries, and the riding over of rejections in those countries whose electorate objected to a specific treaty. Cancelling Brexit has been the subject of non-stop debate since the 24th June 2016. What hasnt been the subject of non-stop debate, and won't be because it wasn't substantively so in 2016 and certainly won't be in another referendum, is what constitutional, legal, political relationship Britain wants to have with the EU. This is because referendums are quite shit at determining this sort of thing (though the irony of the EU's structure is that referendums are the only effective release for political tension generated by it).
|
On November 17 2018 22:26 kollin wrote:Show nested quote +On November 17 2018 22:25 Yurie wrote:On November 17 2018 22:01 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 21:56 iamthedave wrote:On November 17 2018 21:13 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 16:58 Melliflue wrote:On November 17 2018 04:25 kollin wrote:On November 17 2018 03:13 Acrofales wrote:On November 17 2018 02:40 kollin wrote:
Given Brexit has now been legitimised by the voting public twice, in two years, through both institutions that have historically been used to legitimise decisions, a third vote on Brexit (the terms? whether we call it off?) isn't going to solve much. Our future within the EU is, quite frankly, as uncertain as our future outside the EU (the economic perils are not as significant, but the political ones are staggeringly more so). Given how we carry out referendums in this country, another referendum will do very, very little to clarify anything. Substantively different positions on Brexit are being offered by the major political parties - a referendum was silly in 2016 and is silly now. Has brexit been legitimized by the elections? I don't think rolling back brexit was a thing in the parliamentary elections, but rather it was treated as a fait accompli, and the question put forth was "how will you manage with brexit", to which neither main party had any kind of answer. Pro-Brexit parties got 80% of the vote - the party offering to reverse Brexit lost vote share. Obviously the 2017 election can't be read as a mass endorsement of Brexit, but if Britain's democratic institutions are to actually mean anything then I don't see how we can pretend a 'people's vote' isn't anything but the third legitimation of Brexit in three years. The idea that very recent democratic results should be recontested because the economic consequences are appalling - while understandable - wasn't bounced around during austerity by the New Labour types that are bouncing it around now, and it's very obviously selective myopia rather than sudden engagement with reality motivating this. The last general election was not about Brexit though. If we had proportional representation then maybe, but there wasn't a party in my constituency that wanted to cancel Brexit and had a chance at winning the seat. My point is that Britain's direct democratic process delivered an endorsement of Brexit; Britain's representative democratic process delivered an endorsement of Brexit; why should there be a third vote except to reverse Brexit? Unless the call is for a referendum without remain on it, but it isn't. The process delivered an endorsement of a shapeless concept. Cool. That doesn't mean it delivered an endorsement of what we're actually getting. That's politics! The Conservatives made concrete promises in their manifesto, didn't deliver on them and now they may or may not be punished at election time which may be next month or next decade. Corroding our democratic institutions because they're resulting in Things People Don't Like isn't wise, as the referendum has shown. I, personally, just wish all the New Labour types who have found it in themselves to throw their energy into campaigning to reverse Brexit had done the same with austerity, given the latter has been enormously damaging to millions of people and was obviously economically inept at the time (like Brexit!). Oh well Any guesses when the next Scottish referendum for a split happens due to the EU? If they split England would need a hard border on the island? I have no idea
The scottish situation is especially bullshit. Scots had a referendum on leaving the UK, and part of the reason why that didn't succeed was the uncertainty regarding whether or not they would be able to stay part of the EU if they left the UK. And then they voted remain in the UK referendum, and England just said "Nah, you are gonna leave the EU with us".
Scots got majorly screwed over here.
|
Do you think there was a significant amount of Scots would vote differently in their referendum if they knew the outcome of the Brexit vote?
|
Now, after/during this shitshow, probably. Back then? I doubt it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
