Brexit

Post Reply

What's next?

Theresa May's Deal
8
18%
No deal
12
27%
People's vote
22
49%
Something else (pls specify)
3
7%
 
Total votes: 45
Alexia
Posts: 2967
Joined: Sat 01 Oct, 2005 17.50

If UKIP support had grown, they would have siphoned off support and MPs from the Tories, leaving the door open for a Lib-Lab coalition.
thegeek
Posts: 555
Joined: Sat 04 Jun, 2005 12.35

My MP is a bit Brexity, despite the borough having voted 66% to remain.

I expect I'd have more luck shouting at a wall than trying to change his views, but I've just emailed him asking if he'd support this People's Vote malarkey. As part of my argument, I've included this article from the South London Press:


The author is his own constituency MP. She's also his wife.
Alexia
Posts: 2967
Joined: Sat 01 Oct, 2005 17.50

There are several words to describe the vote that happened in June 2016. Democracy doesn't come close.
bilky asko
Posts: 1123
Joined: Sat 08 Nov, 2008 19.48

Alexia wrote:
Tue 27 Nov, 2018 23.11
There are several words to describe the vote that happened in June 2016. Democracy doesn't come close.
Less democratic than First Past The Post?
Image
Alexia
Posts: 2967
Joined: Sat 01 Oct, 2005 17.50

bilky asko wrote:
Wed 28 Nov, 2018 09.09
Alexia wrote:
Tue 27 Nov, 2018 23.11
There are several words to describe the vote that happened in June 2016. Democracy doesn't come close.
Less democratic than First Past The Post?
Our whole electoral system is undemocratic full stop.
User avatar
cdd
Posts: 2533
Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 14.05

I think it’s important to remember that the Brexit vote came on the back of two other referendums – Alternative Vote and Scottish Independence – that came back firmly in favour of supporting the status quo. It was widely assumed that this, a decision with an even more obvious response and result, and with almost all credible figures quietly supporting ‘Remain’, would have been a hat-trick of “no change”. This misplaced confidence also explains why a “threshold for change” wasn’t campaigned for (despite many countries requiring this for constitutional changes), not least because the threshold becomes a somewhat arbitrary determination when you cease to use a simple majority.

Secondly, I agree with the suggestions that the purpose of this vote was to sweep the rug out from under the growing Brexit contingent of the party. But it is pretty obvious that apparently decisive referendums don’t cause these issues to go away. The matter of Scottish independence hasn’t been ended once and for all, and the AV campaigning will return the moment a party who stands to benefit from it ends up in power. An inverse result to the Brexit referendum would have further bolstered support for UKIP in allowing them to claim that half the country agreed with them – it’s conceivable that with the main parties washing their hands of Brexit, UKIP could have claimed an outright victory in claiming to represent the 48%.

Finally, the idea of a deal with the EU gaining popularity among those who voted for Brexit in 2016 is not credible. Cameron already tried the deal approach – and the improved terms were rejected by the electorate. Admittedly there is a world of difference between coming to a deal while remaining in, and coming to a deal while leaving the EU – but it was apparent from the referendum result that any position of compromise was not going to satisfy those who wanted us out.

What’s my position? Putting my cards on the table, I voted remain but it wasn’t an easy decision. Rapid expansion of the EU has made free movement highly questionable, despite the fact that it is a situation of our own making and despite economic benefits fuelled by an immediate uptick in demand and short term downward pressure on wages that mean every employer and investor in the country wants it. (I don’t take kindly to accusations of racism on this point either, since the logical extension of this "more the merrier" viewpoint is to remove borders entirely – and I don’t see many people proposing this; indeed, the list of EU countries eligible for VWP travel to the USA is rather telling here). A selective immigration policy has served other countries well and as one of few English-speaking nations in the EU we were always going to attract outsized positive net migration, with all the benefits and drawbacks that brings.

However, this was only one factor, and by no means the biggest one, among a large number of factors which led to me ultimately voting remain. Accordingly, I do not judge those who weighed the evidence and ultimately voted to leave. And bizarrely, this puts me in the position of thinking that May’s deal is the best outcome – not only that, it is the option I would have voted for had it been on the referendum. I do not view losing influence in the EU as being a major issue (suggestions that the EU would actively “punish” us for leaving betray an overestimation of our own importance to the bloc, and suggestions that EU nations cannot be trusted to make sensible decisions are verging on xenophobia in my opinion), and we keep many of the benefits that matter to us.

Getting away from my own personal views (after all, I’ve wasted two paragraphs on them and who’s interested in them apart from me…) and back into the realms of armchair analysis and speculation, I have no idea how this will play out. I agree that it is unlikely (though not impossible) that this deal will secure support in parliament. Another referendum sounds tempting, except that each option has a good reason for not being on the ballot sheet; “No Brexit” would be antidemocratic, “No Deal” would be disingenuous with no major party willing to back it, leaving… May’s Deal, or Fantasy Deal That Corbyn And BoJo Would Have Us Believe We Can Negotiate Even Though There Is No Evidence Of This. In the absence of a credible choice, my reluctant prediction is for a further financial, economic and political precipice to emerge which will focus the minds and force events, the ultimate outcome of which is likely to be, if not May’s deal, something very similar to it.
Alexia
Posts: 2967
Joined: Sat 01 Oct, 2005 17.50

cdd wrote:
Wed 28 Nov, 2018 20.12
Cameron already tried the deal approach – and the improved terms were rejected by the electorate.
I would say that during the whole referendum campaign I never heard any of the detail of the agreement Scameron got mentioned once. The whole argument for both sides was basically "We're Not Them" - i.e. Remain was too busy trying to drown out Leave's bluster to actually put a case. Add that to Corbyn's ice-cold approach to the Remain cause, and prominent Tories being absent from the front line, and English Europhiles reluctant to ally themselves to the SNP, and RemaIN never got a chance to use the deal as a weapon.

“No Brexit” would be antidemocratic,
I don't see how an extension of democracy can be undemocratic. Switzerland has semi-direct democracy with regular referenda specifically to vote time and time again on policy and reflect *current* and *informed* public opinion. Other referendums and votes have to have super majorities or thresholds. Farage said 52-48 would have been unfinished business for Leave.

If the Remain side had won 52-48 and had proceeded to take that as a decisive democratic mandate to put the UK into the Euro, Schengen etc.. the Euroseptics would have been up in arms. I wonder why they don't expect the same outrage on the opposite side and insist we "get on with it"?

Also any further referendum must include 16 and 17 year olds and EU nationals paying taxes and resident here. No taxation without representation.
User avatar
cdd
Posts: 2533
Joined: Fri 15 Aug, 2003 14.05

Fair points on the original deal not having received a fair shake.
I don't see how an extension of democracy can be undemocratic. Switzerland has semi-direct democracy with regular referenda specifically to vote time and time again on policy and reflect *current* and *informed* public opinion. Other referendums and votes have to have super majorities or thresholds.
I take your point, but we haven’t finished implementing the result of the 2016 referendum yet. A referendum to rejoin the EU after we have left would be legitimate (even if unwise). But the perception of trying to stop a democratically elected decision is politically unacceptable.

I personally agree with you on requiring more than a simple majority to change the status quo in a way that will be difficult to reverse. But for the reasons in my previous post, I think the country would be in a more damaging position with significant Brexit support but the decision made to stay. That goes doubly for a scenario where a paper majority was in favour but the status quo is retained due to an arbitrary decision in the construction of the voting system.
If the Remain side had won 52-48 and had proceeded to take that as a decisive democratic mandate to put the UK into the Euro, Schengen etc.. the Euroseptics would have been up in arms. I wonder why they don't expect the same outrage on the opposite side and insist we "get on with it"?
100% agreed. Not only that, I think the majority of the electorate wanted a moderate departure and a deal to be made. This has to be the case - if the full 52% were in favour of hard Brexit, we would have had a UKIP government long ago.
Also any further referendum must include 16 and 17 year olds and EU nationals paying taxes and resident here. No taxation without representation.
I’m not sure how I feel about the voting age, other than that it should be consistent across all elections and referenda (with the exception, arguably, of one specifically about the voting age). It’s another arbitrary decision and politicians with opinions on the subject always have opinions which coincidentally happen to conform with what will improve electoral results for their party.

However, there is no lower age bound to the honour of being taxed by the government so I am not sure I fully buy the taxation/representation line, however snappy it may sound!
thegeek
Posts: 555
Joined: Sat 04 Jun, 2005 12.35

The current shambles has finally spurred me into applying for my Irish passport. My wife is a little disappointed that the children are eligible but she isn't, so she'll forever be in the longer queue at immigration.
Alexia
Posts: 2967
Joined: Sat 01 Oct, 2005 17.50

cdd wrote:
Thu 29 Nov, 2018 22.03
However, there is no lower age bound to the honour of being taxed by the government so I am not sure I fully buy the taxation/representation line, however snappy it may sound!
Well I've always taken the minimum school leaving age as the border between "child" and "working adult" (which is 15/16) so that's what I would go with.

My taxation/representation argument also was meant to apply more to the EU nationals than the kids in the coal mines. My sister-in-law while she was here paid money into HMRC's coffers without having a say in how it was spent.
bilky asko
Posts: 1123
Joined: Sat 08 Nov, 2008 19.48

Alexia wrote:
Fri 30 Nov, 2018 14.04
cdd wrote:
Thu 29 Nov, 2018 22.03
However, there is no lower age bound to the honour of being taxed by the government so I am not sure I fully buy the taxation/representation line, however snappy it may sound!
Well I've always taken the minimum school leaving age as the border between "child" and "working adult" (which is 15/16) so that's what I would go with.

My taxation/representation argument also was meant to apply more to the EU nationals than the kids in the coal mines. My sister-in-law while she was here paid money into HMRC's coffers without having a say in how it was spent.
Of course, at 16 you must either be in education, a traineeship, an apprenticeship, or working / volunteering part-time alongside education. You can no longer simply enter employment.
Image
Post Reply