Brexit (merged threads)

[whalsa]

 

I'm all for democracy, but if you re-run the same vote too close together that process begins to work against democracy by blocking progress.

 

As a safeguard against preventing progress, voting again on the same subject IMHO should only happen on one or more of three grounds, the result was in dispute, significant material and/or circumstantial changes have occurred that could reasonably be expected to have altered the opinions of a notable percentage of those eligible to vote, or a period of time has elapsed that natural wastage/maturity has caused a turnover in those eligible to vote adequate to potentially produce a significantly different outcome.

 

I tend to agree with this assessment, and I believe that there has been a significant change in the information available to voters insomuch that it would be considered "significant material and/or circumstantial change"

 

The fundamental problem was that Pro-Brexit politicians offered competing, contrary and detail-free visions of Brexit in order to gain support. 

 

The referendum question was a simplistic binary choice but the implementation has predictably proven to be a far from binary compromise as the detail has been worked out, given proper consideration and due diligence.

 

Furthermore, polls indicate that there has been a material swing in opinion toward remain in the past two years e.g. https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-poll-predicts-swing-to-remain-in-second-brexit-vote/

 

So, regarding "blocking progress" - we have made little if any progress toward Brexit. If the majority of people are in favour of remaining, and we have not made any progress, I see no compelling reason why we should continue on the current Brexit trajectory.

 

Personally, I don't agree with the principle of a 2nd referendum as I believe it is at odds to the functioning of the UK's representative democracy and I offer no solution beyond taking our foot off the accelerator and leaving it to parliament and a general election.

 

The problem from day one has been the majority of MPs have been against Brexit from the outset, not to mention most of the media and other influential people. Great effort has gone into derailing the whole thing ever since the vote. People have been bombarded with a constant stream of doom and negativity, some of it utter drivel. 

 

Both sides behaved terribly before the vote but the failure of MPs to come together and work for the good of the country to enact the result of the referendum has been borderline criminal. 

 

 

[Sacre Bleu]

The problem from day one has been the majority of MPs have been against Brexit from the outset, not to mention most of the media and other influential people. Great effort has gone into derailing the whole thing ever since the vote. People have been bombarded with a constant stream of doom and negativity, some of it utter drivel. 

 

Both sides behaved terribly before the vote but the failure of MPs to come together and work for the good of the country to enact the result of the referendum has been borderline criminal. 

 

I agree with you on all of this apart from expecting elected representatives to set aside their judgement and party policies in order to enact the result of an advisory referendum with a slim majority. I believe that would be contrary to our democratic processes. 

 

The fundamental problem is that there were no clear processes put in place that would be enacted by the result of the referendum, and the government have been 'making it up as they go along' since then.

 

This is exemplified by several rulings against the government in their attempts to circumvent democratic protocol e.g. Miller v Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union [2017], and the government being held in Contempt of Parliament [2018].

 

In short, an ill-considered referendum should not, in my opinion, be considered as the optimal expression of democracy and should certainly not supersede the functions of the legislature, executive, and judiciary.

 

I am not against the objectives of Brexit, but what we are witnessing is one of the most hamfisted and divisive attempts of a government to push through legislation in the history of the UK parliament.

[Suffererof1crankymofo]

 

The fundamental problem is that there were no clear processes put in place that would be enacted by the result of the referendum, and the government have been 'making it up as they go along' since then.

 

 

Incorrect.  What the Government and the EU have been doing is to ignore the legislation put in place and attempted to fudge it to suit what they wanted as opposed to just actually leaving; for example, agreeing under the Withdrawal Agreement to tie us into EU Directives pertaining to security, fishing, etc. - that's not leaving.  In addition, general elections have been pretty tight in the past yet we've accepted the 'first past the post' result with them so this shouldn't be any different.

 

How many of us thought negotiations would be about how to leave, not what 'special relationship' and tying us into existing legislation would come about; as opposed to setting up trade deals with the EU?  We can still trade with the EU for a set period of time after we leave (I'm sure I read that) and the rest of the world, something like a year.  Italy, Spain, Greece - their finances are a mess so of course the EU wants to delay things because they want our money.

 

As for the likes of Nissan not producing a certain car in Sunderland but now moving its production to Japan; some say that's because of BREXIT yet no mention that the tighter, stricter EU Directives pertaining to diesel cars has resulted in a huge reduction in the number of diesel cars being sold in the EU as the company chairman pointed out.

 

I agree that May is trying to push through the Withdrawal Agreement but given the defeat in the house and many backbenchers voted against her, it didn't make it through; May isn't the entire Government.

 

Edit:  And let's be honest here - why the hell haven't the UK and the EU agreed upon a trade deal before now?  They both at fault.

Edited February 5, 2019 by Suffererof1crankymofo

[Urabug]

The one good thing out of all this argy-bargy between our politicians, has been to identify and really highlight the control that the EU has over us , and some of the idiots that are supposed to be our parliamentary reps, not supporting us but out for themselves.

 

My own feelings to get out of the clutches of the EU have been significantly strengthen due to the demands that our euro politicians are imposing on us.

 

 

As for our own political representatives, the next general election should sort them out, as I will not, and assume many will do the same, not casting a vote for anyone who has defied our democratic values

.

This country had to endure very difficult times after the wars and we may have to do so again but to regain our complete freedom and sovereignty it will be a price well worth it. I do hope our future leaders will not let this happen again.

 

We need to be able to deal and trade with the whole of Europe but we do not require to be controlled by them, after all we have our own parliaments to do that.

 

I say no deal lets get out ,if our parliamentary numptys had all worked together for the good of the nation,rather than fight among themselves all the necessary deals and trade arrangements could have  been in place by now for a clean amicable break from the EU.

Edited February 5, 2019 by Urabug

[Sacre Bleu]

 

The fundamental problem is that there were no clear processes put in place that would be enacted by the result of the referendum, and the government have been 'making it up as they go along' since then.

Incorrect.  What the Government and the EU have been doing is to ignore the legislation put in place and attempted to fudge it to suit what they wanted as opposed to just actually leaving

 

What legislation are you referring to?

 

 

 

Quote: "In addition, general elections have been pretty tight in the past yet we've accepted the 'first past the post' result with them so this shouldn't be any different."

 

Referendums which affect constitutional change customarily have an additional measure to a FPTP general election, often referred to as the Minimum Threshold - the "40% rule" or the "2/3 majority (or supermajority)", to confer legitimacy. This was the case with the two previous UK wide referendums and the Scottish Independence referendum and is a standard safeguard in democracies across the world.

 

* The 40% rule means that at least 40% of those eligible to vote must vote in favour of a constitutional change. Only 37% of the total electorate voted to leave the EU.

* The 2/3 supermajority rule means that 66.6% of turnout must vote in favour of a constitutional change. Only 52% of turnout voted to leave the EU.

 

However, the government did not include such a measure, in what I consider to be a breach of democratic protocol, and instead assured parliament it was an advisory, rather than a mandating, referendum. They have since gone back on the assurance. For these reasons, amongst others, I consider the EU referendum result to be built on questionable constitutional grounds.

Edited February 5, 2019 by Sacre Bleu

[Colin]

Questionable grounds ?

 

I wasn't aware that a "40% Rule"  was in place, neither was a "66% majority" demanded and, afaik, we DO NOT have a Constitution to change..

 

Can't help thinking that you only want "democracy" when the result suits you ?

[Roachmill]

So a vote on an informed position is a terrible, nasty and weak idea... while one based on ignorance and lies is somehow democratic and worth defending. Jesus wept.

[Sacre Bleu]

Questionable grounds ?

 

I wasn't aware that a "40% Rule"  was in place, neither was a "66% majority" demanded and, afaik, we DO NOT have a Constitution to change..

 

Can't help thinking that you only want "democracy" when the result suits you ?

 

Quote: "I wasn't aware that a "40% Rule"  was in place, neither was a "66% majority" demanded"

 

I refer you to my previous response - the government assured parliament that the referendum was advisory/consultative, not binding, so did not require a minimum threshold. The European Union Referendum Act 2015 states that there was no requirement nor timescale for the government to implement the result.

 

For the government to then claim the result gave them a mandate that did not require parliamentary debate is quite clearly disingenuous, and the UK Supreme Court agreed.

 

 

 

Quote: "we DO NOT have a Constitution to change.."

 

Indeed we do. It is a myth that we do not have a constitution, presumably because it is not codified in a single document - https://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/what-uk-constitution/what-uk-constitution

 

 

 

Quote: "Can't help thinking that you only want "democracy" when the result suits you?"

 

On the contrary. I generally support leaving the EU but I don't believe the government should be allowed to ride roughshod over our constitution to get what they want. That is a very dangerous precedent. If we are to have more control of our constitutional affairs post-Brexit, we should be strengthening, not undermining, our democratic processes and holding the government to account regardless of our opinions on the EU.

Edited February 5, 2019 by Sacre Bleu

[Urabug]

No point any of us voting on anything unless we are prepared to accept the results whether they are in our favour or not.

 

IMHO that is democracy,but I'm ma'be to auld fashioned, it seems to be all changed now 

[George.]

No point any of us voting on anything unless we are prepared to accept the results whether they are in our favour or not.

If we don't vote we will never get what we want.

[whalsa]

So a vote on an informed position is a terrible, nasty and weak idea... while one based on ignorance and lies is somehow democratic and worth defending. Jesus wept.

We are currently in an informed position? First I have heard! Still tons of contradicting information and predictions flying around. 

 

Ignorance and lies? Have a read of this article;

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/tedbromund/2019/01/31/are-brexit-supporters-ignorant/

 

Basically, both sides were as ignorant as each other. 

 

 

[Colin]

"

Quote: "we DO NOT have a Constitution to change.."

 

"Indeed we do. It is a myth that we do not have a constitution, presumably because it is not codified in a single document - https://www.ucl.ac.u...uk-constitution"

 

Sorry, but most of the article reads like "waffle" made up by an apologist and offers nothing more than "excuses" for the lack of a constitution.

 

The rules and laws laid down over the years are, afaik, intended to increase the power of "the state" whilst a properly written constitution would give "citizens" (OK, we are "subjects" not "citizens" (spot the difference!)) a lot more protection and properly legislate the way that governments act.

Edited February 5, 2019 by Colin

[Suffererof1crankymofo]

@ Sacre Bleu

 

There's several bits of legislation, including the European Treaty containing Article 50 (not sure whether that's the European Communities Act 1972(?)), The European Union (Definition of Treaties Orders (Revocation) (EU Exit) Regulations 2018 and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 ... I didn't half have to go googling a load of that lot but do recall reading various bits of Hansard when the European Referendum Act and other stuff was debated and the relevant bills presented in parliament at the time!  It was the latter, when the bills were in parliament, that our 'adorable' MPs had the chance to bicker/debate/pick to shreds the various elements.

 

Re constitution - Right, where in the Magna Carta does it state that I have to be ruled by some prat in Brussels?

[Sacre Bleu]

"

Quote: "we DO NOT have a Constitution to change.."

 

"Indeed we do. It is a myth that we do not have a constitution, presumably because it is not codified in a single document - https://www.ucl.ac.u...uk-constitution"

 

Sorry, but most of the article reads like "waffle" made up by an apologist and offers nothing more than "excuses" for the lack of a constitution.

 

The rules and laws laid down over the years are, afaik, intended to increase the power of "the state" whilst a properly written constitution would give "citizens" (OK, we are "subjects" not "citizens" (spot the difference!)) a lot more protection and properly legislate the way that governments act.

 

Regardless, we have a constitution. It is incorrect to say we lack one.

 

I don't agree that the conventions are intended solely to increase the power of the state, the conventions generally constrain and clarify the powers.

 

There have been several attempts to simplify and condense the constitution, most recently by the Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee - https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/political-and-constitutional-reform/The-UK-Constitution.pdf

 

I hope that recent events will hasten the process of constitutional reform

Edited February 6, 2019 by Sacre Bleu

[whalsa]

 

"

Quote: "we DO NOT have a Constitution to change.."

 

"Indeed we do. It is a myth that we do not have a constitution, presumably because it is not codified in a single document - https://www.ucl.ac.u...uk-constitution"

 

Sorry, but most of the article reads like "waffle" made up by an apologist and offers nothing more than "excuses" for the lack of a constitution.

 

The rules and laws laid down over the years are, afaik, intended to increase the power of "the state" whilst a properly written constitution would give "citizens" (OK, we are "subjects" not "citizens" (spot the difference!)) a lot more protection and properly legislate the way that governments act.

 

Regardless, we have a constitution. It is incorrect to say we lack one.

 

I don't agree that the conventions are intended solely to increase the power of the state, the conventions generally constrain and clarify the powers.

 

There have been several attempts to simplify and condense the constitution, most recently by the Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee - https://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/political-and-constitutional-reform/The-UK-Constitution.pdf

 

I hope that recent events will hasten the process of constitutional reform

 

 

We also need electoral reform IMO http://www.voterpower.org.uk/orkney-shetland