Brexit (merged threads)

[Davie P]

@ Colin

 

We do "keep on having elections", at least every 5 years - that's a procedural aspect of British democracy.

 

Referendums are not an established part of our democratic processes and the rules have been different each of the few times they have been employed.

 

So, I refer you to my previous question, "how long should there be between referendums on the same, or similar, questions?"

Edited December 3, 2018 by Davie P

[George.]

Question: Referendums are not a procedural part of British democracy so how long should there be between referendums on the same, or similar, questions?

How British? I prefer to live at home.

[George.]

We do "keep on having elections", at least every 5 years - that's a procedural aspect of British democracy.

Thankfully, I don't live in your wee Britain - but I can't think why? 

[Davie P]

As for "regrets", I suppose that they can be put down (in part anyway) to all the "fear mongering" that has been going on and politicians (and others) who prey on peoples fears are, imho, the lowest of the low.

 

I agree!

 

 

 

 

[George.]

I agree!

With anything in particular?

[Davie P]

 

Question: Referendums are not a procedural part of British democracy so how long should there be between referendums on the same, or similar, questions?

How British? I prefer to live at home.

 

Are you asking me a question?

 

 

 

We do "keep on having elections", at least every 5 years - that's a procedural aspect of British democracy.

Thankfully, I don't live in your wee Britain - but I can't think why? 

 

My wee Britain? Is this a question too?

 

 

 

I agree!

With anything in particular?

 

I agree with Colin's quote. You know, the one you removed when quoting me.

Edited December 3, 2018 by Davie P

[Ghostrider]

Question: Referendums are not a procedural part of British democracy so how long should there be between referendums on the same, or similar, questions?

 

Keep in mind that:

• It's about two and a half years since a fairly slim majority expressed their support for withdrawal from the EU.
• Since then, opinion polls have consistently indicated that a larger majority than the original vote wish to remain and/or regret their original vote

Therefore, I'm not sure it's a defendable position to say that Brexit "is the will of the people" when evidence suggests that currently, it is not.

 

A more accurate description is that Brexit "was the will of a slim majority of the people who voted in June 2016"

 

You have to draw the line in the sand somewhere, and move forward accordingly. The point of voting on anything, or for having representatives at all levels of government to vote on behalf of the masses instead of everybody voting on everything, is workability.

 

Referendum results may not be binding on the government who holds them, but unless they act upon them in a meaningful way, holding a referendum at any time on anything becomes nothing more than a cynical, farcical and pointless exercise in appearing to ask the public's opinion, then either ignoring or manipulating the outcome if it doesn't match the government's pre-decided course of action. Something most governments are very adept at doing anyway, but there's no point in encouraging them more than we already are by participating in referendums if they just going to be so blatantly disregarded.

 

'Leave' won the vote by a margin of 3.8% of those who cared to express an opinion on the day 2 1/2 years ago. You ask how long there should be between referendums on the same subject. I would suggest, a minimum of one year for each percentage point of the majority would be reasonable and fair. That would give adequate time for there to be a natural turn over (deaths vs. achieving 18 years of age) within the electorate equal to or exceeding the majority.

[Davie P]

'Leave' won the vote by a margin of 3.8% of those who cared to express an opinion on the day 2 1/2 years ago. You ask how long there should be between referendums on the same subject. I would suggest, a minimum of one year for each percentage point of the majority would be reasonable and fair. That would give adequate time for there to be a natural turn over (deaths vs. achieving 18 years of age) within the electorate equal to or exceeding the majority.

 

That's a really interesting idea, Ghostrider. 

 

 

Edit: according to my rough calculations, based on your proposal the earliest we could have another Scottish Independence Referendum would be May 2025

Edited December 3, 2018 by Davie P

[Urabug]

Now that the Brexit procedure has advanced 2½ years should, goodness forbid ,we go back to Brussels "cap in hand "will they accept us back with open arms with all the same terms ?

 

2½ years of public money "down the Swanney" !

[Colin]

@ Colin

 

We do "keep on having elections", at least every 5 years - that's a procedural aspect of British democracy.

 

Referendums are not an established part of our democratic processes and the rules have been different each of the few times they have been employed.

 

So, I refer you to my previous question, "how long should there be between referendums on the same, or similar, questions?"

Well Davie,  I have to disagree !

 

Referendums ARE an established part of our system.  It's just that they tend to be "single issue" events, of national importance, that canvas for an opinion. 

 

I agree that the government of the day is not bound by the result but, it would take a very strong/brave/stupid set of politicians to ignore it.

 

How often should they be held ?  Who really knows but, as far as the SNP is concerned, every week until they get the answer that THEY want.  The they can start telling every one "you've had your vote, and the people have spoken".

[Davie P]

 

Referendums ARE an established part of our system.  It's just that they tend to be "single issue" events, of national importance, that canvas for an opinion. 

 

 

For the record, there's only ever been 3 UK wide referendums and all have been held relatively recently (in terms of the history of democracy in the UK) - 1975, 2011 and 2016.

[Wheelsup]

The politicians have dug themselves into a corner. They can't be seen to go against the people's vote. One way that the government could trigger another referendum was if they manage to get parliament to vote against the proposal agreed by the EU. That way the current negotiation would collapse and no sensible politician might be willing to take it on - so they'll have to put it back to the people, either by election or by referendum.

 

We could well end up facing, in quick succession; an election; an EU referendum and probably a Scottish Indy referendum, so expect another 2 or 3 years of sharn and waste of public money.

[mikeyboy]

Now that the Brexit procedure has advanced 2½ years should, goodness forbid ,we go back to Brussels "cap in hand "will they accept us back with open arms with all the same terms ?

 

2½ years of public money "down the Swanney" !

Can just rescind article 50 and keep the same terms.

[George.]

Can just rescind article 50 and keep the same terms.

Would it not have been a lot better if we had told Brussels that we were dumping them - from the outset? Would there then be any need for Article 50?

[Davie P]

'Dumping' Brussels = Article 50