Brexit: The fallout

12,156 posts in this topic

I think it was really silly to have a referendum on Brexit with the first-past-the-post concept. Theoretically, you could have one voter swinging it :ie 50 per cent plus one or vice versa.

Did the opposition parties not talk about this when the referendum was announced?

Genuine question.

In my humble opinion, major constitutional change should be along the lines of at least 60-40 per cent.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, john g. said:

I think it was really silly to have a referendum on Brexit with the first-past-the-post concept. Theoretically, you could have one voter swinging it :ie 50 per cent plus one or vice versa.

Did the opposition parties not talk about this when the referendum was announced?

Genuine question.

In my humble opinion, major constitutional change should be along the lines of at least 60-40 per cent.

But they didn`t actually háve to act on the result.

It was once again just the Torys trying to stop the split in their party that they did act on it and act quickly by evoking Article 50

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Keleth said:

But they didn`t actually háve to act on the result.

It was once again just the Torys trying to stop the split in their party that they did act on it and act quickly by evoking Article 50

 

Come off it.  We had a referendum and it was made clear that it was a stay or go thing.  The government couldnt have just ignored the result completely.

 

Article 50 may have been premature, but didnt have to act on the result is just a stupid statement.

 

14 hours ago, john g. said:

In my humble opinion, major constitutional change should be along the lines of at least 60-40 per cent.

 

Would have been entirely reasonable, but because of over confidence noone thought it was necessary.  

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, zwiebelfisch said:

Come off it.  We had a referendum and it was made clear that it was a stay or go thing.  The government couldnt have just ignored the result completely.

It was a referendum with absolutely no legal binding and was made clear by the Tory party we would go along with the result.

The problem with going along with this referendum is that they have now allowed 17.2m people to say what happens to the whole population for the foreseeable future.It`s not the same as a GE where in 4 years they can throw out what they voted for before.

Anyone who denies the referendum was a referendum designed to stop the euro sceptics in the Tory party and nothing else is seriously deluded.

This was not a "we`ll let the people decide",it was Cameron saying to the sceptics in his own party "fuck you no one wants to leave the EU" which hilariously backfired on him.

 

41 minutes ago, zwiebelfisch said:

Would have been entirely reasonable, but because of over confidence noone thought it was necessary.  

Over confidence ? I think you mean the lies they peddled in the leave campaign.

Which despite god knows how much evidence to the contrary some people still believe even now.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/10/brexit-party-meps-vote-against-measure-to-combat-russian-propaganda?utm_term=Autofeed&CMP=twt_b-gdnnews&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1570724861

 

Nigel Farage and the Brexit party have voted against stronger EU measures aimed at countering “highly dangerous” Russian disinformation.

The party’s MEPs cast their votes against a European parliament resolution calling for an upgrade of the EU’s anti-propaganda unit East StratCom, as well as support for public service media.

 

какой сюрприз

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Lorelei: With all due respect, you're only calling it an "advisory" referendum because you're probably on the losing side so to speak. What would be the point of holding a referendum if it was only advisory in nature? The dogs in the street already knew that there was widespread discontent in the UK over its membership of the European Union, due largely, but not entirely, to the huge immigration from Eastern Europe since 2004.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The dogs in the street also knew that the government which called the referendum and which campaigned for a yes vote was at the time deeply unpopular due to austerity.

 

In the UK referendums are always advisory, no matter what the government calling one says. The parliament that sanctions a referendum can't bind a subsequent parliament to pay any heed to it. It's how the UK system works.

 

In Ireland it's totally different because our referendums are always about amending, deleting or inserting specific text in the constitution. We don't have advisory referendums. They always compel the constitution to be modified in some way. They cannot legally be ignored.

 

If a change in the constitution is to be followed by legislation to enable something or prohibit something then there is a public dialogue and the draft legislation is presented to the electorate before the referendum on the constitutional amendment. For example with abortion. It was not enough to simply remove the effective ban in the constitution. The electorate would likely not have sanctioned that without knowing what the legislation was going to look like afterwards.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, BMurphy said:

@Lorelei: With all due respect, you're only calling it an "advisory" referendum because you're probably on the losing side so to speak. What would be the point of holding a referendum if it was only advisory in nature? The dogs in the street already knew that there was widespread discontent in the UK over its membership of the European Union, due largely, but not entirely, to the huge immigration from Eastern Europe since 2004.

 

Yes, that's true BMurphy. If I'd been permitted to vote, I'd have voted Remain and if I'd voted Leave and hadn't since changed my mind, I'd be expecting it to be implemented. But the referendum apparently was not legally binding.

 

Quote

Was the EU referendum “advisory”?

 

Claim: The EU referendum was “advisory” only.

 

Conclusion: The referendum wasn’t legally binding, but there’s plenty of scope for argument about whether politicians should feel obliged to implement the result anyway.

https://fullfact.org/europe/was-eu-referendum-advisory/

 

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Government's 'Being Prepared for Brexit'  advice for travelling to and doing business in Europe post Brexit, is some of the best publicity for  how mindlessly idiotic the entire exercise is. 

 

https://twitter.com/andrealeadsom/status/1181948079467053056?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1181948079467053056&ref_url=https%3A

 

Though I suppose it could appeal to sad individuals who enjoy waiting in queues, love the challenge of extra form-filling and bureaucracy,  think delays are a fun thing and are happy to pay the extra costs for the privelige.

 

But worst of all, the documents actually read as if the Government thinks its doing everyone a favour!!  

 

 

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

murphaph@ You make some good points. But the question then arises of under what circumstances a country can leave the EU at all? If a referendum where a majority of the voters voted for this isn't good enough reason, what is?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, BMurphy said:

murphaph@ You make some good points. But the question then arises of under what circumstances a country can leave the EU at all? If a referendum where a majority of the voters voted for this isn't good enough reason, what is?

Perhaps a referendum where no lies are told and people are actually given the chance to choose how to leave rather than just leave ?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, BMurphy said:

murphaph@ You make some good points. But the question then arises of under what circumstances a country can leave the EU at all? If a referendum where a majority of the voters voted for this isn't good enough reason, what is?

What is wrong with a further vote to check that everything is going to plan? After all, if with hindsight, voters think they got it right and all the benefits that were promised are actually going to be delivered, then they will vote to confirm Brexit. 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The United Kingdom is quite simply a special case. Ireland would have the same problem if it was the other way around. Northern Ireland is unique in the EU.

 

If Hungary or Spain or the Netherlands voted to leave it would be done and dusted by now. 

 

Hard Brexit is incompatible with the United Kingdom's obligations on the island of Ireland. The United Kingdom could nevertheless opt for hard Brexit and there's nothing the EU could do about it but it would not reward the UK with any sort of trade deal. 

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point, murphaph!

Re Spain: just wondering about the issues of Gibraltar and Catalonia. 

Gibraltar voted Remain. I assume Catalonia is basically pro-EU  but what if it really went UDI on Spain and the EU didn’t agree.

By the way, I am not of the opinion that UDI is a clever idea.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Spain left and Catalonia made a UDI I suspect the EU would support the Catalans as Spain would no longer be a member state with which the EU would need to show solidarity. 

 

This is similar to how I expect Scotland to be treated in the event it becomes independent and seeks re-entry into the EU if the UK has left.

 

Gibraltar is kind of neither here nor there. When Spain applied for EEC membership the EEC required Spain to open the land frontier as desired by the existing member, the UK.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Keleth: I'm not sure any outright lies were told by the Leave side leading up to the Brexit referendum and even if there were, that's hardly anything new in politics. The Remain side had their chance to convince the British public that the UK should stay in the EU and they failed to do this successfully.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, BMurphy said:

@Keleth: I'm not sure any outright lies were told by the Leave side leading up to the Brexit referendum and even if there were, that's hardly anything new in politics. The Remain side had their chance to convince the British public that the UK should stay in the EU and they failed to do this successfully.

 

Have a look.

 

https://www.richardcorbett.org.uk/long-list-leave-lies/

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, BMurphy said:

@Keleth: I'm not sure any outright lies were told by the Leave side leading up to the Brexit referendum

Bollocks.If you believe that then you`re incredibly deluded.

There were plenty of lies from both sides.

12 minutes ago, BMurphy said:

that's hardly anything new in politics.

I wonder if you would be saying this if remain had won ?

 

Also this was a pretty momentous vote and like I said it`s not like a GE where people are unhappy and change their mind in 4 years,this is something that`s going to affect people for their whole lifetime,so maybe we should have a vote with all the cards on the table and no political bullshit because in or out of the EU is not a political question.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@hooperski: I had a quick look at that list and, while some of the points may be valid, they're not all black and white as many Remainers would have us believe. Take the border control issue, for example: the controls the EU allows member states on freedom of movement are very limited indeed. Why else are there over 3 million EU citizens living in the UK, almost one million from Poland alone? Because the EU freedom of movement principle stipulates that anyone from an EU member state has the right to live and work in another, that's why. It may be so that EU law doesn't require member states to give social welfare to new arrivals or that it allows member states to prevent entry of convicted criminals, for example (I don't exactly how these things work but I'll use these two points as examples) but those are very limited constraints. It doesn't allow member states to limit labour migration from other EU member states at all. This is very flawed in my view, especially when the difference in income between the richer and poorer countries of the EU are so huge.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now