Brexit discussion thread VIII (Please read OP before posting)

Spanish Eyes

I personally think that it is all over now bar the shouting.

There will be no Hard Exit on the 12th April.

UK has not planned for Hard Exit really, maybe their hubris again dunno, but it has not happened anyway.

So it is another delay, or the WA.

ERG and Hard Brexiters are very quiet now, well that's what I think anyway.

Call me Al

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

ERG and Hard Brexiters are very quiet now, well that's what I think anyway.

No... they're arguing with fellow Tories on Newsnight.
Oh how the narrative has changed. They've invoked perfidious Albion and the 5th column this week. You'd almost wonder did they realise they were the party in power this past 9 years.
Shocking carry-on.

Infini

snowstorm445 wrote: »

With respect, this is very doubtful. It is patently clear that Brexiteers are only going to be emboldened by any extension or watering down of Brexit; clearly the only way to create some sort of national rethink is to let Brexit happen. The vast majority of those surveyed have not changed their minds; no forecast or prediction can sway people like these. The reality of Brexit, unfortunately, is the only way to change the current dilemma and to force the British people to disown Brexiteers as a political force. Despite the absolute disaster that has been the Brexit negotiations, a solid block of around 40% polled still believe Brexit was the right decision. Thinking that this can just be wished away by cancelling Brexit is wildly optimistic.

I must say I've been disappointed with the EU's leniency vis a vis Britain, there was plenty of bluster about the EU being fed up with the British over the past few months but clearly that isn't the case with these extensions. Tusk in particular seems to think the whole thing can just roll on indefinitely. To what end? Eurosceptics across Europe will no doubt be delighted with this whole debacle as they can paint it as the UK being kept in the Union despite voting to leave. Plenty of people want to move on from this (even here in Ireland, the consensus around the government's approach to Brexit means that many issues have been put on the back burner, people will want to see an end to this so they can move forward with other issues). Indulging Britain even more is frankly poisonous to the political well-being of Europe at this stage, we need to move forward.

The Brexiteers are going to throw shade no matter what unless they get their own way and they simply do not care how much damage they cause, how much misery it inflicts because at the end of the day the worst of them are ideological fools, idiots and wasters and lets not forget those in it purely for self interest and nothing else. Kicking them out of course is very tempting it would certainly be better to drop them and their toxic stupidity once and for all of course but this isnt something that truthfully can just be done, to paraphrase that good ol saying from tvtropes the situation hasn't passed the "Godzilla Threshold" yet for the EU in other words the point where kicking them out is less damaging than letting them remain. While it's true theres a 40% odd block wanting to leave that block is divided, splintered and actually fighting one another which is why thing's are essentially deadlocked in parliament. It's also the result of decade's of a slow poison of essentially Propaganda Rag BS, misinformation, poor education, ignorance and incompetence. The British Establishment essentially walked themselves into this situation through a mixture of the Tories utter incompetence and arrogance and failure to deal with problems they were well capable of actually sorting and were not of the EU fault or creation.

You might be feeling disappointed with the EU being lenient BUT let's be clear their first and foremost approach to everything is pragmatism, patience and planning, they know that past situations like the Financial Crisis and Immigration crisis are partially a result of reactive approaches that dont ultimately dont work well (IMO the Greek Crisis should have been handled better by not inflicting a disproportionate amount of pain on the people who would have had no control over their governments incompetence and the immigration crisis was ironically handled better by Orban than Merkel because a flood of people just walking into another country all at once gets messy and has significant fallout politically and socially (Brexit was fuelled partially by the approach of Merkel unfortunately). As much as stopping them at the border then might have been heart-wrenching at least processing them there would prevent less savoury elements from getting in and causing trouble).

The more time that passes the more run down the Brexiteers are going to get not bolstered as their hypocracy gets exposed, their lies get challenged and infighting ultimately causes them to tear each other apart. It's not possible to just simply make 40 year's of toxic misinformation disappear of course but it could be worn down and corroded over a number of year's if people in Britain were to keep pushing the clear benefits of the EU and why it's in their interest to stay. Let's remember that in the space of 2 year's the view's have shifted enough to make people realise Brexit IS a mistake because of the approach and leaving isn't gonna anything but make things far worse no matter what. They've still suffered significant damage as it is simply by being in the current limbo and that damage will eventually come back to haunt them at some point. The Brexiteer's ideology is a toxic mess but if there's way's of wearing down and purging it from the debate over time there's no harm in doing so while it's convenient and while there's a chance to ultimately discredit them in the minds of the more stubborn of those who don't reconsider easily.

The point though is that the EU has the leisure of being able to delay so long as it's in its own interest and convenience. They know clearly at what point that the UK if it doesn't get it's act together will need to be cut loose, they've set down clear conditions by saying that they'll give the UK to June 1st if it participates and fulfills its legal requirements by participating in the EU parliamentary elections. this Date also act's as a convenient point if the UK act's the Bollocks as if they don't participate they can remove the UK simply on account of it failing to live up to it's obligations while making sure that if they drop their seats can be redistributed with enough time before the new session convenes the following month. Giving them more time also allows the like's of France and the Netherlands more time as well as give our country time to prepare any backup plans as well. It also give's more space for the UK to make up it's mind somehow by allowing Westminster to keep debating alternative plans and eventually reach either a consensus on something or have a GE if needs be to break the deadlock. Either way the more time that's given the more time something might change that move's thing's forward, at least until we get to a point where action is forced by the UK.

AllForIt

While ppl write long wordy posts, showing their knowledge of what has gone on since the ref with predictions, something very bad is happening, and that is that the democratic decision to leave the EU could possibly be undone. I find this personally shocking.

Like the previous post, the media are wrapped up in the day to day politics of what is going on. All of this distracts from the result of the referendum.

Even though as an citizen of Ireland, an Irishman, where I know there will be economic consequences, I would be disgusted if all this politicking leads to the UK not leaving the EU at all.

That is unthinkable to me. I'm disgusted there is going to be a long extension where there is going to be in time some some agreement to be part of the CU and SM. This is absurd. What's the point of being part of those things after leaving the EU?

I would much prefer a crash out than what is currently being thought to happen now. It's just ridiculous to continue negotiations for another year. The UK parliament haven't agreed on anything to date and they won't ever.

Peregrinus

AllForIt wrote: »

While ppl write long wordy posts, showing their knowledge of what has gone on since the ref with predictions, something very bad is happening, and that is that the democratic decision to leave the EU could possibly be undone. I find this personally shocking . . .

As long as it's undone democratically, I don't see why you should be shocked. The whole point of democracy is that all decision, including those democratically made, are open to further democratic review.

What would be shocking is if the view that the 2016 decision can't be reviewed or reversed were to gain the ascendancy. That would mean that, far from having been an exercise in democracy as claimed, the 2016 referendum would have been a device for ending democracy.

marno21

Maybe this whole nonsense of there being no 2nd referendum because it would oppose the "will of the people" could be rectified by reminding Brexiteers that it would be a third referendum - there was already a referendum in 1975 and the result was remain.

If a person offers me a referendum of "eat at home" or "eat out", and after choosing eat out I find out the person wants to go to a restaurant that serves rodent droppings, would it not be wise of me to ask for a second referendum? The advisory binary referendum of 2016, which should never have been held as it was, opened up a massive can of worms due to its total lack of clarity as to what Leave meant.

The goalpost shifting of Brexiteers from a soft Brexit full of unicorns to now pushing for a no deal whilst totally ruling out a 2nd referendum due to its defiance of the will of the people shows how this whole charade was driven by lies, deceit and greed. It is the ultimate in bait and switch tactics.

Infini

AllForIt wrote: »

While ppl write long wordy posts, showing their knowledge of what has gone on since the ref with predictions, something very bad is happening, and that is that the democratic decision to leave the EU could possibly be undone. I find this personally shocking.

Challenge accepted I guess: The "democratic" decision you call it was tainted by misinformation, a campaign that's guilty of cheating which in a binding referendum would have INVALIDATED said referendum and triggered a rerun. Also democracies aren't decided by just one vote or are we forgetting the hypocracy of saying a single vote is absolute yet the house of commons can vote on the same thing over and over as much as it likes?2
Last and not least those who did win had no plan and no idea of HOW to deliver said result without making an utter bollocks of things which is why they're currently sitting in the twilight zone right now paralysed by indecision.

AllForIt wrote: »

Like the previous post, the media are wrapped up in the day to day politics of what is going on. All of this distracts from the result of the referendum.

Winning a referendum even one which is tainted with cheating doesn't mean being able to abdicate responsibilities for one's country. Distract from the result you say? More like being unable to escape the reality that you cannot wish away your problems like leaving the EU and not expecing more if not worse problems to manifest if they do. What's distracting really is this whole Brexit Excercise: They cannot commit so they should have quit this whole thing instead of repeatedly trying to wish away reality.

AllForIt wrote: »

Even though as an citizen of Ireland, an Irishman, where I know there will be economic consequences, I would be disgusted if all this politicking leads to the UK not leaving the EU at all.

Why? So what if they don't leave, if they don't it's not as damaging to us economically at least, I have no interest in seeing them kicked out for the sake of it ONLY if their stupidity and toxicity becomes a serious issue where their removal becomes a necessity. I'm more than happy to wait it out expecially if it results in Farage and friends ultimately disappearing up their own ásses never to be seen again and taking their toxic waste of an ideology with them.

AllForIt wrote: »

That is unthinkable to me. I'm disgusted there is going to be a long extension where there is going to be in time some some agreement to be part of the CU and SM. This is absurd. What's the point of being part of those things after leaving the EU?

Let's put it this way: They're logistically essential, they're inescapable and without them cost's for everything jump significantly while supplies are stifled and other thing's take drastically longer because of the extra bureaucracy involved. They're there to save time, resources, money and eliminate hassle so your delivery only takes hours instead of days to get there.

AllForIt wrote: »

I would much prefer a crash out than what is currently being thought to happen now. It's just ridiculous to continue negotiations for another year. The UK parliament haven't agreed on anything to date and they won't ever.

To quote an oldie: "Good thing's come to he who waits" which in this case is the EU. The EU can handle a crashout, the UK will be utterly destroyed by it in the long run but delaying suits them fine to a degree as it means extra time to prepare and extra time to see how things pan out. Ridiculous to continue for another year? This is just the start of it, the WA is a result of the UK's red line's and the EU's best attempts to negotiate a deal within those but that's only the first round not the long term ones. Outside the EU the UK is nothing but dust in the wind it'll be at the mercy of the Big Boys like the US, China and the EU and they'll get what they're given or get nothing and like it, they have no influence on their own as much as they want to think otherwise hence why they're still stuck where they are atm. The UK parliment will eventually either agree something or a GE will result one way or another so there's no never agree on anything here.

AllForIt

Peregrinus wrote: »

As long as it's undone democratically, I don't see why you should be shocked. The whole point of democracy is that all decision, including those democratically made, are open to further democratic review.

What would be shocking is if the view that the 2016 decision can't be reviewed or reversed were to gain the ascendancy. That would mean that, far from having been an exercise in democracy as claimed, the 2016 referendum would have been a device for ending democracy.

Ok. Let's have a vote on one thing today, get a result, and have another vote tomorrow, and get a different result the next day. And the day after that.

That's what your saying basically, isn't it. Review to death.

How many times do you think it's ethical to review the democratic vote?

Until you get the answer you want is what I suspect. As long as it's done democratically as you say.

Edit: I find your point utterly absurd. It would make some sense if Brexit happened but your suggesting to overturn something that hasn't even happened yet. How do you democratically overturn something that hasn't happened. Can you not wait for it to happen before you 'democratically' reverse the decision.

Peregrinus

AllForIt wrote: »

Ok. Lets have a vote on one thing today, get a result, and have another vote tomorrow, and get a different result the next day. And the day after that.

That's what your saying basically, isn't it. Review to death.

No, that's not what I'm saying. And I think you already know that.

A democratically-taken decision can be settled and stable, but it isn't automatically so. If it's settled and stable then, despite being open to review and reconsideration, it's unlikely actually to be reviewed or reconsidered.

But winning a slim majority in a divisive and, as we now know, corruptly influenced referendum doesn't result in a settled and stable decision. Only a pretty stupid person would imagine that it would. The main thing that the 2016 referendum showed was that the UK was deeply and almost evenly divided over Brexit, and therefore that any decision in the referendum made would be tentative, vulnerable, liable to be changed as events develop or opinion shifts.

If those behind the Brexit movement had a titter of wit, they would have recognised that the result presented them with a challenge and an opportunity. The challenge arose from the almost equally-divided opinion within the country; the opportunity arose from the fact that they had won the referendum, and therefore were being presented with an opportunity actually to craft a practically deliverable Brexit, capable of attracting support and building to a sustainable and safe majority, by securing losers' consent.

They squandered that opportunity. They did the precise opposite; hewing to a hard Brexit, repudiating the softer models of Brexit that they themselves had touted during the referendum campaign, and generally doing everying they possibly could to alienate people who had doubts or fears about the wisdom of a hard Brexit. Knowing that Brexit in any form could command the support of only 52% of the population, they deliberately set about repelling some of that 52%, in the entirely mistaken belief that winning the referendum gave them power, and with power they could impose their will and no longer needed to secure or maintain wide support.

I think what we are seeing here is a mismatch between the British political tradition and wider democratic norms. In the British system winning a minority of the vote frequently does deliver near-absolute power, and enable a government to push through radical or unpopular measures, and the public largely accepts this. But it turns out that referendums don't work the same way. Referendum, expecially in the UK, are basically very big opinion polls, and are so regarded by the electorate. Opinions shift, and opinion polls shift with them. Referendums are something of a constitutional novelty in the UK; they are still nutting out what they are for and how they work. They're on a learning curve, and one of the things that at least some people are only just learning is that referendums don't work like general elections; they don't deliver power. They tell you what the country is thinking and, in the UK system, that is information which those who exercise power need to consider very carefully. The Brexiteers failed to do that.

AllForIt

AllForIt wrote: »

Ok. Let's have a vote on one thing today, get a result, and have another vote tomorrow, and get a different result the next day. And the day after that.

That's what your saying basically, isn't it. Review to death.

How many times do you think it's ethical to review the democratic vote?

Until you get the answer you want is what I suspect. As long as it's done democratically as you say.

In normal referendums, such as abortion or gay marriage, there is no reason to assume that people will change their minds since the result of their vote is a known quantity.

Brexit was a comically dumb referendum where absolutely no one knew what Leave meant. Now we know. And a new referendum with clear knowledge of what would happen after the result has a lot more credibility.


If my girlfriend says she wants to go to Africa, and I bring her to a shantytown in Brazzaville instead of taking her on safari, what sort of muppet would I be to tell her this is what she wanted.

AngryHippie

AllForIt wrote: »

How many times do you think it's ethical to review the democratic vote?

That is dependent on voter turnout and the validity of the information provided by both sides of the decision.

In this case, the leave campaign have admitted or demonstrated:

• They provided false or misleading information to support their leave vote (virtually every argument they provided supporting a leave vote has been shown to be at very least inaccurate, at worst a directly provable falsehood)
• They had no plan whatsoever for how to achieve what the they had promised (Because even they thought they would lose)
• They had no understanding of what the worst case "no deal" exit would look like (Citing WTO clauses without understanding what they meant or when they could be applied)
• They have no intention of compromising to reach a consensus on the real options available (The factions are now so badly split, the entire government is seized up and dysfunctional)

When all of the above pieces are in place, it is clear the democratic choice made is not the one being presented and the people should be provided with another opportunity to decide:

• The best case exit TODAY'S Governement has been able to achieve
• Revoke article 50 and terminate the exit process

Revoking article 50 does not meant that a government can not step back from the current brinksmanship mallarkey and spend the next 5 years drafting and agreeing provisional trade agreements to be implemented on another occasion.

Their bluff has well and truly been called at this stage. They are holding a 2/7 off suit and everyone knows it. How long the keep holding the electric fence is not a test of character, its a test of wit. They have already failed the test.

fash

AllForIt wrote: »

Ok. Let's have a vote on one thing today, get a result, and have another vote tomorrow, and get a different result the next day. And the day after that.

That's what your saying basically, isn't it. Review to death.

How many times do you think it's ethical to review the democratic vote?

Until you get the answer you want is what I suspect. As long as it's done democratically as you say.

Edit: I find your point utterly absurd. It would make some sense if Brexit happened but your suggesting to overturn something that hasn't even happened yet. How do you democratically overturn something that hasn't happened. Can you not wait for it to happen before you 'democratically' reverse the decision.

If you are saying that the democratic "Will of the People" is something that shifts day by day- one day this direction, next day another, it sounds rather stupid to base important long term decisions on something so fickle and arbitrary s that opinion on a given day. You might as well toss a coin.

AllForIt

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, that's not what I'm saying. And I think you already know that.

I know exactly what you mean by that. An option to remain if there were a second ref.

A democratically-taken decision can be settled and stable, but it isn't automatically so. If it's settled and stable then, despite being open to review and reconsideration, it's unlikely actually to be reviewed or reconsidered.

You sound like the antithesis of JRM.

But winning a slim majority in a divisive and, as we now know, corruptly influenced referendum doesn't result in a settled and stable decision. Only a pretty stupid person would imagine that it would. The main thing that the 2016 referendum showed was that the UK was deeply and almost evenly divided over Brexit, and therefore that any decision in the referendum made would be tentative, vulnerable, liable to be changed as events develop or opinion shifts.

Are you sure your not JRM's parallel universe counterpart.

'cause you sure sound like him with that point.

If those behind the Brexit movement had a titter of wit, they would have recognised that the result presented them with a challenge and an opportunity. The challenge arose from the almost equally-divided opinion within the country; the opportunity arose from the fact that they had won the referendum, and therefore were being presented with an opportunity actually to craft a practically deliverable Brexit, capable of attracting support and building to a sustainable and safe majority, by securing losers' consent.

What? Can you do that in English please next time, thanks. For a second there I though I was reading Oscar Wilde.

They squandered that opportunity. They did the precise opposite; hewing to a hard Brexit, repudiating the softer models of Brexit that they themselves had touted during the referendum campaign, and generally doing everying they possibly could to alienate people who had doubts or fears about the wisdom of a hard Brexit. Knowing that Brexit in any form could command the support of only 52% of the population, they deliberately set about repelling some of that 52%, in the entirely mistaken belief that winning the referendum gave them power, and with power they could impose their will and no longer needed to secure or maintain wide support.

Christ, it's not Game of effing Thrones. Anyway, I'm glad you know what 52% means. haha.

I think what we are seeing here is a mismatch between the British political tradition and wider democratic norms. In the British system winning a minority of the vote frequently does deliver near-absolute power, and enable a government to push through radical or unpopular measures, and the public largely accepts this. But it turns out that referendums don't work the same way. Referendum, expecially in the UK, are basically very big opinion polls, and are so regarded by the electorate. Opinions shift, and opinion polls shift with them. Referendums are something of a constitutional novelty in the UK; they are still nutting out what they are for and how they work. They're on a learning curve, and one of the things that at least some people are only just learning is that referendums don't work like general elections; they don't deliver power. They tell you what the country is thinking and, in the UK system, that is information which those who exercise power need to consider very carefully. The Brexiteers failed to do that.

Of course referendums are opinion polls. What else would the be?

You seem to have forgotten that the Brexiteers won the ref. You talking to the wrong audience, certainly in my case. Make all the arguments you like for remaining, but It's a bit late now. Unless of course you think you can overturn the ref?

Peregrinus

AllForIt wrote: »

. . . You seem to have forgotten that the Brexiteers won the ref. You talking to the wrong audience, certainly in my case. Make all the arguments you like for remaining, but It's a bit late now. Unless of course you think you can overturn the ref?

Far from having forgotten that the Brexiteers won the referendum, I explicitly pointed out that they had won it.

While I appreciate the invitation to make arguments for remaining, that is not my purpose here. My purpose is to point out that, while I can't overturn the referendum, the British people certainly can, and it is only the enemies of democracy who would seek to deny them the opportunity to do so.

Laois_Man

AllForIt wrote: »

I'm disgusted there is going to be a long extension where there is going to be in time some some agreement to be part of the CU and SM. This is absurd. What's the point of being part of those things after leaving the EU?

To my much overused post on Boards....

Well have a look at what the Leave voters were actually told what they were voting for (BY THE LEAVE CAMPAIGNERS)

Zubeneschamali

AllForIt wrote: »

there is going to be in time some some agreement to be part of the CU and SM. This is absurd. What's the point of being part of those things after leaving the EU?

Why are Norway and Switzerland in them?


Huge piles of cash, that's why.

Zubeneschamali

AllForIt wrote: »

Ok. Let's have a vote on one thing today, get a result, and have another vote tomorrow, and get a different result the next day. And the day after that.

It'll be 3 years later, not the next day.

Here in Ireland we had 6 referendums on abortion, should we have stopped after 1?

We had 2 on divorce, giving opposite answers.

And more like Brexit - we had 2 on Nice and 2 on Lisbon.

Democracy seems to have survived.

AngryHippie

AllForIt wrote: »

What? Can you do that in English please next time, thanks. For a second there I though I was reading Oscar Wilde.

It makes perfect sense, the brexit campaign got a win, they had no plan, they failed to assemble one in 3 years, they have missed the opportunity they were provided without even providing a hint that an extension would change that picture in any way.

The logical conclusions that can be inferred from this outcome is:
They were lying through their teeth prior to the referendum
They haven't a clue how countries outside of the EU actually work
The current administration have nobody competent that will touch this with a ten foot pole. (further indicating that anyone who isn't talking out of their South Mouth knows its a bloody awful idea)

AllForIt wrote: »

You seem to have forgotten that the Brexiteers won the ref. You talking to the wrong audience, certainly in my case. Make all the arguments you like for remaining, but It's a bit late now. Unless of course you think you can overturn the ref?

A non-binding referendum based on lies and misinformation.

Where does it say its too late now ?
They can overturn it any time they want.

They are afraid to because it will bring Tommy Robinson and a few thousand of his Ars3hol3 mates out in droves waving flags, bashing migrants and carrying on like the stella swilling yobbos that they are.

The only way they can avoid that is another referendum on the basis of best available deal or revoke. They had 6 million verified signatures on a petition just to discuss it but TM and the rest of the Tories know full well that once they table that option its game over, parliament is against them, the blood is in the water and they'll lose voters left right and center risking the effective death of one of the 10 oldest political parties in the world. not exactly the legacy they were after.
:rolleyes:

prawnsambo

AllForIt wrote: »

Of course referendums are opinion polls. What else would the be?

Mandated changes to the constitution here. In the UK, just opinion polls.

ancapailldorcha

A friend of mine sent me a link to this piece that Daily Mail columnist penned for Open Democracy. It's well worth a read.

To be honest, I've barely heard of Peter Oborne but this is a display of what I would call classic Conservatism, ie the old pre-Cameron One Nation Toryism. To put it simply, he seems to genuinely care about the UK (including the Union) and its people. I didn't think there were any Tories like this left truth be told.

Here's a short debate he did with Spectator writer Melissa Knight:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXyXp-av9OA

It says a lot about the calibre of debate we get here. Oborne points to diminished status and economic ruin as reasons for changing his mind while Knight has nothing more than subtle accusations of treachery, "Political bubble" and the vague will of 17.4 million people, all of whom are both still alive and still demand Brexit apparently.

Peregrinus

prawnsambo wrote: »

Mandated changes to the constitution here. In the UK, just opinion polls.

This. In Ireland the people are sovereign, and only they can adopt or amend the Constitution. This is what we use referendums for. Therefore in Ireland all referendums are legislative acts, in which the people enact (or decide not to enact) a legislative text proposed to them by the Oireachtas. A referendum is therefore always a specific proposal whose terms are known.

In the UK the people are not sovereign. They are consulted only if, and to the extent that, Parliament chooses to consult them. Parliament decides what they are consulted about, which may or may not be a specific legislative proposal as in Ireland. Parliament also decides what legal effect, if any, will attach to the views expressed by the people. If the referendum is going to be a legally binding and effective referendum, following the Irish model, then what Parliament puts to the people has to be a specific legal proposal - an actual text of a proposed law.

One of several reasons why Brexit has turned into such a debacle is that Parliament chose to have a non-binding referendum in which people endorsed an aspirational outcome with no detail specified. This means that, legally speaking, the referendum has no effect at all but, politically, it creates a mandate for Parliament to develop and implement a form of Brexit. But at the same time as choosing this form of referendum, the major political parties committed themselves to "respecting" the result of the referendum, a commitment which is now being interpreted by some as limiting the power of Parliament to determine the form of Brexit, and by others as absolving parliament of it Constitutional responsiblity to determine whether the attainable forms of Brexit are, in fact, in the best intersts of the UK. In short, we have a referendum which isn't drafted with the care and attention to detail that a legally effective referendum requires, and which isn't attended by the anti-corruption protections which apply to a legally effective referendum, but which is nevertheless being treated as though it were as binding as a legally effective referendum would be.

In years to come the constitutional and political textbooks will all hold the Brexit refernedum up as an Awful Example of How It Should Never Be Done. But that doesn't solve the immediate problem; how is Parliament to respect the results of the referendum when there is no agreement in Parliament on how to respect the results of the referendum?

prawnsambo

Peregrinus wrote: »

This. In Ireland the people are sovereign, and only they can adopt or amend the Constitution. This is what we use referendums for. Therefore in Ireland all referendums are legislative acts, in which the people enact (or decide not to enact) a legislative text proposed to them by the Oireachtas. A referendum is therefore always a specific proposal whose terms are known.

In the UK the people are not sovereign. They are consulted only if, and to the extent that, Parliament chooses to consult them. Parliament decides what they are consulted about, which may or may not be a specific legislative proposal as in Ireland. Parliament also decides what legal effect, if any, will attach to the views expressed by the people. If the referendum is going to be a legally binding and effective referendum, following the Irish model, then what Parliament puts to the people has to be a specific legal proposal - an actual text of a proposed law.

One of several reasons why Brexit has turned into such a debacle is that Parliament chose to have a non-binding referendum in which people endorsed an aspirational outcome with no detail specified. This means that, legally speaking, the referendum has no effect at all but, politically, it creates a mandate for Parliament to develop and implement a form of Brexit. But at the same time as choosing this form of referendum, the major political parties committed themselves to "respecting" the result of the referendum, a commitment which is now being interpreted by some as limiting the power of Parliament to determine the form of Brexit, and by others as absolving parliament of it Constitutional responsiblity to determine whether the attainable forms of Brexit are, in fact, in the best intersts of the UK. In short, we have a referendum which isn't drafted with the care and attention to detail that a legally effective referendum requires, and which isn't attended by the anti-corruption protections which apply to a legally effective referendum, but which is nevertheless being treated as though it were as binding as a legally effective referendum would be.

In years to come the constitutional and political textbooks will all hold the Brexit refernedum up as an Awful Example of How It Should Never Be Done. But that doesn't solve the immediate problem; how is Parliament to respect the results of the referendum when there is no agreement in Parliament on how to respect the results of the referendum?

As Sir Humphrey Appleby said: "If you're going to do this damn silly thing, please don't do it in this damn silly way".

I find myself falling back on Yes Minister quotes more and more as this comedy of errors continues.

First Up

Changes to the Irish constitution must be ratified by referendum, but a referendum could also be called for a non-constitutional issue, in which case it would be an opinion poll.

A consitutional referendum does not in itself count as legislation. Consitutional changes allow for legislation to be enacted but that legislation must still be passed by the Oireachteas.

johnnyskeleton

AllForIt wrote: »

I know exactly what you mean by that. An option to remain if there were a second ref.



You sound like the antithesis of JRM.




Are you sure your not JRM's parallel universe counterpart.

'cause you sure sound like him with that point.





What? Can you do that in English please next time, thanks. For a second there I though I was reading Oscar Wilde.



Christ, it's not Game of effing Thrones. Anyway, I'm glad you know what 52% means. haha.




Of course referendums are opinion polls. What else would the be?

You seem to have forgotten that the Brexiteers won the ref. You talking to the wrong audience, certainly in my case. Make all the arguments you like for remaining, but It's a bit late now. Unless of course you think you can overturn the ref?

Mod note:

Please read the charter before posting again. You should engage with the substance of what other posters said. Play the ball not the man.

prawnsambo

First Up wrote: »

Changes to the Irish constitution must be ratified by referendum, but a referendum could also be called for a non-constitutional issue, in which case it would be an opinion poll.

Have we ever had such a referendum? Racking my brains, but can't come up with one.

First Up wrote: »

A consitutional referendum does not in itself count as legislation. Consitutional changes allow for legislation to be enacted but that legislation must still be passed by the Oireachteas.

Well yes and no. In a constitutional referendum, the exact text that is approved is inserted into the constitution. And that's done directly by the President's assent. That text may allow the Oireachteas to further legislate as it sees fit, but the constitution is changed exactly as presented.

Peregrinus

First Up wrote: »

Changes to the Irish constitution must be ratified by referendum, but a referendum could also be called for a non-constitutional issue, in which case it would be an opinion poll.

Yeah, but we don't do that. For reasons which in the present circumstances are obvious.

(What we have done, recently, are citizens assemblies. Which I think have proved much more sastifactory.)

First Up wrote: »

A consitutional referendum does not in itself count as legislation. Consitutional changes allow for legislation to be enacted but that legislation must still be passed by the Oireachteas.

The constitution is itself a law, and therefore adopting or amending the constitution is legislation. Changes to the constituion may also require changes to other laws, so legislation by the people may give rise to further or consequential legislation by the Oireachtas (and still further legislation by Ministers who need to make or amend regulations, etc) , but that doesn't mean that the high-level change made by the people isn't legislation; it is.

And it should be noted that not all constitutional amendments require further legislation by the Oireachtas; the deletion of the article dealing with the special place of the Catholic church, for example, and the first abortion referendum, and I think the ban on capital punishment in 2001. Provisions included in the constitution are directly effective and can be invoked in the courts.

seamus

^^
It should also be noted that saying "a referendum does not count as legislation" is a bit inaccurate. A constitutional referendum is the last stage in the legislative process for relevant bills. A referendum is literally the entire population passing (or rejecting) a new law.

While that law may allow for other laws to be created, a referendum specifically is the approval of a bill which has already been written, debated and approved by both houses.

That's where it differs so massively from Brexit, in that the population "approved" of action being taken without that action having been laid down as a bill and robustly debated through both houses. Brexit gave any future government a blank cheque to make it up as they go along.

A constitutional referendum doesn't do that.

prawnsambo

Alos worth noting that in the legislative hierarchy, the constitution is king. All other laws must comply with it or fail. Hence the role of the President in referring laws to the Supreme Court.

ancapailldorcha

It looks like the Conservatives are heading from bad to worse. James Kanagasooriam who was instrumental in leading the data-driven approach of the Scottish Conservatives in 2017 was commissioned to investigate why the Tories are unpopular with the youth. From the Independent:

And his conclusion was that, unfortunately, thanks to Tony Blair, too many young people have been to university, and so have got nothing in common with the Conservative Party anymore. Kanagasooriam singles out particular problems, like the party’s proud history of consistently being on the wrong side of every social issue there’s ever been – gay rights, assisted dying, that kind of thing. Oh, and these vexatious young people also absolutely hate Brexit, what with it taking their rights away, limiting their life opportunities and making them poorer, with absolutely zero upside whatsoever for anyone.

I'd find the whole "Party of opportunity" thing a lot more convincing if the Tories had leaders who actually embodied it instead of privileged Etonians. Barring May of course who didn't attend Eton but did attend Oxford.

prawnsambo

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'd find the whole "Party of opportunity" thing a lot more convincing if the Tories had leaders who actually embodied it instead of privileged Etonians. Barring May of course who didn't attend Eton but did attend Oxford.

And yet she seems as much defined by that lack as those who went there are defined by it.