Brexit discussion thread XII (Please read OP before posting)

Kermit.de.frog

The votes I'm referring to of course are the referendums - all overturned. France, Ireland (twice), Netherlands. It's really shocking that anyone calling themselves a democrat can support a "you can have any referendum you like so long as the answer is yes" policy.

We all knew they would try overturn the UK result, let's be honest and they did try. Looks like it has not worked and I see that as very positive whether you agree with Brexit or not.

They had a vote.

Best thing remainers can do is respect the decision and then argue their case after it has been implemented to rejoin.

First Up

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The votes I'm referring to of course are the referendums - all overturned.

Who overturned them?

RobMc59

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The votes I'm referring to of course are the referendums - all overturned. France, Ireland (twice), Netherlands. It's really shocking that anyone calling themselves a democrat can support a "you can have any referendum you like so long as the answer is yes" policy.

We all knew they would try overturn the UK result, let's be honest and they did try. Looks like it has not worked and I see that as very positive whether you agree with Brexit or not.

They had a vote.

Best thing remainers can do is respect the decision and then argue their case after it has been implemented to rejoin.

You make a very valid point about referendums being overturned.Is it undemocratic to overturn a referendum result because it does`nt correspond with what the establishment want?Or should there be a second brexit referendum as the British public were obviously shamelessly lied to-what is more important,to uphold the democratic vote or ensure the true situation is conveyed to the voting public?
It`s so depressing not being able to trust your country`s leaders to tell the truth.

Kermit.de.frog

First Up wrote: »

Who overturned them?

The EU colluding with national parliaments and pro EU actors in national life.

It's the way it's done. The population is ultimately one way or another threatened economically. That's the favourite tool. What's most disturbing is when referendums are overturned by the national parliament without even the indignity of a second vote!

It's stunning how any so called democrats don't have big problems with any of this.

FrancieBrady

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The EU colluding with national parliaments and pro EU actors in national life.

It's the way it's done. The population is ultimately one way or another threatened economically. That's the favourite tool. What's most disturbing is when referendums are overturned by the national parliament without even the indignity of a second vote!

It's stunning how any so called democrats don't have big problems with any of this.

Because there was nothing 'un-democratic' about it. The government decided to run a second referendum based on assurances and clarifications they got. They had every right as the sovereign government to do that (whether you agreed with it or not).
The public voted (no coersion or force) on it again on foot of those assurances and clarifications. There was no vote tampering or anything underhand.
A transparent and open democratic process. They could just as easily have rejected it again.

I was one of the electorate and at no time did I feel it was undemocratic or forced.

CelticRambler

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The EU colluding with national parliaments and pro EU actors in national life.

The EU - an institution made up of and run by national parliaments, and elected representatives from member states that have willingly formed a mutually beneficial alliance - colluding ... with itself?

Imreoir2

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Consensus seems to be a 40 - 60 seat majority for the Conservatives that will see the UK officially exit the EU on January 31st with the WA vote before Christmas between Yougov and MPR.

Delighted that the vote looks like it finally be respected.

The UK will have to make it's own way but also let's hope the EU learns the lesson from the loss of it's second biggest net contributor. Looks like being the first vote against the EU that will actually be respected.

Literally the first - the rest were overturned.

A big win for democracy and accountability.

That's not true, the EU constitution did not go ahead because it was voted down in some member states.

I don't buy the argument that holding a second referendum is somehow not respecting a result. In the case of the Nice and Lisbon votes here, our government took from the rejections that the electorate had specific issues with those treaties, not that the eletorate wanted to reject those treaties in their entirity. On that basis the government went and sought specific changes and assurances they belived would make the treaty acceptable. When presented with the amended treaty, the government were proven correct in each instance. That is literally democracy and accountable government!

The idea that a vote like Lisbon 1 is a mandate from the electorate to abandon the treaty entirely is simply false. Amending the treaty and submitting it for decision by the public is not acting unacountably, and it is not ignoring the mandate of the people. This is proven by the fact that the eletorate approved the amended treaty the second time round.

Imreoir2

First Up wrote: »

Who overturned them?

The evil EU enebeling elitist electorate of course, ignoring the will of the wonderful and virtious people that rejected the EU. It's so anti-democratic when the people change their mind and give the wrong answer. No one should ever be alound to change their mind, regardless of what happens.

:pac:

Rain Ascending

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Consensus seems to be a 40 - 60 seat majority for the Conservatives that will see the UK officially exit the EU on January 31st with the WA vote before Christmas between Yougov and MPR.

Delighted that the vote looks like it finally be respected.

I can understand your logic here and it's a valid position to take, but...

The UK will have to make it's own way but also let's hope the EU learns the lesson from the loss of it's second biggest net contributor. Looks like being the first vote against the EU that will actually be respected.

Literally the first - the rest were overturned.

A big win for democracy and accountability.

...this is where you need to work on your arguments.

Firstly, it's very inaccurate. Greenland voted to leave and it left. Secondly, the proposed European Constitution also died a death as a result of referenda in France and the Netherlands. Granted the Lisbon Treaty was a partial replacement, but the important symbolism of the European Constitution was lost.

Secondly, how would you propose to make the European Union more accountable and democratic? The obvious moves would be reduce the power of the Council of Ministers and the European Council and to make the Commission more accountable to the European Parliament. But I suspect that's not what you have in mind...

Imreoir2

Rain Ascending wrote: »

I can understand your logic here and it's a valid position to take, but...
...this is where you need to work on your arguments.

Firstly, it's very inaccurate. Greenland voted to leave and it left. Secondly, the proposed European Constitution also died a death as a result of referenda in France and the Netherlands. Granted the Lisbon Treaty was a partial replacement, but the important symbolism of the European Constitution was lost.

Secondly, how would you propose to make the European Union more accountable and democratic? The obvious moves would be reduce the power of the Council of Ministers and the European Council and to make the Commission more accountable to the European Parliament. But I suspect that's not what you have in mind...

This is the problem, they complain that the EU is undemocratic, and want to fix it by making the EU less democratic.

Mr.Nice Guy

The Lisbon Treaty was effectively the same as the EU constitution. There was very little difference between them.

Let's be honest, those that defended second referendums would not have had the same mindset assuming the first referendum had gone the way they wished.

Assuming Lisbon Treaty 1 was a Yes result, how would those who voted Yes have reacted if those who lost asked for a second vote shortly afterwards? How would those who voted Remain in the Brexit referendum have reacted if Leavers responded to a 52-48 Remain vote by demanding a second poll? With complete and utter contempt is the answer.

And this attitude towards referendum results when they don't go the way the established parties want partly explains why Euroscepticism gained such a boost in the 2010s and resulted in Brexit. That is its legacy.

An Ciarraioch

EU net immigration to the UK falls to 48,000, the lowest level since 2003. Meanwhile, non-EU migration continues to rise, and now stands at a net 164,000:

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-50586338

prawnsambo

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

The Lisbon Treaty was effectively the same as the EU constitution. There was very little difference between them.

Let's be honest, those that defended second referendums would not have had the same mindset assuming the first referendum had gone the way they wished.

Assuming Lisbon Treaty 1 was a Yes result, how would those who voted Yes have reacted if those who lost asked for a second vote shortly afterwards? How would those who voted Remain in the Brexit referendum have reacted if Leavers responded to a 52-48 Remain vote by demanding a second poll? With complete and utter contempt is the answer.

And this attitude towards referendum results when they don't go the way the established parties want partly explains why Euroscepticism gained such a boost in the 2010s and resulted in Brexit. That is its legacy.

You're completely waving away the way the leave campaign was run, the shady money that was floating around, including the DUP getting money to run ads in the Metro. We're talking about possible criminal activity here, not some technicality. Any of that kind of thing had happened here and the referendum would be declared null and void. And the lying would never have been allowed. So you just can't compare the two.

Mr.Nice Guy

prawnsambo wrote: »

You're completely waving away the way the leave campaign was run, the shady money that was floating around, including the DUP getting money to run ads in the Metro. We're talking about possible criminal activity here, not some technicality. Any of that kind of thing had happened here and the referendum would be declared null and void. And the lying would never have been allowed. So you just can't compare the two.

You don't think we've had shady money floating around in any historical election in Ireland? Considering what happened with Sean Gallagher in the Presidential debate (which RTE apologised and paid damages over) I don't think we can get on a high horse about what has gone on in other countries.

prawnsambo

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

You don't think we've had shady money floating around in any historical election in Ireland? Considering what happened with Sean Gallagher in the Presidential debate (which RTE apologised and paid damages over) I don't think we can get on a high horse about what has gone on in other countries.

You've kinda supported my point there. Gallagher got restitution. And he hadn't a snowball's chance of winning. But the main point is that this irregularity has been proven. It didn't disappear under the carpet or never see the light of day. The scandal is the blind eye being turned to it. And an intelligence committee report suppressed.

We have had supreme court cases over how referendums can be run. And how they can be policed. Are you saying that the standard here is somehow lower? Because that does not stack up.

Imreoir2

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Let's be honest, those that defended second referendums would not have had the same mindset assuming the first referendum had gone the way they wished.

Who decides if a referendum is held? The government. Why would the government call for a second referendum if they got the result they supported in the first place.

Assuming Lisbon Treaty 1 was a Yes result, how would those who voted Yes have reacted if those who lost asked for a second vote shortly afterwards? How would those who voted Remain in the Brexit referendum have reacted if Leavers responded to a 52-48 Remain vote by demanding a second poll? With complete and utter contempt is the answer.

I think they would be asking what the basis of a second referendum would be. What changed to justify a second vote. In the case of the Lisbon Treaty, the government secured changes and key assurances to address the concerns that were raised during the first referendum campaign. That was the justification for the second vote. What changes could no-voters point to to justify rejecting a treaty already approved?

As for remainers treating leavers with contempt if they asked for a second refernedum had things gone differently, that is exactly how leavers are treating remainers now. We can see the legacy of that behaviour, a devided society and failing political system.

And this attitude towards referendum results when they don't go the way the established parties want partly explains why Euroscepticism gained such a boost in the 2010s and resulted in Brexit. That is its legacy.

I think that has little or nothing to do with it in reality. The rise of Euroscepticism was a response to the financial crash and the resultant austerity, combined with a reaction to the migration crisis.

The legacy of Brexit seems to be a more united EU as the utter disaster that the reality of leaving the EU has been for the UK is exposed for all to see.

Kermit.de.frog

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Who decides if a referendum is held? The government. Why would the government call for a second referendum if they got the result they supported in the first place.

I could not have put it better myself.

Why indeed?

They only rerun them when they don't get what they want in the EU and sometimes simply ignore them.

Well done sir.

Next! :pac:

:cool:

FrancieBrady

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

I could not have put it better myself.

Why indeed?

They only rerun them when they don't get what they want in the EU and sometimes simply ignore them.

Well done sir.

Next! :pac:

:cool:

There is nothing un-democratic about it though. The electorate were entirely free to reject it again.

Kermit.de.frog

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There is nothing un-democratic about it though. The electorate were entirely free to reject it again.

Apart from the time to get the threats in (it's like the Mafia - *Italian mafia voice* "be a shame if something happened to you...") and the voters rightfully turned off by the disenfranchisement of the original vote who refuse to vote twice.

They know how the game works. They know the tricks.

Mr.Nice Guy

Imreoir2 wrote: »

Who decides if a referendum is held? The government. Why would the government call for a second referendum if they got the result they supported in the first place.

That applies to Brexit, not the Nice and Lisbon treaty votes.

Imreoir2 wrote:

I think they would be asking what the basis of a second referendum would be. What changed to justify a second vote. In the case of the Lisbon Treaty, the government secured changes and key assurances to address the concerns that were raised during the first referendum campaign. That was the justification for the second vote. What changes could no-voters point to to justify rejecting a treaty already approved?

This is a revisionist myth often trotted out. What about those that voted No because they were concerned about Ireland's loss of sovereignty? Where were their concerns addressed by the government? Answer: they weren't.

Imreoir2 wrote:

As for remainers treating leavers with contempt if they asked for a second refernedum had things gone differently, that is exactly how leavers are treating remainers now. We can see the legacy of that behaviour, a devided society and failing political system.

We know that. But the question is if the shoe was on the other foot would the attitude be different? And we both know the answer is no.

Imreoir2 wrote:

I think that has little or nothing to do with it in reality. The rise of Euroscepticism was a response to the financial crash and the resultant austerity, combined with a reaction to the migration crisis.

The legacy of Brexit seems to be a more united EU as the utter disaster that the reality of leaving the EU has been for the UK is exposed for all to see.

Euroscepticism's rise was to do with many factors, some of which you touch on, and one of them was the perception of a domineering EU intent on usurping national sovereignty. The behaviour of the EU towards the electorates of Ireland, France and the Netherlands following results it did not like undoubtedly contributed to the perception of a remote institution with its own agenda that did not care about the concerns of ordinary people.

Agree with you though that the manner of Brexit has levelled off the Euroscepticism, for the time being at least.

FrancieBrady

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Apart from the time to get the threats in (it's like the Mafia - *Italian mafia voice* "be a shame if something happened to you...") and the voters rightfully turned off by the disenfranchisement of the original vote who refuse to vote twice.

They know how the game works. They know the tricks.

What?

prawnsambo

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Euroscepticism's rise was to do with many factors, some of which you touch on, and one of them was the perception of a domineering EU intent on usurping national sovereignty. The behaviour of the EU towards the electorates of Ireland, France and the Netherlands following results it did not like undoubtedly contributed to the perception of a remote institution with its own agenda that did not care about the concerns of ordinary people.

Agree with you though that the manner of Brexit has levelled off the Euroscepticism, for the time being at least.

The bahaviour at the time was shock and dismay. Was there something wrong with that reaction?

prawnsambo

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What?

Yeah. There's a lot of revisionist thinking going around here at the moment.

Mr.Nice Guy

prawnsambo wrote: »

The bahaviour at the time was shock and dismay. Was there something wrong with that reaction?

By shock and dismay you mean shelve and disregard.

prawnsambo

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

By shock and dismay you mean shelve and disregard.

No. I don't.

I argued at the time that Lisbon shouldn't have be a referendum and I still believe it. That's what representatives are for.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

I argued at the time that Lisbon shouldn't have be a referendum and I still believe it. That's what representatives are for.

It required a constitutional amendment, so it had to be ratified by referendum.

Bannasidhe

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There is nothing un-democratic about it though. The electorate were entirely free to reject it again.

This is the bit that is always ignored.
Re-running a referendum is not a guarantee the outcome will change.
It may actually confirm the original vote.

Mr.Nice Guy

prawnsambo wrote: »

No. I don't.

Yes. You do.

Speaking at a late-night press conference, the European commission president, Jose Manuel Barroso, made no mention of the need to continue with ratification. "It is a difficult moment for Europe," he said, adding that heads of government would decide what to do next at their summit in two weeks.

However, he warned EU leaders not to abandon the treaty yet, saying: "I think it will not be wise [for] leaders to come with new initiatives or unilateral decisions."

In Britain politicians were sanguine, but reluctant to admit defeat. The foreign secretary, Jack Straw, said the verdict of French and Dutch voters "raises profound questions for all of us about the future direction of Europe".

Europe minister Douglas Alexander acknowledged that the French and Dutch results had left the constitutional treaty in "serious difficulty", but insisted that "this treaty was agreed by 25 nations ... it is not for one country to declare it dead".

The prime minister, Tony Blair, was confident fellow European leaders would accept it was impossible to carry on in the wake of such an emphatic dual rejection. However, he acknowledged that it could take time for Mr Chirac to concede the constitution was dead.

Elsewhere, politicians were less circumspect. In Italy, the deputy prime minister, Giulio Tremonti, said the current constitution was "finished".

Again, this behaviour contributed to the negative perceptions of the bloc which the likes of the far right were able to exploit and feed upon.

Bannasidhe wrote:

This is the bit that is always ignored.
Re-running a referendum is not a guarantee the outcome will change.
It may actually confirm the original vote.

Surely the bit that's ignored is that they never seek to re-run the referendum when it does go their desired way, either at the first time of asking - or the second. Wonder why?

FrancieBrady

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Surely the bit that's ignored is that they never seek to re-run the referendum when it does go their desired way, either at the first time of asking - or the second. Wonder why?

Seriously, why would they?

They government believed in what they were trying to do. So they got reassurances and ran it again. Open and transparent. You were free to disagree.
You were also free to vote the government out if you thought they were being undemocratic.