Brexit discussion thread II

Jim2007 · 16-08-2017 09:18PM

murphaph wrote: »

Having said all that....the UK is simply too proud and we'd be back here again in 3 or 4 years. Brexit needs to happen and fail for the UK to finally realise it is not something special any more. Just another mid sized economy, smaller than Germany and around the same size as France. It's tragic but I don't believe it can be put to bed any other way.

Yes at this stage BREXIT has to happen and we will just have to see who the winners and the losers are. I suspect the average workers and those on fixed incomes will be hit very hard. In the end I expect it will be at least 10 years before we see any movement.

If they do want to return the big question is will they be allowed? The EU will be a different place by then and people will have gotten used to not have to find work arounds for all the U.K. objections. Getting the approval of the members at that stage may be problematic.

Jim2007 · 16-08-2017 09:46PM

murphaph wrote: »

So let me rephrase. Will you accept Brexit was a mistake if unemployment rises to say 10% a couple of years after the formalities and hand-holding transition periods end?

I don't think it will necessarily happen in that way. The recent figures on unemployment look very good at first glance - lowest unemployment rates since the 1970s, I think. But if you look closer there has been little or no wages growth and productivity has fallen to 2007/8 levels suggesting it's a case of adding more bodies to achieve the same output!

It may well be that more people are forced to work for less. Competing as a third country will put pressure on wages, declining tax revenues may hit benefits and people on fixed incomes may need to work part time.

The real measure will be the quality of life people will enjoy and if it will keep up or surpass it's neighbors. If it fails to meet expectations then we may see social unrest.

kingchess · 16-08-2017 09:53PM

A genuine question but-if the entire population of Northern Ireland are entitled to an Irish passport-which gives them automatic EU citizenship with all the rights that gives them,ie.freedom to travel and work and study in the EU etc.Does this not give the people of Northern Ireland certain advantages over their fellow citizens in the rest of the UK?Could an English,Scot or Welshman claim he was being discriminated against???, And which court would get to decide??

Samaris · 16-08-2017 10:08PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Let's be fair the remain side sold some shocking lies. The Treasury said there would be unemployment and a recession in the immediate aftermath of leaving the EU.

solodeogloria wrote: »

Samaris - all these predictions were about the immediate aftermath. You don't get to whitewash these.

The immediate aftermath has not happened yet. The UK is still in the EU. The immediate aftermath will be in 2019. This is not whitewashing. I cannot any more clearly highlight what you said without turning it bright red.

kingchess wrote: »

A genuine question but-if the entire population of Northern Ireland are entitled to an Irish passport-which gives them automatic EU citizenship with all the rights that gives them,ie.freedom to travel and work and study in the EU etc.Does this not give the people of Northern Ireland certain advantages over their fellow citizens in the rest of the UK?Could an English,Scot or Welshman claim he was being discriminated against???, And which court would get to decide??

I...honestly have no idea. This will probably arise at some point though. Erk.

Sam Russell · 16-08-2017 10:20PM

kingchess wrote: »

A genuine question but-if the entire population of Northern Ireland are entitled to an Irish passport-which gives them automatic EU citizenship with all the rights that gives them,ie.freedom to travel and work and study in the EU etc.Does this not give the people of Northern Ireland certain advantages over their fellow citizens in the rest of the UK?Could an English,Scot or Welshman claim he was being discriminated against???, And which court would get to decide??

Only those in NI born on the island of Ireland are granted the right to an Irish or British passport. The same applies to he English, Scots, or Welsh. Of course, if they are born on the island of Great Britain, then they do not qualify for the Irish one.

So no court case.

Fratton Fred · 16-08-2017 10:21PM

kingchess wrote: »

A genuine question but-if the entire population of Northern Ireland are entitled to an Irish passport-which gives them automatic EU citizenship with all the rights that gives them,ie.freedom to travel and work and study in the EU etc.Does this not give the people of Northern Ireland certain advantages over their fellow citizens in the rest of the UK?Could an English,Scot or Welshman claim he was being discriminated against???, And which court would get to decide??

Discriminated in what way?

A French citizen living and working in the U.K. Would have the same advantages. Similarly a British citizen currently living in morocco has advantages over Moroccans, but they aren't being discriminated against.

kingchess · 16-08-2017 10:56PM

You are saying that a British citizen will still have the same rights to work,live or study or access health care in the EU after Brexit? the same as an Irish citizen??My point(could be totally wrong) is that one part of the UK can have these rights by being born in Northern Ireland while their fellow citizens in Scotland, England and Wales will not be treated equally,.We live in a world where you can sue if you drink 20 pints and injure yourself falling off a bar stool,and people get kinda angry if they fell there not treated like their fellow UK citizens,and people can feel discriminated against for the most trivial of reasons,And, yes I know that its the Irish Government gave this right , like I said I could be 100% wrong about all this. (sorry fratton frd-just saw you said french man working in uk)

joeysoap · 16-08-2017 11:26PM

A person born in Nortgern Ireland and holding Irish passport would be equal in the UK to all other Uk citizens ? To work etc without any constraints or permits?

And the same person would be equal in the EU to all other EU citizens? Again to work and travel (within EU) without any constraints?

Question: my EHIC card has my name,PRSI number (or whatever it's called now)and HSE -14 as the institution. Covers public hospitals and clinics (public doctors) when on holidays etc in EU

If no deal can be done like Norway, Switzerland etc will Irish passport holders from Northern Ireland (and the rest of the UK) be entitled to such a card. And will the HSE be the authoriser? If so it's a no brainier to hold an Irish passsport.

Fratton Fred · 16-08-2017 11:35PM

kingchess wrote: »

You are saying that a British citizen will still have the same rights to work,live or study or access health care in the EU after Brexit? the same as an Irish citizen??My point(could be totally wrong) is that one part of the UK can have these rights by being born in Northern Ireland while their fellow citizens in Scotland, England and Wales will not be treated equally,.We live in a world where you can sue if you drink 20 pints and injure yourself falling off a bar stool,and people get kinda angry if they fell there not treated like their fellow UK citizens,and people can feel discriminated against for the most trivial of reasons,And, yes I know that its the Irish Government gave this right , like I said I could be 100% wrong about all this. (sorry fratton frd-just saw you said french man working in uk)

It's no different to someone having dual citizenship is it? The uk allows that, which is effectively what the situation is in the North.

Capt'n Midnight · 16-08-2017 11:53PM

joeysoap wrote: »

Afaik Norway allows the 4 freedoms and contributes to the EU budget. We are being told that the border with NI is the 'only' land border with the EU when Norway has a long border with Sweden. also afaik Norway more or less shadows EU rules and regulations. I think the no vote was a reflection on Norways vast reserves of currency (and oil). Not an anti EU vote as such.

The Norway Sweden border is 1,630 kilometres long. 10 customs offices. The border up north has 260 crossings. Many of which could be re-opened with a JCB over a weekend if someone had a mind to.

Back in 2001 smuggling of fuel alone cost UK Treasury £300m

Overall oil imports have halved from 940,000 litres in 1994 to 440,000 last year, and BP now has just 51 outlets in the province, compared with 98 three years ago.

BTW can't say this often enough, in addition to the freedoms, Norway has NO passporting for financials and pays about the same per capita as the UK.

It's like the old joke about a consultant is someone who borrows your watch to tell you the time, and then keeps the watch. For the UK , Norway gives almost nothing. Yes they get fisheries , but they've already said they'd allow johnny foreigner to keep taking the fish.

As an exporter of raw materials and food and an importer of finished goods Norway has far fewer conflicts of interest than the UK where concessions on most items mean job losses for one side or the other.

Peregrinus · 17-08-2017 01:44AM

Fratton Fred wrote: »

It's no different to someone having dual citizenship is it? The uk allows that, which is effectively what the situation is in the North.

The situation in the North is not effectively one of dual citizenship; it's actually one of dual citizenship.

And, no, it's not discriminatory in a way that could give anyone any legal remedy. If you argue that, if some British citizens are also dual nationals of Ireland then all British citizens must be similarly entitled, then you'd to have to concede that if one, e.g., Polish citizen is also a dual national of the UK then all Polish citizens must be similarly entitled.

Calina · 17-08-2017 04:48AM

joeysoap wrote: »

A person born in Nortgern Ireland and holding Irish passport would be equal in the UK to all other Uk citizens ? To work etc without any constraints or permits?

And the same person would be equal in the EU to all other EU citizens? Again to work and travel (within EU) without any constraints?

Question: my EHIC card has my name,PRSI number (or whatever it's called now)and HSE -14 as the institution. Covers public hospitals and clinics (public doctors) when on holidays etc in EU

If no deal can be done like Norway, Switzerland etc will Irish passport holders from Northern Ireland (and the rest of the UK) be entitled to such a card. And will the HSE be the authoriser? If so it's a no brainier to hold an Irish passsport.

A person born in NI is generally entitled to both UK and Republic of Ireland citizenship subject to certain provisions. Can't comment on UK provisions but the Irish provisions reflect the limitations in place in the Republic which were appkied after the citizenship referendum.

With respect to the EHIC card, residents of NI in theory won't be by default getting one from the Republic. Iirc you need to be making social insurance contributions to get one so a person in NI probably would have to be in the Republic's social insurance scheme either as a current payer or claimant. TBH something which I haven't seen discussed is the administrative impact on cross border workers, people who live in one country but reside in another. Another line item

Peregrinus · 17-08-2017 05:15AM

joeysoap wrote: »

Afaik Norway allows the 4 freedoms and contributes to the EU budget. We are being told that the border with NI is the 'only' land border with the EU . . .

It's the UK's only land border with the EU (or, indeed, with anybody). The UK has land borders with at least twelve countries already, including a land border to the east that stretches from the Black Sea to the Baltic Sea.

The EU is well-used to land borders. The UK is not.

Peregrinus · 17-08-2017 05:39AM

steddyeddy wrote: »

Today Theresa May refused to condemn Donald Trump's statements on racism. Has she got a single principled bone in her body? I take it she's attemlting to get on the good side inthe hope of a trade deal.

She's definitely trying to keep on Trump's good side.

That doesn't mean that she doesn't have a "single principled bone in her body", though. Her principle may well be to act in the best interests of the United Kingdom so far as possible. And her judgment may well be that, with Brexit inevitable following the referendum, the UK's best interests strongly require it to brown-nose Donald Trump to the greatest extent possible.

I have some sympathy for her. Cleaving closely to the US has become a national priority for economic reasons just at the moment when the election of
a tangerine with a personality disorder makes doing so an exercise in national humiliation. But what can you do? Even if she were minded to call off Brexit I don't think its realistically possible for her to do so, so she and her country just have to suffer the humiliation of pretending to be best friends with a corrupt psychotic toddler.

solodeogloria · 17-08-2017 06:39AM

Samaris wrote: »

The immediate aftermath has not happened yet. The UK is still in the EU. The immediate aftermath will be in 2019. This is not whitewashing. I cannot any more clearly highlight what you said without turning it bright red.

Good morning!

Did you actually read the links? They are about the immediate aftermath of the referendum.

The IMF predicted recession in 2017. It didn't and wasn't going to happen .

This thread is an echo chamber. I don't know how much longer I'll be posting in it.

People refuse to accept democracy implying that the people were gullible. They claim the leave side lied in the referendum when the remain side either were incredibly negligent in producing forecasts or were intentionally bending the truth to encourage people to stay in. That is about as immoral in my view (and I agree some of the Vote Leave stuff was too). There hasn't been a single convincing argument for remaining in the EU. Fear mongering is back on form for project fear round two but why should I believe it given how wrong project fear round one was.

Legitimate posts from mostly Fratton Fred and I are being deleted without good justification.(I will be copying this one for later if it's gone). It's kind of pointless continuing to post if a balanced debating environment can't be guaranteed.

Much thanks,
solodeogloria

Peregrinus · 17-08-2017 07:04AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

Good morning!

Did you actually read the links? They are about the immediate aftermath of the referendum.

The IMF predicted recession in 2017. It didn't and wasn't going to happen .

This thread is an echo chamber. I don't know how much longer I'll be posting in it.

And as long as you keep saying the same thing again and again, solo, it will continue to be an echo chamber.

A number of commentators predicted an economic downturn if the referendum ended with a vote to leave. Precisely because they regarded those commentators as credible and they took seriously what was said, when the referendum did result in a vote to leave the Bank of England made an immediate interest rate cut, pumped an additional 60 billion into the economy by way of quantitative easing, and provided 100 bn of new funding to banks. The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a slashing of the corporate tax rate, and an abandonment of the target of returning to a balanced budget by 2020. These were all measures designed to stimulate the economy to offset the effect of the Leave vote.

In other words, people considered the projections of the IMF and others, saw that they were well-reasoned, took them seriously, and decided to take action to avert a downturn. That action has had the hoped-for outcome, at least so far. The main point of making such projections is so that people hopefully will take actions to avert projected bad outcomes. The notion that, when they do so, this makes the projections a "lie" is absurd, and your advocacy of it looks like the ploy of a fifth columnist whose object is to make the case for Brexit appear ridiculous.

Samaris · 17-08-2017 07:16AM

Oh, right, so it was just that you were wrong, misrepresented what the article said and then complained when people didn't understand why you were blatantly contradicting yourself.

And you did, so I don't see why you're getting on your high horse about it. You made it very clear in your representation that it was in the aftermath of leaving the EU for that one that I was talking about. I pointed out that the UK has not yet left the EU. I was, perhaps, foolish to trust your representation and respond to it rather than going back into the article and realising that you were just wrong in how you wrote it, but I have had sensible conversations with you elsewhere and expected your words to be correct.

Enzokk · 17-08-2017 08:56AM

solodeogloria wrote: »

People refuse to accept democracy implying that the people were gullible. They claim the leave side lied in the referendum when the remain side either were incredibly negligent in producing forecasts or were intentionally bending the truth to encourage people to stay in. That is about as immoral in my view (and I agree some of the Vote Leave stuff was too). There hasn't been a single convincing argument for remaining in the EU. Fear mongering is back on form for project fear round two but why should I believe it given how wrong project fear round one was.

Okay, so you are upset that Vote Remain campaigned on Project Fear and because of this the policy of Brexit should be followed through as not doing so will be subversion of democracy.

But do you take any stock of the, lets say misrepresentation of facts, from the likes of Boris Johnson during the campaign? Surely it is obvious that both campaigns were lying throughout and while none of the prophecies of doom has as yet come true regarding a vote for Brexit, I have also not seen any convincing argument on why the UK should Brexit. This even after the campaign has settled and we have had time to really look at the facts out there.

So what are we to think of all this, surely a re-run of the referendum where better facts from both sides are presented, right?

hatrickpatrick · 17-08-2017 11:21AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ah, democracy: the last unassailable sacred cow.

Some of us who have "denigrated the very concept of democracy" have proposed something less drastic than eligibility for voting: not relying on an underinformed electorate to make a simplistic decision about an almost incomprehensibly complex topic.

It puzzles me how people who put democracy on a pedestal are so blind to its feet of clay. Seriously: in a post arguing for democracy, you cite Trump and Brexit. Don't those two results cause you to question your slavish devotion to the idea that large groups of underinformed people can't make bad decisions? Or does that slavish devotion extend to the idea that bad decisions made democratically are better than good decisions made any other way?

We've discussed this in other threads

To summarise: A bad decision which the people choose is better than a good decision in which they have no choice. Fundamentally, the human psyche does not appreciate being dictated to. And I also believed that both of those results might be a wake-up call to the establishment to stop treating ordinary people with contempt, but so far unfortunately I've seen relatively little evidence that the legitimate anger and grievances of people are being taken on board.

I'm not sure how many more "upsets" it will take for those lessons to be learned, but I will continue to support peoples' right to govern themselves regardless.

marcus001 · 17-08-2017 11:28AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Ah, democracy: the last unassailable sacred cow.

Some of us who have "denigrated the very concept of democracy" have proposed something less drastic than eligibility for voting: not relying on an underinformed electorate to make a simplistic decision about an almost incomprehensibly complex topic.

It puzzles me how people who put democracy on a pedestal are so blind to its feet of clay. Seriously: in a post arguing for democracy, you cite Trump and Brexit. Don't those two results cause you to question your slavish devotion to the idea that large groups of underinformed people can't make bad decisions? Or does that slavish devotion extend to the idea that bad decisions made democratically are better than good decisions made any other way?

Get rid of democracy and you'll see what slavish devotion really is.

Christy42 · 17-08-2017 11:30AM

marcus001 wrote: »

Get rid of democracy and you'll see what slavish devotion really is.

The poster is not saying get rid of Democracy. The poster is saying that just because people voted for something does not mean it was a good choice. See Trump/Brexit.

Hence the various checks and balances in the US system for instance.

oscarBravo · 17-08-2017 11:51AM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

We've discussed this in other threads To summarise: A bad decision which the people choose is better than a good decision in which they have no choice.

Sure, if you present it as a bald dichotomy between direct democracy on the one hand and a repressive dictatorship on the other hand, direct democracy for all its obvious flaws is the clear winner.

Which is why I've never argued that the people should never be allowed to make any decisions at all. I've made the argument that democracy, like any powerful force, should be applied sparingly and carefully.

In the case of Brexit, it shouldn't have been put to the people. End of story. I'd still believe that if the remain side had won: I'd just consider it a narrow escape from the consequences of a stupid decision rather than a slavish devotion to the consequences of a stupid decision.

We have representative democracy for a reason: running a country is far too complicated a job to reduce to a simple yes/no question put to people on whom there's absolutely no onus to inform themselves before answering. For the government to put the Brexit decision to the people was an egregious abdication of its responsibility to govern.

If a Parliament had voted to Brexit, it would have been politically possible (albeit horribly embarrassing) to reverse course when the appalling consequences became clear. Because the people voted for it - even though they are not sovereign in the UK, Parliament is - it is politically unthinkable.

To the slavish devotee of democracy, the consequences of Brexit don't matter. Literally the only thing that matters is a majority, however narrow. If the consequences of leaving are horrific and destroy the country's economy for generations - if the ultimate consequence is civil strife and widespread violence - apparently that's OK, because a bad decision made by the people is better than a good decision made by someone else.

I find it hard to put into words how mind-bogglingly ridiculous that seems to me.

* Note: I'm not saying that the above will come to pass, or is indeed particularly likely: I'm pointing out that if it did, it's still apparently better than peace and prosperity imposed by the jackbooted heel of a mere elected Parliament.

Trump is the other example, and it's a different type of failure of democracy. In this case, the fundamental problem is the capture of the USA's political system by powerful vested interests. The Citizens United decision is probably the worst thing that could have happened to representative democracy.

I don't have a simple prescription to fix how horribly democracy is broken in the USA, but I'll continue to hold out Donald Trump as an answer to the simplistic idea that the will of the people is always unarguably correct.

marcus001 · 17-08-2017 11:56AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Sure, if you present it as a bald dichotomy between direct democracy on the one hand and a repressive dictatorship on the other hand, direct democracy for all its obvious flaws is the clear winner.

Which is why I've never argued that the people should never be allowed to make any decisions at all. I've made the argument that democracy, like any powerful force, should be applied sparingly and carefully.

In the case of Brexit, it shouldn't have been put to the people. End of story. I'd still believe that if the remain side had won: I'd just consider it a narrow escape from the consequences of a stupid decision rather than a slavish devotion to the consequences of a stupid decision.

We have representative democracy for a reason: running a country is far too complicated a job to reduce to a simple yes/no question put to people on whom there's absolutely no onus to inform themselves before answering. For the government to put the Brexit decision to the people was an egregious abdication of its responsibility to govern.

If a Parliament had voted to Brexit, it would have been politically possible (albeit horribly embarrassing) to reverse course when the appalling consequences became clear. Because the people voted for it - even though they are not sovereign in the UK, Parliament is - it is politically unthinkable.

To the slavish devotee of democracy, the consequences of Brexit don't matter. Literally the only thing that matters is a majority, however narrow. If the consequences of leaving are horrific and destroy the country's economy for generations - if the ultimate consequence is civil strife and widespread violence - apparently that's OK, because a bad decision made by the people is better than a good decision made by someone else.

I find it hard to put into words how mind-bogglingly ridiculous that seems to me.

* Note: I'm not saying that the above will come to pass, or is indeed particularly likely: I'm pointing out that if it did, it's still better than peace and prosperity imposed by the jackbooted heel of a mere elected Parliament.

Trump is the other example, and it's a different type of failure of democracy. In this case, the fundamental problem is the capture of the USA's political system by powerful vested interests. The Citizens United decision is probably the worst thing that could have happened to representative democracy.

I don't have a simple prescription to fix how horribly democracy is broken in the USA, but I'll continue to hold out Donald Trump as an answer to the simplistic idea that the will of the people is always unarguably correct.

I'd disagree on the Brexit thing. People should have a right to decide who governs them. Direct democracy should be used for the big questions like "should the UK be part of the EU?" and "should the North be part of the UK?". Any attempt to decide big questions like this without the approval of the citizenry would be a threat to representative democracy.

You say that your opinion would be the same if the remain side had won, would your opinion be the same if UKIP had won a general election and decided to take the UK out of the EU with only about 35% of the national vote and no referendum?

ancapailldorcha · 17-08-2017 12:01PM

marcus001 wrote: »

I'd disagree on the Brexit thing. People should have a right to decide who governs them. Direct democracy should be used for the big questions like "should the UK be part of the EU?" and "should the North be part of the UK?". Any attempt to decide big questions like this without the approval of the citizenry would be a threat to representative democracy.

You say that your opinion would be the same if the remain side had won, would your opinion be the same if UKIP had won a general election and decided to take the UK out of the EU with only about 35% of the national vote and no referendum?

Except that offering a referendum involves using a binary choice to resolve an immensely complex issue. Several countries have relationships with the EU. Some are members, some are in the EEA, some are in EFTA and some trade with it on a third country basis. In addition, a referendum in country can't compel the EU to do anything. Switzerland had a referendum on free movement but why should the EU have had to bend to the will of a non-member?

Ultimately, we elect politicians to work full time sorting out complex issues on our behalf. That's all democracy is. If we had to rubber stamp everything via referendum, nothing would get done.

oscarBravo · 17-08-2017 12:06PM

marcus001 wrote: »

I'd disagree on the Brexit thing. People should have a right to decide who governs them.

Yes. That's what elections are for.

Direct democracy should be used for the big questions like "should the UK be part of the EU?" and "should the North be part of the UK?".

No, it shouldn't. You're doing exactly what I talked about: taking an immensely complicated question and boiling it down to a simplistic yes or no question.

As for the latter, I can only hope lessons have been learned, and at least before there are any referendums on unification, the actual process will be worked out first and then we can make an informed decision.

Any attempt to decide big questions like this without the approval of the citizenry would be a threat to representative democracy.

I'm not certain you know what the phrase "representative democracy" means.

You say that your opinion would be the same if the remain side had won, would your opinion be the same if UKIP had won a general election and decided to take the UK out of the EU with only about 35% of the national vote and no referendum?

Sure - because then, when the consequences became clear, it would at least be possible to elect a different government that could change course.

That's the problem with a referendum: it's politically impossible to go against the will of the people, so - even when the will of the people is "let's all jump off the nearest cliff" - it has to be slavishly followed.

You're not even making any arguments to counter my points; you're basically making my point for me. You're saying that when the people speak, they speak ex cathedra and can't be questioned.

ThisRegard · 17-08-2017 12:33PM

solodeogloria wrote: »

There hasn't been a single convincing argument for remaining in the EU.

You've been asked this a few times and every time chose to ignore the question.

Why did you vote to remain (as you claim you did) despite all evidence you say is contradictory to this?

marcus001 · 17-08-2017 01:08PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Except that offering a referendum involves using a binary choice to resolve an immensely complex issue. Several countries have relationships with the EU. Some are members, some are in the EEA, some are in EFTA and some trade with it on a third country basis. In addition, a referendum in country can't compel the EU to do anything. Switzerland had a referendum on free movement but why should the EU have had to bend to the will of a non-member?

Ultimately, we elect politicians to work full time sorting out complex issues on our behalf. That's all democracy is. If we had to rubber stamp everything via referendum, nothing would get done.

You just said yourself it's a complex issue and we have politicians who work full time on sorting that stuff out. So what's the problem? The people tell them to leave the EU, the politicians set about getting it done. The only reason it's not going more smoothly is because politicians want to stop it from happening at all.

marcus001 · 17-08-2017 01:25PM

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yes. That's what elections are for. No, it shouldn't. You're doing exactly what I talked about: taking an immensely complicated question and boiling it down to a simplistic yes or no question.

As for the latter, I can only hope lessons have been learned, and at least before there are any referendums on unification, the actual process will be worked out first and then we can make an informed decision. I'm not certain you know what the phrase "representative democracy" means. Sure - because then, when the consequences became clear, it would at least be possible to elect a different government that could change course.

That's the problem with a referendum: it's politically impossible to go against the will of the people, so - even when the will of the people is "let's all jump off the nearest cliff" - it has to be slavishly followed.

You're not even making any arguments to counter my points; you're basically making my point for me. You're saying that when the people speak, they speak ex cathedra and can't be questioned.

Don't be so condescending.

Elections are for choosing the Government but referendums can be used to resolve constitutional issues that can be boiled down to a Yes or No answer like membership of the EU or membership of the UK.

Do you think Scottish independence should be decided by Westminster, Holyrood or the Scottish people themselves? What would happen if Holyrood decided unilaterally to break from the UK? Would Westminster accept it? No, the decision wouldn't have legitimacy in most people's eyes unless it was put to a referendum.

jooksavage · 17-08-2017 01:34PM

marcus001 wrote: »

You just said yourself it's a complex issue and we have politicians who work full time on sorting that stuff out. So what's the problem? The people tell them to leave the EU, the politicians set about getting it done. The only reason it's not going more smoothly is because politicians want to stop it from happening at all.

You're mistaking politicians for magicians. They just can't shazzam a solution to monumentally complicated problem from a binary yes/no vote.

Tories: You want to leave the EU?
UK: Yup!
Tories: Uh... really?!
UKIP: You heard them!
EU: You're going to lose tariff-free trade status, tariffs will raise the cost of exports, and make you less competitive in addition to raising import prices. The subsequent inflation will lower the standard of living for UK residents. Also you won't be be able to travel freely throughout Europe anymore.
UK:....

ancapailldorcha · 17-08-2017 01:35PM

marcus001 wrote: »

You just said yourself it's a complex issue and we have politicians who work full time on sorting that stuff out. So what's the problem? The people tell them to leave the EU, the politicians set about getting it done. The only reason it's not going more smoothly is because politicians want to stop it from happening at all.

What exactly is leaving the EU? Technically, Norway is outside it yet it pays up, has no say in regulations and accepts free movement. That is technically out.

Brexit discussion thread II

Comments