Brexit discussion thread III

Blaas4life · 23-06-2018 07:34AM

Strazdas wrote: »

How can they ever hold one again? For a start, the narrative has been created that a referendum result must be implemented into law no matter what, even if the result is 50.1%-49.9% and this implementation can never be reversed by any government or parliament..

Tbf what's the point of being a democracy or holding referendums,if your going to let the government/parliament reverse majority decisions??
Seriously dangerous path your proposing

I cannot fathom how the British government hasn't collapsed as it seems fairly obvious thersea may hasn't the support of a fairly sizable portipn of her party,but is only being left out to dry as noone appears to want to be the the PM that negotiated brexit

Blaas4life · 23-06-2018 07:40AM

McGiver wrote: »

Democracy is not about accepting a majority 51:49 decision. That is a rule of the mob or dictate of the majority. Democracy is about achieving and accepting a consensual decision. That applies especially for constitutional changes and mature democracies would typically require super-majority or have some sort of checks and balances in place for such decisions. 52:48 result indicates severe split in the society rather than a consensus, which is exactly what democracy is not about.

I'm far from a brexit supporter...but Jesus democracy is about accepting the decision of the majority??

Is there any country in the world that forces people who get majority of the votes to be ignored as their majority isn't big enough

An Ciarraioch · 23-06-2018 07:57AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It makes sense for referenda to have either a supermajority or a minimum turnout.

Certain topics will always have a more active side that will go out in a storm to vote. That side is usually the one of drastic change because people don't feel fired up to vote for what they have.

A minimum turnout is generally a better solution to that in my opinion.

Indeed - let's suppose that in a Border poll, 55% in NI vote for a united Ireland, and an improbably high 95% of nationalists also do so - should that outcome be overruled by a supermajority requirement of 60%? Setting the turnout bar at a 70% minimum seems the best means of ensuring a proportional result.

An Ciarraioch · 23-06-2018 07:59AM

Deleted User wrote: »

It makes sense for referenda to have either a supermajority or a minimum turnout.

Certain topics will always have a more active side that will go out in a storm to vote. That side is usually the one of drastic change because people don't feel fired up to vote for what they have.

A minimum turnout is generally a better solution to that in my opinion.

Would agree with this approach, setting the turnout bar at 70% would ensure a representative result.

FrancieBrady · 23-06-2018 08:34AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

What a referendum should be about is a clear decision with well-understood outcomes.

For example, in our most recent referendum we knew that a "yes" vote would result in a change to the Constitution. We knew the precise form that change would make, and we had a good indication of the legislation that would become possible as a result of that change.

In short, we were able to make an informed decision.

The Brexit referendum was precisely the opposite. You could try to make the case that the people knew what they were voting for - to leave the EU - but, as we've seen since (and as many of us knew in advance), what that even means isn't clear.

The ridiculous idea that Brexit must happen because it's "the will of the people" needs to die in a fire. There's nothing democratic about Brexit. It's bare majoritarianism, and the cries of "democracy!" are nothing more than a cudgel being wielded by the same type of people who decry Parliament as the enemy of the people for having the cheek to try to actually fulfil its constitutional role.

Holding the referendum was a catastrophic mistake. Slavishly adhering to the outcome of that catastrophic mistake, no matter how god-awful the consequences, is like driving a car off a cliff because the sat-nav told you to. There's nothing noble about stubborn stupidity, even if that stubborn stupidity is dressed up as democracy.

Is not holding a referendum because you fear of are politically against one of the possible outcomes closer to a democracy? I don't think so.

CalamariFritti · 23-06-2018 08:57AM

I don't really post here but I wanted to say that this brexit 'discussion' is really futile in my opinion. The way I see it, and I think this became pretty obvious very soon after the actual brexit declaration, there is no interest in a soft brexit. There seems to be a powerful minority in the UK that has conned the great unwashed into this brexit vote and they must expect to benefit from this. They want this at all cost and the harder the better for them. So they sent their biggest clowns to put on a 'negotiation' show with the EU but thats all it is. It really has shown stern democracies up in my opinion. It was never clearer than in this brexit thing how the populace is just paraded through the ring while vested interests call the actual shots. And they dont give a sh1t about progress or the people or anything. They want money and power which translates into money again. It really is a shambles.

J Mysterio · 23-06-2018 09:02AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A referendum is about as 'consensual' as it gets in what we call democracy.
Their track record is that they work.

If you start qualifying them by extra percentages where does it end?

Super majorities are normally requested by those who fear the outcome.

LeinsterDub really liked your post!

FrancieBrady · 23-06-2018 09:09AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

What a referendum should be about is a clear decision with well-understood outcomes.

For example, in our most recent referendum we knew that a "yes" vote would result in a change to the Constitution. We knew the precise form that change would make, and we had a good indication of the legislation that would become possible as a result of that change.

In short, we were able to make an informed decision.

The Brexit referendum was precisely the opposite. You could try to make the case that the people knew what they were voting for - to leave the EU - but, as we've seen since (and as many of us knew in advance), what that even means isn't clear.

The ridiculous idea that Brexit must happen because it's "the will of the people" needs to die in a fire. There's nothing democratic about Brexit. It's bare majoritarianism, and the cries of "democracy!" are nothing more than a cudgel being wielded by the same type of people who decry Parliament as the enemy of the people for having the cheek to try to actually fulfil its constitutional role.

Holding the referendum was a catastrophic mistake. Slavishly adhering to the outcome of that catastrophic mistake, no matter how god-awful the consequences, is like driving a car off a cliff because the sat-nav told you to. There's nothing noble about stubborn stupidity, even if that stubborn stupidity is dressed up as democracy.

It may have been a mistake to hold one, but not holding one because you are politically against or fear one of the possible outcomes is not democracy either.

What the government chose to do with the outcome of this advisory referendum is the problem, not the instrument itself.

LeinsterDub · 23-06-2018 09:21AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It makes sense for referenda to have either a supermajority or a minimum turnout.

Certain topics will always have a more active side that will go out in a storm to vote. That side is usually the one of drastic change because people don't feel fired up to vote for what they have.

A minimum turnout is generally a better solution to that in my opinion.

Issues like abortion, same sex marriage or approving the GFA? My issue is that you either apply the minimum turn out or super majority to every referendum vote or none because if not the processes will be abused by those who are setting the referendum. Also a major issue with a minimum turnout is the boycott.

FrancieBrady · 23-06-2018 09:27AM

oscarBravo wrote: »

What a referendum should be about is a clear decision with well-understood outcomes.

For example, in our most recent referendum we knew that a "yes" vote would result in a change to the Constitution. We knew the precise form that change would make, and we had a good indication of the legislation that would become possible as a result of that change.

In short, we were able to make an informed decision.

The Brexit referendum was precisely the opposite. You could try to make the case that the people knew what they were voting for - to leave the EU - but, as we've seen since (and as many of us knew in advance), what that even means isn't clear.

The ridiculous idea that Brexit must happen because it's "the will of the people" needs to die in a fire. There's nothing democratic about Brexit. It's bare majoritarianism, and the cries of "democracy!" are nothing more than a cudgel being wielded by the same type of people who decry Parliament as the enemy of the people for having the cheek to try to actually fulfil its constitutional role.

Holding the referendum was a catastrophic mistake. Slavishly adhering to the outcome of that catastrophic mistake, no matter how god-awful the consequences, is like driving a car off a cliff because the sat-nav told you to. There's nothing noble about stubborn stupidity, even if that stubborn stupidity is dressed up as democracy.

It may have been a mistake to hold one, but not holding one because you are politically against or fear one of the possible outcomes is not democracy either.

What the government chose to do with the outcome of this advisory referendum is the problem, not the instrument itself.

Dymo · 23-06-2018 09:33AM

gimli2112 wrote: »

The Brexit analyst also thinks Airbus are bluffing as they said they'd leave if the referendum voted go

I think there bluffing too, probably looking for better or more incentives, Toyota did it last year and the government came to an agreement, so Airbus are trying to do the same they have nothing to lose by "warning", and BMW has gotten in on the act.

Dymo · 23-06-2018 09:36AM

gimli2112 wrote: »

The Brexit analyst also thinks Airbus are bluffing as they said they'd leave if the referendum voted go

I think there bluffing too, Toyota got a deal with the government last year so Airbus are also looking for more incentives or benefits and its it only a "warning". If they were thinking of moving they would have plans in place at this stage.

Or do they wait for no deal Brexit.

LeinsterDub · 23-06-2018 10:10AM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It makes sense for referenda to have either a supermajority or a minimum turnout.

Certain topics will always have a more active side that will go out in a storm to vote. That side is usually the one of drastic change because people don't feel fired up to vote for what they have.

A minimum turnout is generally a better solution to that in my opinion.

Certain votes such as the repeal, divorce, marriage equality or approving the GFA?

Who gets to decide this one has a minimum turnout? I suppose I'd consider it less an attempt at gerrymandering if every vote had to have a minimum turnout, super majority or both.

And of course you've to be very careful with minimum turn outs as a side who knows they won't win can nullify the referendum by boycotting

Rhineshark · 23-06-2018 10:18AM

Enzokk wrote: »

They are clutching to any straw they can find. They want to leave their closest trading union and join one miles away which in most people's eyes seem ridiculous but to a Brexiteer it is a lifeline.

[Link deleted as new poster can't quote links]

The person quoted first is 34 years old. I really cannot fathom how anyone can work in a multi-national corporation with a complicated supply chain thought that just because they existed meant they were safe. Idiocy to the highest degree. Your company warned you what could happen yet you decided you knew better and voted leave.

Having spent quite a lot of time talking with British people on forums (and ofc what the media and politicians talk about), the problem seems to be that the majority of British people do not understand what the EU actually is.

Brexiters think they are negotiating with a lot of...hm...Johnny Foreigners who better sit up and listen. They're negotiating (well, incoherently cajoling, threatening and attempting to blackmail) the entire trading system of 27 countries and while the system can be flexible, people can't just make up rules and pretend they work. Britain of all places should know it's flexible- if it's approached sensibly and taking it seriously. And when actually understanding what is and isn't possible, let alone practical.

Brexiters were told over and over that ultimately, it's a small change in terms of negatives and lots of good things will happen as soon as they are free of the European yoke around their necks. And successive UK governments have taken the credit for popular EU policies and blamed the EU for unpopular domestic ones. So what real negatives can possibly come from leaving this source of all woes? The good stuff was all our idea and we can keep doing it.

Inertia and a certain taking for granted that everything will/would work out has done an awful lot of psychological damage. These islands have always been good at using fudge to get over bumps and that's fine when it's a small group of nations that are used to it and can work with fudge. But fudge won't work here.

They will, sadly, have to learn the hard way that choices do have consequences and no, things don't just automatically work out okay just because they have before.

Rhineshark · 23-06-2018 10:19AM

Enzokk wrote: »

They are clutching to any straw they can find. They want to leave their closest trading union and join one miles away which in most people's eyes seem ridiculous but to a Brexiteer it is a lifeline.

[Link deleted as new poster can't quote links - and by 'eck trying caused everything to choke]

The person quoted first is 34 years old. I really cannot fathom how anyone can work in a multi-national corporation with a complicated supply chain thought that just because they existed meant they were safe. Idiocy to the highest degree. Your company warned you what could happen yet you decided you knew better and voted leave.

Having spent quite a lot of time talking with British people on forums (and ofc what the media and politicians talk about), the problem seems to be that the majority of British people do not understand what the EU actually is.

Brexiters think they are negotiating with a lot of...hm...Johnny Foreigners who better sit up and listen. They're negotiating (well, incoherently cajoling, threatening and attempting to blackmail) the entire trading system of 27 countries and while the system can be flexible, people can't just make up rules and pretend they work. Britain of all places should know it's flexible- if it's approached sensibly and taking it seriously. And when actually understanding what is and isn't possible, let alone practical.

Brexiters were told over and over that ultimately, it's a small change in terms of negatives and lots of good things will happen as soon as they are free of the European yoke around their necks. And successive UK governments have taken the credit for popular EU policies and blamed the EU for unpopular domestic ones. So what real negatives can possibly come from leaving this source of all woes? The good stuff was all our idea and we can keep doing it.

Inertia and a certain taking for granted that everything will/would work out has done an awful lot of psychological damage. These islands have always been good at using fudge to get over bumps and that's fine when it's a small group of nations that are used to it and can work with fudge. But fudge won't work here.

They will, sadly, have to learn the hard way that choices do have consequences and no, things don't just automatically work out okay just because they have before.

Rhineshark · 23-06-2018 10:21AM

Test? Can I post at all after the quoted link choked?

Will edit if this goes through. I'm getting 404d now.

Rhineshark · 23-06-2018 10:22AM

Do I need to sacrifice a goat to stop getting 404d when trying to post in here?

Rhineshark · 23-06-2018 10:31AM

Forgive me processing hamsters and just let this post work! I will never quote a link again!!!

Test

Rhineshark · 23-06-2018 10:33AM

Maybe responsive site will work...

Test.

Trasna1 · 23-06-2018 04:42PM

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Certain votes such as the repeal, divorce, marriage equality or approving the GFA?

Who gets to decide this one has a minimum turnout? I suppose I'd it less an attempt at gerrymandering if every vote have to have a minimum turnout, super majority or both.

And of course you've to be very careful with minimum turn outs as a side who knows they won't win can nullify the referendum by boycotting

The functioning of a referendum in Ireland, while superficially similar to the way its done in the UK, in reality couldn't be more different. This is down to PR-STV which ensures the minority voice gets heard. FPTP allows extremists to control the conversation (as an aside, its interesting to note that FF tried twice to introduce FPTP twice in Ireland).

If abortion was overturned on a 52/48 vote, while the constitution would be changed, the issue wouldn't be fully settled. Its likely the government would have had to make concessions on 12 weeks within the subsequent legislation. In fact, if public opinion had in reality been so finely balanced, 12 weeks wouldn't have been proposed.

At this stage its hard to see anything other than talks breaking down and the default of a hard brexit emerging. The UK seems to be gambling on EU unity breaking - and it might get lucky if it happens due to some external factor (of which there are many these days), such as migration, populists in Italy or a Trump trade war but this hasn't shown any signs of happening and time is running out for it to do so.

The breakdown in EU unity may well come too late for the UK to take advantage - which may well come as the EU grapples to deal with the consequences of a hard brexit.

23-06-2018 05:00PM

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Certain votes such as the repeal, divorce, marriage equality or approving the GFA?

Who gets to decide this one has a minimum turnout? I suppose I'd it less an attempt at gerrymandering if every vote have to have a minimum turnout, super majority or both.

And of course you've to be very careful with minimum turn outs as a side who knows they won't win can nullify the referendum by boycotting

Hadn't thought of the boycott option. I dunno, I'm just firing out ideas.

Seth Brundle · 23-06-2018 05:22PM

Nody wrote: »

They scary part he is still happy with his Brexit vote even after Airbus said they are likely to shut down; the main company to drive the whole region and the only saving grace after the steel mills were closed...

The same stupid logic was used by the people of Sunderland after Nissan told them they would likely leave if people voted for Brexit. The people went ahead and ignored this.

CrabRevolution · 23-06-2018 05:28PM

Trasna1 wrote: »

The functioning of a referendum in Ireland, while superficially similar to the way its done in the UK, in reality couldn't be more different. This is down to PR-STV which ensures the minority voice gets heard. FPTP allows extremists to control the conversation (as an aside, its interesting to note that FF tried twice to introduce FPTP twice in Ireland).

If abortion was overturned on a 52/48 vote, while the constitution would be changed, the issue wouldn't be fully settled. Its likely the government would have had to make concessions on 12 weeks within the subsequent legislation. In fact, if public opinion had in reality been so finely balanced, 12 weeks wouldn't have been proposed.

At this stage its hard to see anything other than talks breaking down and the default of a hard brexit emerging. The UK seems to be gambling on EU unity breaking - and it might get lucky if it happens due to some external factor (of which there are many these days), such as migration, populists in Italy or a Trump trade war but this hasn't shown any signs of happening and time is running out for it to do so.

The breakdown in EU unity may well come too late for the UK to take advantage - which may well come as the EU grapples to deal with the consequences of a hard brexit.

That's pretty much it in a nutshell. While typing up a post about how none of the 27 governments in the EU advocate leaving, it occurred to me that not even the UK had a government which wanted to leave the EU yet somehow chose to leave.

A small number of anti-EU MPs managed to hijack the narrative on the EU and all of the UK (and further afield) will suffer for it.

J Mysterio · 23-06-2018 05:41PM

robindch wrote: »

Theresa May delivers on her promise to deliver a video on her promise to deliver on the will of the people to deliver Brexit.

Only it looks like a kidnap video.

https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/1009529579940261888

Nailed it with 'kidnap video', it's like someone forced to say something and look happy about it: the delivery is very 'off'. Maybot. Her bobbing head, facial tic's and inauthentic expressions are really distrubing.

23-06-2018 05:47PM

J Mysterio wrote: »

Nailed it with 'kidnap video', it's like someone forced to say something and look happy about it: the delivery is very 'off'. Maybot. Her bobbing head, facial tic's and inauthentic expressions are really distrubing.

Your post made me watch it.. It's off to the point that its awkward to watch. Like a student up on stage visibly displaying the gestures they learnt a few days before.

J Mysterio · 23-06-2018 05:55PM

What is up with this site?

Here is an interesting video with May discussing the dangers of Brexit in 2016. Seems a little more authentic.

https://twitter.com/i/status/981140236448227328

Sam Russell · 23-06-2018 06:01PM

The last two years have not been kind to her. She now looks ten years older.

View · 23-06-2018 07:11PM

LeinsterDub wrote: »

McGiver wrote: »

Democracy is not about accepting a majority 51:49 decision. That is a rule of the mob or dictate of the majority. Democracy is about achieving and accepting a consensual decision. That applies especially for constitutional changes and mature democracies would typically require super-majority or have some sort of checks and balances in place for such decisions. 52:48 result indicates severe split in the society rather than a consensus, which is exactly what democracy is not about.

A referendum isn't about super-majorities. In general if you see a referendum requiring a super-majority it's corrupt. I'm not aware of any constitution that requires a super majority to be changed when referred to the people. The minority are protected from the the tyranny of the majority the courts and the constitution.

How exactly were the minority who wanted or needed a divorce protected from the “tyranny of the majority“ - as expressed in the 1937 referendum on the constitution - by our courts and constitution between 1937 and 1996?

Gerry T · 23-06-2018 09:16PM

Blaas4life wrote:

Is there any country in the world that forces people who get majority of the votes to be ignored as their majority isn't big enough

Blaas4life wrote:

I'm far from a brexit supporter...but Jesus democracy is about accepting the decision of the majority??

Depends on what you mean by a majority. Say you have 100 people in a country who can vote, if only 72.21% vote and of them 51.89% vote to leave then 37.47% of the voting population want brexit. That's the facts, about one third of people wanted to leave. Is that a majority ?
Another way of looking at it, the UK is a union of NI, Scotland, Wales and England. 2 voted to leave, 2 voted to stay. Is that a majority?
Then we could Try factor in the EU citizens living and paying taxes in the UK who weren't allowed vote nor were the UK citizens living abroad for x number of years. If they voted could they have swung the 0.89%
Finally factor in all the lies, 350m a week, all the countries begging to do free trade deals....
Brexit is not the will of the UK people, it represents a large percentage , but can you honestly say with the tight margins the UK govt shouldn't have held a second....more informed...honest....balanced referendum.

Enzokk · 23-06-2018 09:18PM

Theresa May invited the wolf into her hen house, now that he is threatening to eat all of her hens how can she react?

EU diplomats shocked by Boris's 'four-letter reply' to business concerns about Brexit

Boris Johnson was embroiled in a diplomatic row with Brussels on Friday night after he was accused of using a four-letter word to dismiss an ambassador’s question about the post-Brexit needs of British business.

EU diplomats have claimed that during a Foreign Office reception to celebrate the Queen’s birthday last week, the Foreign Secretary was asked about the fears of some business leaders over Brexit and replied: “f*** business.”

He was also overheard talking about Theresa May’s moves towards a softer Brexit and saying: “We will fight it and we will win.”

Seems quite clear that Johnson is aiming for the PM job and always has. He has gone all in with Brexit and he will ride that train all the way to 10 Downing Street or political wilderness, consequences be damned for the UK.

Brexit discussion thread III

Comments