Brexit discussion thread III

Charles Babbage · 23-06-2018 11:05PM

LeinsterDub wrote: »

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.

The solution to a boycott is stating that 35% of the electorate will constitute a majority if less than 70% vote.

LeinsterDub · 23-06-2018 11:30PM

Charles Babbage wrote: »

The solution to a boycott is stating that 35% of the electorate will constitute a majority if less than 70% vote.

Sorry but what do you mean? How is that a minimum turnout?

Blaas4life · 23-06-2018 11:37PM

Gerry T wrote: »

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 ?

By this logic only circa 36% voted remain??

Yous can't just change the rules of democracy when it deosnt suit yous

I'm no supporter of brexit...but the blame for it lies with the no vote campaign not getting people interested enough to go out to vote

All this talk of factoring in x,y and z is just that....why did they not insist on this before the vote...it's a bit like the yanks complaining when the hundreds of years old system to elect presidents hit a once in 50 year glitch and elected trump despite him getting less votes...but no candidate stood on platform.of changing it beforehand??

Capt'n Midnight · 23-06-2018 11:44PM

Brexit is still "Red, White and Blue" and "Brexit means Brexit" and ignoring the EU's red lines.

And no one expects the UK to yield on any of the red lines in new white papers (almost a typo there with s for w, I nearly left it)

And lets not forget the red lines on the diagram were a gross oversimplification of the EU's negotiating position. It's not a case that the UK would automatically get the deal on that step if they backdown on their red lines, it's don't bother asking until you do.

Both sides need to understand that their behaviour in these talks will be watched by third parties and will affect future trade deals.

Liam Fox said Theresa May was "not bluffing" over her threat to quit negotiations, while Boris Johnson called for a "full British Brexit".

Remember the £20Bn promised for the NHS ?
https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0623/972615-brexit/

The CER estimate of a 2.1% smaller economy than if the UK had voted to remain in the EU is equivalent to a knock-on hit of £23 billion a year to the public finances, some £440 million a week.
...
"And we know that the government's 'Brexit dividend' is a myth, the vote is costing the Treasury £440 million a week, far more than the UK ever contributed to the EU budget."

Tony Connelly article , UK papers will be aspirational, EU wants specifics. So nothing new really.

Strazdas · 24-06-2018 01:01AM

Blaas4life wrote: »

By this logic only circa 36% voted remain??

Yous can't just change the rules of democracy when it deosnt suit yous

I'm no supporter of brexit...but the blame for it lies with the no vote campaign not getting people interested enough to go out to vote

All this talk of factoring in x,y and z is just that....why did they not insist on this before the vote...it's a bit like the yanks complaining when the hundreds of years old system to elect presidents hit a once in 50 year glitch and elected trump despite him getting less votes...but no candidate stood on platform.of changing it beforehand??

That's absolutely fine but to be talking about 'the will of the people, the will of the people, the will of the people' in a scenario where only one in three adults in the UK voted for it (and the majority of those were over the age of 65) is really pushing things.

The correct thing to do would be at least admit the electorate is deeply divided on Brexit and there is no actual will of the people.

Imreoir2 · 24-06-2018 01:22AM

There seems to be a certain segment of opinion that fears that the EU and UK will come up with some arrangement and Ireland will be forced to accept it even if it does not meet Ireland's needs.

Assuming that the EU did want to force a bad brexit deal on Ireland (ignoring the question of why they would want to do such a thing). How would the EU go about forcing Ireland to accept a brexit deal the Irish government did not want?

oscarBravo · 24-06-2018 01:52AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

A huge part of the problem is this tendency to dumb down the concept of "democracy" to mean nothing more than "whatever answer a bare majority happen to give to a stupidly worded question at a particular moment in time".

Democracy is a system of government. Think about that for a second. When I'm designing systems to run my business, I have to consider vastly more than simplistic binary questions. When did we reduce the running of an entire country to such dumbassedness?

We have referendums in this country because the Constitution specifies that that's the only way it can be amended. A referendum should be a last-resort approach to democracy; a bit like a coin toss to decide a football game that has gone on for three hours and just needs to end.

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

That's part of the problem. The instrument itself is the other part of the problem, and arguably by far the biggest part.

If you've fed your electorate heaping mounds of bull**** about a topic for decades, and then decide it's a good idea to ask them a simplistic question about that topic, there's no sane way to argue that that simplistic question isn't a problem in its own right.

It's a hell of a long way from being the only problem, but this democracy-fetishising idea that a referendum can't ever possibly be a bad idea is equally at fault.

J Mysterio · 24-06-2018 01:55AM

Jim2007 · 24-06-2018 05:34AM

Strazdas wrote: »

The correct thing to do would be at least admit the electorate is deeply divided on Brexit and there is no actual will of the people.

The UK has a sovereign parliament, as confirmed by the Supreme Court. There is no will of the people in UK constitutional law. That is why referenda can never be anything other than advisory. The will of the people is just popular BS with no legal basis.

The real problem here is that the UK voter is ignorant of how their country is actually governed. That is why there is a call for another advisory referendum, the abolishment of the House of Lords and so on, when in fact a general election is required to give a mandate for change.

Jim2007 · 24-06-2018 05:49AM

View wrote: »

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?

That is not the point, you are obligated to accept a constitutional change provided it has come about in accordance with the law. Should that not be the case then you are free to challenge it in the courts.

Jim2007 · 24-06-2018 06:08AM

Trasna1 wrote: »

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.

Any kind of breakdown on the EU side would make it more difficult for the UK to get any kind of deal. If the EU members cannot agree then by default the UK will exit the EU at the end of March next year with no deal.

The problem seems to be that the UK does not truly understand how the EU operates and when they are told NO they hear MAYBE. They seem to think that if they hold out long enough they will get their way. But they fail to appreciate is that they are two steps away from the actual decision makers - the 38 regional and national parliaments. And while the 38 are always willing to find a consensus among themselves, it never happens for a third country and that is what the UK is.

Jim2007 · 24-06-2018 06:44AM

Blaas4life wrote: »

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

No that is what is known as mob rule. Democracy is a framework under which the people of a country have agreed to be governed and there are several such frameworks. Ireland uses a modified version of what is referenced to as a Parliament of Westminster style democracy.

Unlike Ireland, the UK has a sovereign parliament and that means that referenda are advisory and that a general election always trumps a referendum. The voters in the UK expressed a wish to leave the EU, but when asked to give parliament a mandate to do so, they failed to give either of the main parties a majority to do so. Hence there is no majority decision.

[

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

You need to start by asking how many countries have a sovereign people and the answer is very few. In Europe you have Ireland, Switzerland and on a few limited issues France and Denmark, that is all I can recall. In the others it is Parliament that decides and some of those decisions require a qualified majority.

In Ireland and Switzerland, a simple majority is sufficient to pass a referendum. But there is a very big difference between Ireland and Switzerland, in Ireland the decision of the people is final, it cannot be modified by parliament later, where as in Switzerland it can!

So in the absence of someone coming up with another example, you’re down to one country in Europe where the people are sovereign and a simple majority carries the day.

Igotadose · 24-06-2018 08:09AM

Blaas4life wrote: »

It's a bit like the yanks complaining when the hundreds of years old system to elect presidents hit a once in 50 year glitch and elected trump despite him getting less votes...but no candidate stood on platform.of changing it beforehand??

Twice (Bush/Gore, Gore won the popular vote.)

Blaas4life · 24-06-2018 08:18AM

Jim2007 wrote: »

No that is what is known as mob rule. Democracy is a framework under which the people of a country have agreed to be governed and there are several such frameworks. Ireland uses a modified version of what is referenced to as a Parliament of Westminster style democracy.

Unlike Ireland, the UK has a sovereign parliament and that means that referenda are advisory and that a general election always trumps a referendum. The voters in the UK expressed a wish to leave the EU, but when asked to give parliament a mandate to do so, they failed to give either of the main parties a majority to do so. Hence there is no majority decision.

[

You need to start by asking how many countries have a sovereign people and the answer is very few. In Europe you have Ireland, Switzerland and on a few limited issues France and Denmark, that is all I can recall. In the others it is Parliament that decides and some of those decisions require a qualified majority.

In Ireland and Switzerland, a simple majority is sufficient to pass a referendum. But there is a very big difference between Ireland and Switzerland, in Ireland the decision of the people is final, it cannot be modified by parliament later, where as in Switzerland it can!

So in the absence of someone coming up with another example, you’re down to one country in Europe where the people are sovereign and a simple majority carries the day.

Are yous genuinely not seeing that your arguing that a majority decision shouldn't be carried in a referendum

If peaceful politics and elections don't work and aren't respected...

.your only asking for violence and tbh how could you condemn people for turning to violence if a governmemt done as your suggesting and reach and look for any reason to ignore the majority of people what cast their votes??

The brits asked a simple question should they leave and a majority on the day voted yes....to me anything other than leaving is messing about and undemocratic

Seth Brundle · 24-06-2018 08:49AM

J Mysterio wrote: »

Juncker backing the losing team?

Capt'n Midnight · 24-06-2018 08:57AM

Blaas4life wrote: »

The brits asked a simple question should they leave and a majority on the day voted yes....to me anything other than leaving is messing about and undemocratic

It was a simple question wasn't it ?

Oddly enough both were likely to vote for Brexit but for opposite reasons.

For the UK public Brexit boils down to "Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer"

Brexit hasn't happened yet. But the UK has alreasy lost 2.1% growth which means tax revenues are down £440m a week compared to what they would have been.

Blaas4life · 24-06-2018 09:02AM

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It was a simple question wasn't it ?

Oddly enough both were likely to vote for Brexit but for opposite reasons.

For the UK public Brexit boils down to "Ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer"

Brexit hasn't happened yet. But the UK has alreasy lost 2.1% growth which means tax revenues are down £440m a week compared to what they would have been.

It really was a simple question and a large part of me hopes for a brexit from ireland too

But simply put....democracy is forever more important than money ever will be....what harm if it bankrupts the uk....their good enough to vote for it...let em live wit the consequences

But under no circumstances is it ok to ignore people when they cast their vote and search for justification to do so

Panrich · 24-06-2018 09:49AM

Blaas4life wrote: »

It really was a simple question and a large part of me hopes for a brexit from ireland too

But simply put....democracy is forever more important than money ever will be....what harm if it bankrupts the uk....their good enough to vote for it...let em live wit the consequences

But under no circumstances is it ok to ignore people when they cast their vote and search for justification to do so

Earlier in the thread you said that you were ‘no supporter of Brexit’ but now you have a wish for us to commit economic suicide just like the Brits.

I really like old Isaac Asimov quote on democracy that shows how results like Brexit and the election of Trump can happen.

“The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that “my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.” ☛ Newsweek: “A Cult of Ignorance” by Isaac Asimov,

Imreoir2 · 24-06-2018 09:52AM

Panrich wrote: »

Earlier in the thread you said that you were ‘no supporter of Brexit’ but now you have a wish for us to commit economic suicide just like the Brits.

Brexit from Ireland, not Brexit for Ireland, aka Brits out.

McGiver · 24-06-2018 11:07AM

Jim2007 wrote: »

The UK has a sovereign parliament, as confirmed by the Supreme Court. There is no will of the people in UK constitutional law. That is why referenda can never be anything other than advisory. The will of the people is just popular BS with no legal basis.

UK doesn't have a constitution per se...

Capt'n Midnight · 24-06-2018 11:11AM

McGiver wrote: »

UK doesn't have a constitution per se...

It does, but it's just three words long.

"Parliament is God."

LeinsterDub · 24-06-2018 11:34AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4w7W-rduZ8

JRM and Verhofstadt debating why or if the EU can ignore it's own rules surrounding the border.

A couple of links as to why the EU can give /never actually gave a bail out. As that features heavily from JRM

www.cnbc.com/amp/id/35327584
http://www.politics.ie/forum/economy/177862-no-bail-out-clause-article-125-lisbon-treaty.html

Leroy42 · 24-06-2018 11:45AM

This was dealt with already in this thread .

Even if JRM was correct, and others have posted that he isn't, but if he was surely even he can see the difference between a club looking to help out one of its members and a club bending its rules to accommodate the wishes of a competitor.

His line of argument seems to be...."ah lads come on now, give us a break. We know we asked for this but it would great if you could help us out as we kinda promised a load of stuff and are looking a bit silly at the moment. Yeah we know that if you bend the rules for us its going to make a mockery of the whole club, but hey we are all friends...except that I hate everything you stand for and wish we had never met"

LeinsterDub · 24-06-2018 11:49AM

Leroy42 wrote: »

This was dealt with already in this thread .

It's hard to keep up with the flow of news in this thread. I seem to remember it being discussed previously but I didn't think the video was linked to before. Apologies if it has.

Leroy42 · 24-06-2018 12:08PM

I didn't mean that you shouldn't bring it up, I was pointing out that my take of JRM was based on other posters.

Bit cynical · 24-06-2018 12:32PM

LeinsterDub wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4w7W-rduZ8

JRM and Verhofstadt debating
www.cnbc.com/amp/id/35327584
http://www.politics.ie/forum/economy/177862-no-bail-out-clause-article-125-lisbon-treaty.html

Would it be the opinion of posters here that Verhofstadt gave a good account of himself in this video?

Imreoir2 · 24-06-2018 12:44PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

Would it be the opinion of posters here that Verhofstadt gave a good account of himself in this video?

Most of the members of the committee were asking questions in good faith because they are interested in the information and want to get a better understanding of the EU's position. It is difficult to answer a question when the questioner is obviously trying to lead you into giving them a sound bite which will be used to attack you. I think Verhofstadt did quite well dealing with JRM and I watched the rest of the committee discussion as well and I think he did quite well overall.

Leroy42 · 24-06-2018 12:49PM

I think JRM was making a valid point about the workings of the EU. This line that the EU never deviates from its rules is cleary nonsense. Rules are made and are always open to interpretation based on new circumstances. The EU makes rules that it would like to see operated, and then the real world steps in.

Not really sure what the point that JRM was trying to make, (well I do he was playing to the Brexit crowd)but there is a massive difference between the EU bending the rules to suit their members and bending the rules to suit a 3rd country.

Britain knew the rules before the opted for Brexit, whilst they may have hoped to get some changes the responsible thing was to review whether any Brexit based on no change was worth it.

JRM, along with some others, have been stating for some time that a no deal is a clear negotiation tactic and is better than a bad deal. So he is basically begging for the EU to give them something for nothing.

For Brexiteers, I think JRM will have come across quite well. I do think that the ball was very much in his court. Verhofstadt was appearing in front of their committee. It would be interesting to see how JRM would do in similar circumstances.

Here's the 1st question they could ask him. If you believe that Brexit is such a good idea, and indeed are pushing for a No deal, why have you set up offices in Dublin of your investment form to enable you to continue to get the benefit of EU trade? Lets see how he comes off under that sort of questioning

Blaas4life · 24-06-2018 01:00PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

Here's the 1st question they could ask him. If you believe that Brexit is such a good idea, and indeed are pushing for a No deal, why have you set up offices in Dublin of your investment form to enable you to continue to get the benefit of EU trade? Lets see how he comes off under that sort of questioning

He's the kind of gombeen politian that would put the healy raes to shame

The fact that he has such a high profile and presence in British politics is little short of astounding

J Mysterio · 24-06-2018 01:38PM

lol. This is how fucķed up things have become:

Businesses should stop warning about negative impact of Brexit, Jeremy Hunt says

'It's completely inappropriate for businesses to be making these kinds of threats', says health secretary

I guess the nurses and doctors in the NHS should shut up to? Everybody be quiet and pretend it will be ok! Just bizarre. Welcome to the Twilight Zone.

'Mr Hunt dismissed "siren voices" who say Brexit negotiations are not going well, saying people should "ignore" them'.

They are probably experts, and who needs them?!

Brexit discussion thread III

Comments