Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

dublinjock · 11-09-2019 04:28PM

ElectronVolt wrote: »

They're more or less parallels of the US cabinet only with the added check that each one is nominated by a member state and their line of accountability is to the parliament as there's no elected executive "president of Europe."

Also the term "president" does not mean US President or France's president de la republique or our president. It simply means the head of a particular unit.

I don't know how many times I've seen comments about how such and such is an unelected president. The president of the commission is just that - heads the European Commission. The president of the Council of the EU was created because the council is made up of either the 28 national ministers for a particular department or the 28 heads of government. The President of the Council is effective just a role that works as the convener and coordinator of the council so that there's a permanent point of contact. They actually have no executive function. That's entirely reserved for the elected governments.

And the president of the European Parliament is just that. Again, they have no executive function.

I understand what your saying about the President being like a head od state. But its an important role and they get to have say more than any other head of state would on matters.
Im a firm believer any head of state should stand for an election and be voted in by the people.

trellheim · 11-09-2019 04:30PM

Be careful - Heads of state and heads of Government are mostly not the same person. In the US they are in the UK and Ireland they are not.

The EU is not a nation.

DOCARCH · 11-09-2019 04:31PM

dublinjock wrote: »

Im a firm believer any head of state should stand for an election and be voted in by the people.

The Queen?

Bit cynical · 11-09-2019 04:37PM

SeaBreezes wrote: »

But this is the SECOND referendum.. the first was wether or not to join the EU. The second was shall we leave? And the THIRD should be.. These are our current choices, stay, leave on these terms, or hard Brexit. With agreements published online and all versions of Yellow Hammer published.. that would be democratic..

Well I think the UK joined the EU (EEC then) without a referendum initially. The 1975 referendum was to confirm that they were to stay in that organisation.

However, yes we can treat the 2016 referendum as the second referendum, the first being in 1975. Even so, I don't think there's a democratic problem with rerunning in this situation. The problem comes with running a second referendum without implementing the first.

In this regard, there's no problem having a third referendum but to be democratic, a) the previous referendum must be implemented and b) some time must pass. How much time? I don't know. But immediately rerunning the referendum I would suggest is problematic.

Zubeneschamali · 11-09-2019 04:38PM

dublinjock wrote: »

Im a firm believer any head of state should stand for an election and be voted in by the people.

The EU is not a state, and it doesn't have a President.

murphaph · 11-09-2019 04:39PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

Rerunning a referendum is unsatisfactory from a democratic point of view, yes. Not the only perspective; there are other considerations. But from the perspective of democracy, problematic I think.

That surely depends on whether or not the referendum made any sense.

If the question had been "Do you want the UK to do whatever it takes to put a man on Mars by the end of the decade?" and as we approach 2020 the public saw more and more money being thrown at the Mars project, would they not have the right to vote on stopping it?

The original question was infantile. All the complexity we all now know surrounds leaving the EU wrapped up in a one line yes or no question. Nonsense.

Calina · 11-09-2019 04:40PM

dublinjock wrote: »

Im a firm believer any head of state should stand for an election and be voted in by the people.

The UK's head of state is a hereditary monarch. Election is nowhere near schedule.

In terms of Presidents of EU institutions, it is worth bearing in mind that président also translates as chairman as well as president and a lot of terminology came from French.

If you look at the roles in each of the 3 main institutions, for Commission and Council, the role maps more to Chairperson than a head of state. For Parliament, I would say the mapping is more to speaker in terms of role.

Professor Moriarty · 11-09-2019 04:40PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

Well I think the UK joined the EU (EEC then) without a referendum initially. The 1975 referendum was to confirm that they were to stay in that organisation.

However, yes we can treat the 2016 referendum as the second referendum, the first being in 1975. Even so, I don't think there's a democratic problem with rerunning in this situation. The problem comes with running a second referendum without implementing the first.

In this regard, there's no problem having a third referendum but to be democratic, a) the previous referendum must be implemented and b) some time must pass. How much time? I don't know. But immediately rerunning the referendum I would suggest is problematic.

How about:

You asked us to leave the EU. Here's our plan to leave. Are you happy to go ahead with it? Please tick yes or no.

Zubeneschamali · 11-09-2019 04:40PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

The problem comes with running a second referendum without implementing the first.

Many in the Leave campaign, including Farage and Rees-Mogg, said at the time that a confirmatory referendum would be a good idea once a deal was negotiated.

robinph · 11-09-2019 04:43PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

The problem comes with running a second referendum without implementing the first.

What is problematic about asking for confirmation?

Do you want to jump of a cliff? Yes.
Off you go then, and no changing your mind until after you've hit the bottom.

Oh, sorry you meant you wanted to jump off a cliff in a wing suit. Well you should have said beforehand. Too late now though.

Strazdas · 11-09-2019 04:44PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Many in the Leave campaign, including Farage and Rees-Mogg, said at the time that a confirmatory referendum would be a good idea once a deal was negotiated.

As did Cummings.

VinLieger · 11-09-2019 04:45PM

dublinjock wrote: »

This a good question, i would not be able to answer at the moment because ive not up on all the above deals.But i would be more in the area of the Norway deal.

I dont have all the answers and dont pretend to. This why we have elected politicians, but they seem to have any idea of what to do.

What were they told by their constituents via the referendum to do?

Also the Norway deal sounds great but what do you do when EFTA don't want you joining it as they are afraid you will mess it up?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/07/norwegian-politicians-reject-uks-norway-plus-brexit-plan

murphaph · 11-09-2019 04:49PM

dublinjock wrote: »

I understand what your saying about the President being like a head od state. But its an important role and they get to have say more than any other head of state would on matters.
Im a firm believer any head of state should stand for an election and be voted in by the people.

How would that work then? If every citizen in the EU could vote directly for the President of the Commission it'd end up being a German all the time.

Perhaps it's better when EuCo chooses this person.

The EU is way more democratic than the UK by the way.

Seth Brundle · 11-09-2019 04:49PM

dublinjock wrote: »

I did vote yes thats correct.
The leave vote won.

OK so you voted to leave the EU.
Did you vote to leave the single market?
Did you vote toe leave the customs union?
Did your vote take into account the other legal aspects affected by exiting the EU such as poorer trade deals, trade tarrifs and so on?
Did your vote take into account the complexities of Northern Ireland and how existing legal agreements made in part by the UK mean that Brexit cannot happen without negatively affecting the political, economic and social status of Northern Ireland? This in turn would have ramifications on the Uk's reputation across the world (for breaking an agreement registered with the UN).

dublinjock wrote: »

The house of commons dont want to leave the EU. They are a total disgrace and as i have said im learning that the saying i was told is so true.

So what should the HoC do?
Should they accept the deal that May agreed with the EU?
Should they accept the default exit i.e. a crash out which will be a massive economic and social disaster for the UK?
What should they do because nobody in there seems to agree with the person sitting beside them!

jm08 · 11-09-2019 04:54PM

murphaph wrote: »

How would that work then? If every citizen in the EU could vote directly for the President of the Commission it'd end up being a German all the time.

Perhaps it's better when EuCo chooses this person.

The EU is way more democratic than the UK by the way.

Ursula von der Leyen is the first German Commission President which is surprising since in the UK everyone thinks that Germany runs the EU! We've had one from Luxembourg, Italy, Portugal, France and the UK (Roy Jenkins).

Zubeneschamali · 11-09-2019 04:55PM

VinLieger wrote: »

Also the Norway deal sounds great

I thought from very early on, before May's red lines, that they would end up in Hard Brexit, not Norway.

Any idiot can see that Norway is a worse deal than Remaining. Take all the rules, pay all the moneys, have no say in decisions. I thought Hard Brexit allows them to pretend they did not make a horrible mistake voting Leave, and they won't admit that until they've tried it, so...

But things have dragged on so long that now I think some have admitted to themselves they were wrong, and a re-run might well vote Remain.

Bit cynical · 11-09-2019 05:04PM

robinph wrote: »

What is problematic about asking for confirmation?

Do you want to jump of a cliff? Yes.
Off you go then, and no changing your mind until after you've hit the bottom.

Oh, sorry you meant you wanted to jump off a cliff in a wing suit. Well you should have said beforehand. Too late now though.

But democratic decisions are like that. For example might not agree with Marxism and I don't want such a government to be in power. However to the extent that I am democratic I have to allow that party to be in government for the duration of the term if that is the outcome of the election. Again to the extent that I am democratic, I don't want some other authority deciding that the people's decision was wrong, did not take this or that factor into account, etc. and therefore should not be respected and that the election is held again.

Therefore as I said earlier it might be for the best overall that the UK reruns the referendum or even revokes A50 but it is democratically problematic.

Strazdas · 11-09-2019 05:06PM

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

I thought from very early on, before May's red lines, that they would end up in Hard Brexit, not Norway.

Any idiot can see that Norway is a worse deal than Remaining. Take all the rules, pay all the moneys, have no say in decisions. I thought Hard Brexit allows them to pretend they did not make a horrible mistake voting Leave, and they won't admit that until they've tried it, so...

But things have dragged on so long that now I think some have admitted to themselves they were wrong, and a re-run might well vote Remain.

This should have been debated before the referendum. It's downright criminal that nobody knew if they were voting for Single Market membership or not.

fash · 11-09-2019 05:07PM

dublinjock wrote: »

I think your right about referendums being undemocratic. Im so so learning this.
I know there was much lies and shenanigans went on but this is the way with politicians.
But i have never been happy with the way the EU is run and how undemocratic it is. What i didnt know and i am also learning is how undemocratic the UK house of commons is. Voting it seems changes nothing.

Have you ever wondered if the lying spivs in the HOC might have been lying about how the EU is run and how undemocratic it is? Honest question.

greenfield21 · 11-09-2019 05:10PM

How Europe does democracy

https://twitter.com/Holbornlolz/status/1171489355422040067

Bit cynical · 11-09-2019 05:11PM

Strazdas wrote: »

This should have been debated before the referendum. It's downright criminal that nobody knew if they were voting for Single Market membership or not.

However does an EU government have the automatic right move from full EU membership to Single Market? It may be the case but I don't think it is stated in any of the treaties. The only thing they have the certain right to is to leave the EU after a period of negotiation. Perhaps it could be written into a future treaty that this was an option to countries leaving but then on the other hand, the EU might not want to make it too easy to switch.

Strazdas · 11-09-2019 05:12PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

But democratic decisions are like that. For example might not agree with Marxism and I don't want such a government to be in power. However to the extent that I am democratic I have to allow that party to be in government for the duration of the term if that is the outcome of the election. Again to the extent that I am democratic, I don't want some other authority deciding that the people's decision was wrong, did not take this or that factor into account, etc. and therefore should not be respected and that the election is held again.

Therefore as I said earlier it might be for the best overall that the UK reruns the referendum or even revokes A50 but it is democratically problematic.

Wrong! If Tommy Robinson was elected PM, would you feel you had to support him because people had voted for him? In a democracy, you are totally free to oppose an election result or a referendum result and to campaign to have it overturned.

I don't know where on earth you and the 17m have gotten the idea it is "undemocratic" to disagree with an election result.

prawnsambo · 11-09-2019 05:12PM

greenfield21 wrote: »

How Europe does democracy

https://twitter.com/Holbornlolz/status/1171489355422040067

What does she do?

Bit cynical · 11-09-2019 05:20PM

Strazdas wrote: »

Wrong! If Tommy Robinson was elected PM, would you feel you had to support him because people had voted for him? In a democracy, you are totally free to oppose an election result or a referendum result and to campaign to have it overturned.

I don't know where on earth you and the 17m have gotten the idea it is "undemocratic" to disagree with an election result.

No of course it is not undemocratic to disagree with an election or referendum result which is why I never said that.

In fact earlier I specifically gave an example of not merely an individual candidate but an entire government with which I disagreed. So if Tommy Robinson was voted in I would not agree with him or with those who voted for him, but I hope you can see that that is not the issue.

Cork Boy 53 · 11-09-2019 05:22PM

If the Supreme Court upholds the Scottish Court`s decision then I would say that, shortly afterwards, Johnson can expect a summons from the Palace for a "little chat" with the Queen.

Strazdas · 11-09-2019 05:29PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

No of course it is not undemocratic to disagree with an election or referendum result which is why I never said that.

In fact earlier I specifically gave an example of not merely an individual candidate but an entire government with which I disagreed. So if Tommy Robinson was voted in I would not agree with him or with those who voted for him, but I hope you can see that that is not the issue.

The "respecting the result of the referendum" argument makes no sense. Someone heading to the House of Commons with a flamethrower and hand grenades would be someone not respecting the result. Merely saying you disagree with the result and want to see it overturned is absolutely fine.

To be honest, I think the respecting the result thing is just a deeply cynical attempt by the Brexiteers and the right wing press to shut down any criticism of or opposition to Brexit.

Akrasia · 11-09-2019 05:32PM

Bit cynical wrote: »

Rerunning a referendum is unsatisfactory from a democratic point of view, yes. Not the only perspective; there are other considerations. But from the perspective of democracy, problematic I think.

Real democracy is based on informed consent

Voting for what was essentially a 'mystery box' where the remain side were saying 'be careful what you wish for, voting to leave will have lots of bad consequences' and the 'leave' side said 'don't believe them, that's just project fear'

is not informed consent when the consequences of the vote were so blatantly misrepresented by the leave side

And they're still doing it by the way. Today they're refusing to release the 'Operation yellowhammer' reports, not because they think they're not worth reading, but because they know that if the public knew the truth, they'd be much less likely to support the current government policy of shooting the economy in the face.

When the people in power lie to you as a first resort, and then hide the truth from you until it's too late to change anything, and then try to shut down the institutions of the state to prevent any oversight... I think it's not hard to decide whether they are really on your side

A Dub in Glasgo · 11-09-2019 05:32PM

dublinjock wrote: »

So i take it im not able to vote for either?

I do find the Brexiter attitude on the EU officials bizarre to say the least. Only yesterday, ex PM May appointed a whole load of failures to the upper house in the UK Houses of Parliament so dublinjock, how did you vote for them? For me as a UK resident, how do I vote for them?

Zubeneschamali · 11-09-2019 05:33PM

Strazdas wrote: »

I don't know where on earth you and the 17m have gotten the idea it is "undemocratic" to disagree with an election result.

And if a rerun of a referendum is unacceptable, why did the UK re-run the 1975 Europe referendum?

Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?

How long is long enough for a change of mind? 40 years? 10? 3?

And note also that Farage is on record saying that if Remain won by a small margin, he would not regard the question as closed but would fight on. Why should Remain do any different?

prawnsambo · 11-09-2019 05:34PM

Strazdas wrote: »

The "respecting the result of the referendum" argument makes no sense. Someone heading to the House of Commons with a flamethrower and hand grenades would be someone not respecting the result. Merely saying you disagree with the result and want to see it overturned is absolutely fine.

Not only to want to see it overturned, but to actively campaign against it and use any legal means to do so is also quite democratic.

Brexit discussion thread X (Please read OP before posting)

Comments