Deleted User wrote: » You claimed that the "parties didn't hold a referendum", that is was all the Conservatives doing. A cursory glance at how the parties voted in 2015 shows that holding an EU referendum was widely endorsed and voted in favour of by all, except the SNP. That evidence contradicts the claim you've made.
In her new book Good Economics for Hard Times ... she notes that problems such as “ballooning inequality, lack of faith in government, fractured societies”, are “eerily familiar to those used to studying in the developing world”. One symptom of these maladies is Brexit. But rather than denouncing it as an act of economic self-harm, Duflo takes a more self-critical approach. “As economists, we should take a lot of the blame for not seeing that people’s pain was real,” she said. Instead, economists were guilty of “telling people that ‘you are voting against your economic self-interest’, when they were voting to say that their economic self-interest had been sacrificed”. Duflo excoriated the Conservative Party’s austerity programme, which she blames for the Leave vote. “I think even politicians now realise how big a mistake austerity was. It basically hit people when they were down… It just seems crazy that you would lower the welfare of people who are already victims of a shock that they didn’t cause or want.” She was also unequivocal in her defence of the free movement of people: “All the evidence shows that migrants are not competing with native workers for wages. Even when there has been a big influx of migrants they haven’t cut the wages of natives. This is the consensus view based on the empirical evidence.” What policies would she advocate to address the UK’s economic and social woes? “Spend more money on public services that are labour-intensive and will therefore create good jobs for people such as childcare and education.” She also emphasised the importance of high-quality training schemes and praised the Danish model of “flexicurity”, which combines a flexible labour market with a generous social security system.
fash wrote: » Are you similarly against a federalised Germany, a federalised United States, a federalised Canada?
ancapailldorcha wrote: » Can you provide a link?
ancapailldorcha wrote: » There is no moral argument because the parties didn't hold the referendum. Only the governing party held it and that was the Conservatives. They've been responsible for all of this, from start to finish.
[Deleted User] wrote: » I phrased it as a moral argument; and then went on to supply arguments to justify that claim.
Deleted User wrote: » Au contraire, the "non-binding" legal component is massively drowned out by the moral argument, which states that every leading major player indicated that the referendum result would be implemented. I can't think of one major player, on both sides of the argument, who claimed it was merely an "advisory" result and, even if Leave did win, it wouldn't be enacted automatically. Furthermore, the General Election of 2017 had parties - 80+% of whom stated that they would "respect the implement the referendum result". Let's not ignore that either, nor the mass support in parliament for invoking Article 50. Unless you can provide me with one example to the contrary, we must therefore assume that the referendum was held with complete intent, by all parties and independents, as I have already assumed. This "non-binding" argument only grew in strength once Remain had lost. Furthermore, had "Remain" won, what's to stop me arguing that it was a "non-binding" referendum and therefore a second version of same should be held? The answer: nothing at all. But I wouldn't have done that. I would have respected the original result. That's what differs my political consistency and legitimacy over those who play legal pedantics to overturn the democratic result of the 2016 referendum. Again, I provide consistency - whereas Remainers manufacture reasons to overturn the referendum result because they simply cannot accept that they lost. It really is as simple as that.
Deleted User wrote: » Here again is the moral argument I've cited earlier:
Deleted User wrote: » See below:
McGiver wrote: » The referendum result is legally non-binding. There is no morality in legal position. Either something has a legal implication or not. End of story.
McGiver wrote: » The referendum could be said to have been politically binding in theory. But nothing like that exists in reality - political promises aren't delivered all the time due to various reasons but the primary being that politics is about compromise and that results in inability to deliver promises.
[Deleted User] wrote: » if Leavers did argue this on losing, you'd be the first to espouse my moral argument above. Or would you claim something different?
Deleted User wrote: » I don't think you understand the position of many Brexiteers - namely, that we are willing to take an economic hit in order to restore democratic control of our money, laws and borders. It's the principle that matters, not GDP going down a few points (which is debatable). Not everything can be reduced to money. Some things matter more.
Deleted User wrote: » It's barely the first chapter of the story. If what you're claiming is true, then what is the answer to these 2 questions: a) Why did no leading player, on both sides, claim its non-binding status during the referendum? In other words, if there's nothing to worry about as you can just forget the result ever happened, why bother?
Deleted User wrote: » b) If it's non-binding, what's to stop me arguing for a second referendum if Remain had won? My guess is that, if Leavers did argue this on losing, you'd be the first to espouse my moral argument above. Or would you claim something different?
Deleted User wrote: » It's barely the first chapter of the story. If what you're claiming is true, then what is the answer to these 2 questions: a) Why did no leading player, on both sides, claim its non-binding status during the referendum? In other words, if there's nothing to worry about as you can just forget the result ever happened, why bother? b) If it's non-binding, what's to stop me arguing for a second referendum if Remain had won? My guess is that, if Leavers did argue this on losing, you'd be the first to espouse my moral argument above. Or would you claim something different?
The EU referendum was won based on a corrupt campaign, but the courts can't void the result because the referendum only advisory, according to the barrister who took the government to court. Based on Electoral Commission findings about overspending by Vote Leage, British people living in Europe launched a legal case arguing the referendum result should in effect be set aside. Last week, Court of Appeal judges denied them permission to appeal after losing the case. Jessica Simor had argued that it was wholly unreasonable for the Prime Minister to proceed with Article 50 on the basis that the referendum was lawful, knowing what is now known about proven illegalities. Speaking today to James O'Brien, she said the result would have already been quashed if the referendum was binding. But because it was only advisory - even if the Prime Minister isn't treating it as such - they could not overturn the result.
McGiver wrote: » Why would they? To look like clowns? This is the default position of the UK constitutional arrangement - referenda are not legally binding unless they are made so by the sovereign Parliament. They conveniently didn't mention it. So botchery, stupidity or malice, pick one. Correct, nobody can stop anyone from changing their mind, campaign for changing laws etc. This is called democracy.
ancapailldorcha wrote: » I asked for a link. This is not a link. You said that the parties supported the 2015 act calling for the referendum.
Deleted User wrote: » No problem - here it is.
Deleted User wrote: » Democracy is enacting results from the voting process; something you non-chalantly brush aside in this individual case.
Deleted User wrote: » Furthermore, are you suggesting that the lead players of the Remain Campaign - who argued that it was a once-in-a-lifetime decision and that it involves leading the CU and SM, and so forth, were lying to the public about its delivery?
McGiver wrote: » Yes and democracy is also the right to campaign against, modify it or abolish it altogether. Correct. As evidenced by the fact that the person who "promised" to deliver ran away.
Deleted User wrote: » That's why my moral argument is so powerful and retains the legitimacy that it does - namely: 1 - that no lead player on either side of the campaign dared to make the claim that the result was automatically invalid. You cannot mislead the public into believing their vote was a negligible one with zero legitimacy. 2 - after the referendum result, all major parties claimed that the result should be respected and implemented. 3 - Article 50 was triggered by 498 MPs. 4 - During the Election of 2017, more votes were cast for Leave parties than Remain, and both Corbyn and May's manifestos claimed that they would both respect the result and implement the referendum. So, in 5 cases (when you include Cameron's 2015 GE), the general public and parliament have worked together under the assumption that Brexit would be delivered. That's the moral argument - and, like all moral cases, it trumps any legal facts, anywhere, anytime.
Christy42 wrote: » Wait? While it may not feel that way you vote in people. People who have their own beliefs on Brexit. Maybe people should have done more research on who they were voting for and how they really felt on Brexit?
Deleted User wrote: » That's why my moral argument is so powerful and retains the legitimacy that it does
Deleted User wrote: » 2 - after the referendum result, all major parties claimed that the result should be respected and implemented. 3 - Article 50 was triggered by 498 MPs.
Deleted User wrote: » 4 - During the Election of 2017, more votes were cast for Leave parties than Remain, and both Corbyn and May's manifestos claimed that they would both respect the result and implement the referendum.
Deleted User wrote: » So, in 5 cases (when you include Cameron's 2015 GE), the general public and parliament have worked together under the assumption that Brexit would be delivered. That's the moral argument - and, like all moral cases, it trumps any legal facts, anywhere, anytime.
Christy42 wrote: » Wait? Why do you want to believe their election manifesto and ignore their referendum promises (staying in the customs union etc.). Either leave campaigners should go back to those promises or the current politicians should be allowed feel like not leaving is in their best interest. Leave won. Therefore they should be trying to deliver their promises of staying in the single market.
Deleted User wrote: » But yes, that video above shows that the Remain side during the campaign were honest with the public that a vote to Leave was leaving both the SM and CU.
CelticRambler wrote: » Honest? But you told us that it's acceptable for politicians to lie to get the result they want, and Cameron wanted a Remain result, so it stands to reason that he would lie about what Leave meant - in other words, Leave did not mean quitting the SM or CU.
They want access to trade with the rest of the EU, but would not try to keep Britain inside the single market, the EU's trading territory where goods, services and people can move freely across the continent
Deleted User wrote: » But they weren't lying; they were telling the truth, which was consistent with what the Leave side were saying. Here is Michael Gove: This canard of all Leave players wanting to remain in the single market is a total con.
Deleted User wrote: » But they weren't lying; they were telling the truth, which was consistent with what the Leave side were saying.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/df05300f57fe28ddd3330602c0adbfdb.svg)
