Cont: Brexit: Now What? Part 5

[ceptimus]

The good reason is that it was put to a democratic referendum vote and 'leave' won. You can't get a better reason than that. Many 'remain' voters are bad losers, refuse to accept the result, and oppose it at every opportunity - we must hope they don't get what they want as it would be a bad day for democracy.

 

[Amazer]

The good reason is that it was put to a democratic referendum vote and 'leave' won. You can't get a better reason than that. Many 'remain' voters are bad losers, refuse to accept the result, and oppose it at every opportunity - we must hope they don't get what they want as it would be a bad day for democracy.

Yes 'Leave' won the non-binding referendum.... that result in and by itself doesn't explain why people voted 'Leave'.

 

[ceptimus]

They voted 'leave' because it was their preferred choice from the two choices available.

 

[Amazer]

They voted 'leave' because it was their preferred choice from the two choices available.

You're still struggling with differentiating between result and reason(s).

Sent from my SM-J700F using Tapatalk

 

[Lukraak_Sisser]

They voted 'leave' because it was their preferred choice from the two choices available.

The thing is, in a democracy, choices are not 100% binding are they?
So it is possible that, once the consequences of a choice become clear people change their mind, either about their choice or about not bothering to vote.

Just like people can lobby to oust a sitting party, even after they won, in a democracy people can also lobby against a choice they disagree with in the hope they can sway popular opinion back to what they want.

It's kinda how democracies work.

 

[Explorer]

The good reason is that it was put to a democratic referendum vote and 'leave' won. You can't get a better reason than that. Many 'remain' voters are bad losers, refuse to accept the result, and oppose it at every opportunity - we must hope they don't get what they want as it would be a bad day for democracy.

David Davis himself said that a democracy isn't a democracy unless it can change its mind. Over the last two years there has been a definitive change of mind, and in the latest polling there is a large majority for a second referendum to express that change of mind now the facts of leaving, not apparent in 2016, have been revealed.

The referendum was not a football match, so winning or losing is not a helpful term, but of course it is still being used by quitters scared of losing a second one.

 

[ceptimus]

Yes of course the electorate can change its mind when the next vote comes around. That's exactly what has happened. The first vote (in 1975) people voted remain. After 41 years experience of being in the club, when a second vote was granted, people voted leave.

It would make sense, after we've completely left so people can see what that's like, to have a third vote to see if the people wish to rejoin. This could happen after a reasonable period. It doesn't have to be 41 years again, but it could be at least 5 or 10 years after we've completed the leaving process - otherwise we won't have given that a fair test. Also it would require the EU to agree that we could rejoin if the people voted to do that.

 

[ceptimus]

The thing is, in a democracy, choices are not 100% binding are they?
So it is possible that, once the consequences of a choice become clear...

Exactly. How long do you think it will take to assess those consequences? Surely you must agree that we can't rely on either side's predictions, and that we must allow sufficient time to gather actual evidence.

 

[The Don]

Exactly. How long do you think it will take to assess those consequences? Surely you must agree that we can't rely on either side's predictions, and that we must allow sufficient time to gather actual evidence.

The trouble is that leaving the EU is irreversible - or more specifically leaving the EU on the terms we have now, rejoining would result in a completely different and, less advantageous, deal for the UK.

You give the impression that there's a debate about whether leaving the EU will be better or worse for the UK from an economic standpoint. Informed commentators seem to agree that the debate is about whether it's going to be bad, or disastrously bad for the UK.

As for waiting to see whether things are bad, you don't wait for the whole house to burn down to find out how quickly the fire is spreading.

 

[Degeneve]

Letter in the FT on costs of customs reporting etc on trade:

Cryogenic Ltd, should change of Director (and maybe of tax consultant too) because this letter contains a lot of approximations and inaccuracies when it comes to VAT and customs regulations.

 

[Degeneve]

Yes of course the electorate can change its mind when the next vote comes around. That's exactly what has happened. The first vote (in 1975) people voted remain. After 41 years experience of being in the club, when a second vote was granted, people voted leave.

It would make sense, after we've completely left so people can see what that's like, to have a third vote to see if the people wish to rejoin. This could happen after a reasonable period. It doesn't have to be 41 years again, but it could be at least 5 or 10 years after we've completed the leaving process - otherwise we won't have given that a fair test. Also it would require the EU to agree that we could rejoin if the people voted to do that.

As a matter of fact it is not to the EU to agree whether the UK could rejoin if people voted to do that, but to the governments of all the Member States. No sure that they would all agree (after all the UK had to wait until de Gaulle died before having France agreeing that the UK joins - and after all these years I am wondering whether de Gaulle was not right when he refused the UK admission).

And assuming they would all agree I am pretty sure that they would arrange for a treaty that disallows the UK to ask for exemptions to the rules as it did in the past. Even the Euro could be made compulsory to the UK (if they meet the criteria to enter, that is).

 

[Information Analyst]

That's just more evidence that the BBC is a government mouth piece and not a reliable broadcaster.

I'm not sure how the BBC pointing out obvious problems due to Brexit merits that interpretation.

 

[Lothian]

Brexit means brexit, it is going to happen yet there are still whingers who won't accept the will of the people.

 

[ceptimus]

The trouble is that leaving the EU is irreversible - or more specifically leaving the EU on the terms we have now, rejoining would result in a completely different and, less advantageous, deal for the UK.

You give the impression that there's a debate about whether leaving the EU will be better or worse for the UK from an economic standpoint. Informed commentators seem to agree that the debate is about whether it's going to be bad, or disastrously bad for the UK.

As for waiting to see whether things are bad, you don't wait for the whole house to burn down to find out how quickly the fire is spreading.

By "informed commentators" you mean anyone who happens to agree with your own views; anyone with the opposite view, such as ex chancellors of the exchequer, you dismiss as uninformed racist bigots.


If the situation ever arises where a post-Brexit UK holds another referendum with a narrow margin in favour of rejoining, it will be interesting to watch your reaction in the run-up to rejoin date. There would doubtless be people on the losing side arguing that it would be bad for the country, and a few businesses with vested interests in remaining outside the EU announcing how complicated and expensive it would be for them after rejoining. If the pro-stay-out lobby looked like it were about to reverse the referendum result before it had even been implemented, I don't think you would be very happy about it.

 

[Francesca R]

The way I see it, it's like leaving a club. You accidentally smash some glasses, maybe do a technicolor yawn on the pavement, go for a large doner and then look for the night bus.

 

[The Don]

By "informed commentators" you mean anyone who happens to agree with your own views; anyone with the opposite view, such as ex chancellors of the exchequer, you dismiss as uninformed racist bigots.

If you can find any case of me referring to any ex-chancellor of the exchequer as a racist bigot, I'll give you a cookie.

If the situation ever arises where a post-Brexit UK holds another referendum with a narrow margin in favour of rejoining, it will be interesting to watch your reaction in the run-up to rejoin date. There would doubtless be people on the losing side arguing that it would be bad for the country, and a few businesses with vested interests in remaining outside the EU announcing how complicated and expensive it would be for them after rejoining. If the pro-stay-out lobby looked like it were about to reverse the referendum result before it had even been implemented, I don't think you would be very happy about it.

At least it would be clear, if there was a rejoin referendum, what the rejoin situation would be.

If the "Rejoin" campaign claimed that we would get a better deal than when we were previously members and that the "four freedoms" wouldn't have to apply and so forth then the "Stay Out" could IMO rightly call foul and pressure the government of the day not to abide by the non-binding referendum because those voting to rejoin were voting for something impossible.

 

[ceptimus]

If you can find any case of me referring to any ex-chancellor of the exchequer as a racist bigot, I'll give you a cookie.

You think ex-chancellors are merely uninformed then - their former position somehow excuses them from the 'racist' tag that you think applies to the majority of other leave voters?

At least it would be clear, if there was a rejoin referendum, what the rejoin situation would be.

If the "Rejoin" campaign claimed that we would get a better deal than when we were previously members and that the "four freedoms" wouldn't have to apply and so forth then the "Stay Out" could IMO rightly call foul and pressure the government of the day not to abide by the non-binding referendum because those voting to rejoin were voting for something impossible.

It wouldn't be clear. After the referendum the defeated 'stay out' lobby would publicise EU terms and conditions that hadn't been made clear during the campaign, and the EU might be in the process of introducing new reforms that hadn't been in place during the campaign; some existing trading partners outside the EU might threaten that the new trade to a within-the-EU-UK would cost us more and so on... I'm sure you can imagine for yourself a situation that would mirror the current one but with the opposite side of the argument being the one trying to ignore and reverse a democratic decision.

 

[Explorer]

Yes of course the electorate can change its mind when the next vote comes around. That's exactly what has happened. The first vote (in 1975) people voted remain. After 41 years experience of being in the club, when a second vote was granted, people voted leave.

It would make sense, after we've completely left so people can see what that's like, to have a third vote to see if the people wish to rejoin. This could happen after a reasonable period. It doesn't have to be 41 years again, but it could be at least 5 or 10 years after we've completed the leaving process - otherwise we won't have given that a fair test. Also it would require the EU to agree that we could rejoin if the people voted to do that.

Not a good idea, as we would lose all our current exemptions with your suggestion.

 

[Explorer]

Brexit means brexit, it is going to happen yet there are still whingers who won't accept the will of the people.

....and there are still quitters who took forty years to stop whinging, who are now criticising remainers for whinging for just two years.

 

[Garrison]

And Gove apparently threw a tantrum:

'Livid' Michael Gove rips up EU customs partnership report


Of course you have to wonder why a man who favours a hard Brexit was in charge of assessing the other option, actually why would you put Gove in charge of anything?

Remember Leave means Leave, Leave does not mean keeping any of the promises made to get people to vote Leave.