Cont: Brexit: Now What? Part 5

[JoeMorgue]

Explain how it is different? The Brexit/ Rejoin the EU question could be on the manifesto of one or more UK political party from now until doomsday.

Really?

*Sighs*

Okay it's simple.

Scenario 1: I go to the polls to vote for Bill or Ted. I like Bill, but Teds wins. In 4 years I go back to the poll and vote again for Bill or Ted, this time Bill wins.

Scenario 2: I go to the polls to vote on "Referendum Y: Yes or No?" I support Referendum Y and vote yes, but it doesn't pass. In 4 years I go back to the polls and see that Referendum Y: Yes or No? is on the ballot again. Again I vote yes and this time in passes.

Now this is the important difference... in scenario 1 Ted is still in office between the two elections. I don't get to just go "Wait and ask again" as a way to keep people I disagree with from getting their way.

I can vote Ted out of office the next time an election cycle comes up, I can't demand Ted not take office until we vote again in 4 years.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

Really?

*Sighs*

Okay it's simple.

Scenario 1: I go to the polls to vote for Bill or Ted. I like Bill, but Teds wins. In 4 years I go back to the poll and vote again for Bill or Ted, this time Bill wins.

Scenario 2: I go to the polls to vote on "Referendum Y: Yes or No?" I support Referendum Y and vote yes, but it doesn't pass. In 4 years I go back to the polls and see that Referendum Y: Yes or No? is on the ballot again. Again I vote yes and this time in passes.

Now this is the important difference... in scenario 1 Ted is still in office between the two elections. I don't get to just go "Wait and ask again" as a way to keep people I disagree with from getting their way.

I can vote Ted out of office the next time an election cycle comes up, I can't demand Ted not take office until we vote again in 4 years.

Sorry, it could be me, but I can't get what you are trying to say.

 

[Dave Rogers]

So what if you make a second vote and it comes back "leave" again? Do you push on, only to ask the question again in 6 months when you realise that it's too hard?

For me, no. If, once the negotiations are over and a deal-or-no-deal is decided upon, there's a second referendum, the question will be different; it will be "Do you want to accept this specific outcome?" If there's then a majority in favour of, for example, crashing out of the EU in so catastrophic a fashion that we have power cuts, food queues and a ten-year recession, given that that's what was promised, then I think we have to grit our teeth and accept that outcome. That's my point of view, anyway; it's because the outcomes initially promised are unobtainable that a second referendum is justified.

Dave

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

What question, and how is that relevant to what I said?

'What do you want the government to do in the next 5 years?'

Which could include leave or rejoin the EU.

 

[ceptimus]

Edit: snipped linked image which was too large to suit the forum page width. Do an image search for 'government will implement what you decide' and you'll see loads of such images.

Sent by the government to every household in the UK. Note: "once in a generation" Note: "This is your decision." Note: "The Government will implement what you decide."

This is why allowing a vote on reversing Brexit now would be a betrayal, and political suicide for the Tories.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

And if the vote had come back 53% to 47% (I believe that was the ratio, or something close to that effect) to stay in the EU but the government decided to begin procedures to leave the EU anyway because the majority was too small and they figured they knew better, you'd be saying the same thing right?

"Tyranny of the Majority" is a thing but it isn't "The majority made a decision I didn't like."

Of course not. The vote is nothing to do with democracy anyway but simply opportunism. Illegally funded campaigning based on lies is not democratic. But equally such a tight majority is not a mandate to enact a horrible severe Brexit on the country when other options are on the table.

For example we could join the EEA for a 3, 5 or ten year period and the use that time to assess whether further withdrawal is wise or supported by the nation. The whole thing could be managed in a way which did minimal damage and allowed things to be reversed if things changed.

But none of this is the case. What instead we have is a bus hurtling towards a cliff with 3 or 4 people fighting over the steering wheel while insisting that the bus can fly or that someone else will build a bridge before we plummet.

If TM HONESTLY thinks the Brexit is a result of disgruntlement with domestic politics then she should say so explicitly, enact a minimal Brexit and seek to remedy the real problem. But she isn't. So she's either lying or not in control. Either way is hardly good.

The feeling that 'sensible heads will prevail eventually' is sadly gone now because they only people who seem to have any sway are the swivel eyed loons and downright liars. There are no sensible heads left in any kind of position to do anything.

And that's why I have switched my position on having another referendum because literally the only hope we have now is that somehow TM has managed to lose enough support that it might get through a vote by accident.

The champions of democracy are of course offended by the mere thought of it presumably because they think the majority no longer support their position and they would lose any such 2nd vote.

 

[Wudang]

And why shouldn't the 1.4 million people who have since come of age to vote be denied a say?

 

[Tolls]

Sure, it can happen, but as I stated earlier, and no one has addressed, if you try over and over, it eventually gives the impression that the vote doesn't matter.

Except it doesn't.
The situation is different.

Here we were asked a very basic Leave or Remain question, where Leave was pretty much undefined. We now know what Leave means (at least, we know a lot more than we did) and what it is likely to entail. Surely that should be put to The People? I know why the likes of the ERG don't want to, and it's because they now can't hide behind vague promises...

 

[ceptimus]

They will get to vote in the next election or referendum when they're old enough to vote. It's not difficult to understand. Whenever there is a vote, the people who are entitled to vote on the day the vote is held are the only people allowed to vote - you don't have some wishy-washy grey area where you tell people, "You'll be allowed to vote in a few years time, so actually it's okay for you to vote today!"

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Sure, it can happen, but as I stated earlier, and no one has addressed, if you try over and over, it eventually gives the impression that the vote doesn't matter.

So what if you make a second vote and it comes back "leave" again? Do you push on, only to ask the question again in 6 months when you realise that it's too hard?

To be clear, I'm not against the UK just deciding to remain in the EU, but either that or asking the question again just undermines the democratic process. Leaving, of course, undermines the EU. Whoever wins, Putin wins too.

No it really doesn't undermine the process. Nobody on the Leave side campaigned to deliver a no deal Brexit with severe economic consequences for the UK. Nobody voted for that.

Nobody knew what they were voting for and the reality now is that pushing ahead is just a monumentally stupid thing to do.

So asking the people whether they want to continue with this monumentally stupid thing is I think necessary now.

Let Gove and BoJo and Rees-Mogg put their name to a no-deal hard Brexit and explain to the people why its a good idea. Let TM commit to either backing a no-deal or explaining why she can't. Let Corbyn do the same.

This is too important and will have too many real consequences for people's lives to simply play political games with it. People will die. People already are dying because of austerity and this is only going to make things worse.

Silly politicial arguments about the vote and threats of gammon riots on the streets are really ridiculous in the face of that.

 

[ceptimus]

There are no sensible heads left in any kind of position to do anything.

By 'sensible' here, you mean, 'agreeing with me'.

I understand your somewhat lose use of language - for example 'racist' means 'not necessarily to do with race' but it would make your posts more comprehensible if you could stick to standard English meanings rather than having us guess what you really mean.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

For me, no. If, once the negotiations are over and a deal-or-no-deal is decided upon, there's a second referendum, the question will be different; it will be "Do you want to accept this specific outcome?" If there's then a majority in favour of, for example, crashing out of the EU in so catastrophic a fashion that we have power cuts, food queues and a ten-year recession, given that that's what was promised, then I think we have to grit our teeth and accept that outcome. That's my point of view, anyway; it's because the outcomes initially promised are unobtainable that a second referendum is justified.

Dave

Exactly.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

and political suicide for the Tories.

Which is actually a pretty horrendous argument that we should just charge ahead with it.

I for one, and I think many others, would have much more respect for TM if she admitted she hasn't been able to negotiate a deal that she could support for the country and that she wants to put the final say back to the people.

It would for once be a genuinely honest response to Brexit rather than the nonsense that you seem to support.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

By 'sensible' here, you mean, 'agreeing with me'.

Not at all. There are sensible approaches to Brexit that I think are worse than remaining - such as falling back to EEA membership for an interim. What we have now are fantasists like DD, BoJO and Rees Mogg calling the shots without any coherent answer to any of the issues.

It is not sensible to simply charge ahead full speed into the unknown without any idea what you are actually doing.

I understand your somewhat lose use of language - for example 'racist' means 'not necessarily to do with race' but it would make your posts more comprehensible if you could stick to standard English meanings rather than having us guess what you really mean.

My posts are perfectly comprehensible thanks. Unlike the Leave campaign and entire Brexit movement. Of course if they are beyond you, you are perfectly entitled to do one. Nobody forces you to reply. I really don't feel like i'd be missing out.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Sent by the government to every household in the UK. Note: "once in a generation" Note: "This is your decision." Note: "The Government will implement what you decide."

Yep. The people of the UK decided to leave the EU with a deal that would preserve all the economic benefits of membership for the UK but would stop the free movement of people inwards across our borders. The government has now found that this is impossible to implement. The 'betrayal' has already happened; it's simply a matter now of how we proceed given that it has.

Dave

 

[Jack by the hedge]

People seem to be arguing here as if there hadn't been a UK general election in 2017, a year after the referendum.

Neither of the main two parties were anti-Brexit but the 3rd and 4th largest were and their popular vote actually declined (much to my regret).

 

[Belz...]

'What do you want the government to do in the next 5 years?'

Right, and you don't do a second vote in-between.

Which could include leave or rejoin the EU.

But it doesn't, so it really seems irrelevant to my point, then.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Yeah but what's to stop them from asking again and again and again and again and again and again? That's why barring some extreme scenarios you usually go with the initial vote.

The two year limit on Clause 50. We only have time for one chance to reconsider, if the answer is still 'Leave' then we're out.

 

[Belz...]

Except it doesn't.

Speak for yourself.

NNobody on the Leave side campaigned to deliver a no deal Brexit with severe economic consequences for the UK. Nobody voted for that.

Well, nobody voted for waterboarding, either, but they didn't have a re-vote to backtrack on the 2000 election.

Nobody knew what they were voting for and the reality now is that pushing ahead is just a monumentally stupid thing to do.

The thing is, they shouldn't have started the process at all, regardless of the results. They should've used it to try to push for changed in the EU.

 

[Belz...]

The two year limit on Clause 50. We only have time for one chance to reconsider, if the answer is still 'Leave' then we're out.

So they still have a few months to think about it then.