UK - December 2019 General Election

[Dave Rogers]

Again, it is not for politicians to ask the electorate what their opinion should be, then defend the prevailing opinion. Their job is to determine what is the best course of action forward and work to convince the electorate their solution or approach is the way to go.

Ideally, yes, but I'm not sure we can get there from here right at the moment. The 2016 referendum result has been elevated to such a level of perceived legitimacy that it doesn't seem likely that it can be challenged by anything short of another referendum, to the point where the LibDems are being criticised for making a manifesto promise that contradicts its results - even though it's a perfectly proper way to determine government policy. But the Labour proposal, of determining a specific course of action and then holding a referendum to approve or reject that course, is a damned sight more sensible and straightforward than the current mess of contradictory interpretations each of which claims to be the One True Meaning of the referendum result; a referendum asking "Do we leave on this specific deal, or do we stay?" is at least not susceptible to any such misinterpretation.

The problem, of course, is that the 2016 referendum question was a stupid one to ask; but there's no way to un-ask it.

Dave

 

[angrysoba]

the sitting Tory MP briefly lost the party whip for using the phrase, 'n- in a woodpile' in a public meeting, so I guess I have something positive to vote for too.

Lost the whip? I’m sure if he carries on like that they’ll make him party leader.

 

[ceptimus]

You're talking like a pro-Tory tabloid. Labour has made it pretty clear; it will negotiate the deal that it judges the best it can given its political priorities, and will then offer a choice in a referendum between leaving with that deal or remaining in the EU. The remarkable thing is not that Labour has announced its intention to do this, but that anyone can seriously maintain that it's an unreasonable course of action.

Dave

Of course it's unreasonable. For one thing we've already had a democratic vote three years ago on this matter, and we'd like to see the result of that implemented before holding another vote that attempts to reverse the decision.

And the second point is that the EU would have zero incentive to negotiate a good deal in such a scenario. They've been told, ahead of the negotiations, that only two options will be on the ballot paper - the newly negotiated deal or remain. Since they want us to remain, it's in their interest to make the negotiated deal absolutely unacceptable to as many voters as they possibly can.

If the vote were going to be a three-way one, using a single transferable vote, with the options: accept deal; remain; leave without deal - then that would be a different matter. The Labour party won't offer that third option as the whole point of their policy is to reverse the democratic decision that's already been made - and before that decision has been tested by implementation.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Of course it's unreasonable. For one thing we've already had a democratic vote three years ago on this matter, and we'd like to see the result of that implemented before holding another vote that attempts to reverse the decision.

Yes, I realise that you want to have your way however damaging it might be, but if the majority of the country disagrees then there should be a way to reverse the decision however strongly you feel about it. If, of course, the majority agrees with you, then there's no problem, so in effect you're demanding that you get your way even if your way doesn't have popular support any more, and insisting that anything else is undemocratic. That's a grotesque caricature of the very idea of democracy.

And the second point is that the EU would have zero incentive to negotiate a good deal in such a scenario. They've been told, ahead of the negotiations, that only two options will be on the ballot paper - the newly negotiated deal or remain. Since they want us to remain, it's in their interest to make the negotiated deal absolutely unacceptable to as many voters as they possibly can.

Which is irrelevant. The EU also wants the remaining member states not to want to leave either, which means that it's in their interest to make any outcome, negotiated or un-negotiated, as unacceptable to as many UK voters as they can, not to force a particular result in the UK but to make it clear to the remaining states what will happen if they leave. And if we don't have the option of not leaving, all it means is that we'll be stuck with the worst possible option rather than having the choice of rejecting it. Our only negotiating position with the EU is the gun we're holding to our own heads, and the current state of affairs seems to be that we're not allowed not to pull the trigger.

Dave

 

[Ian Osborne]

Of course it's unreasonable. For one thing we've already had a democratic vote three years ago on this matter, and we'd like to see the result of that implemented before holding another vote that attempts to reverse the decision.

Nobody voted for this mess. People voted for "no downside to Brexit, only a considerable upside.” (David Davis, 10 October 2016). People voted for “Getting out of the EU can be quick and easy – the UK holds most of the cards.” (John Redwood, July 17 2016). People voted for "a deal which is of huge value and possibly of greater value.” (Boris Johnson, 16 November 2016) People voted for an extra £350m a week for the NHS (that bloody bus).

If the architects of Brexit find they cannot deliver on these promises, don't you think it's entirely democratic to go to the country again?

 

[Darat]

Of course it's unreasonable. For one thing we've already had a democratic vote three years ago on this matter, and we'd like to see the result of that implemented before holding another vote that attempts to reverse the decision.

And the second point is that the EU would have zero incentive to negotiate a good deal in such a scenario. They've been told, ahead of the negotiations, that only two options will be on the ballot paper - the newly negotiated deal or remain. Since they want us to remain, it's in their interest to make the negotiated deal absolutely unacceptable to as many voters as they possibly can.

If the vote were going to be a three-way one, using a single transferable vote, with the options: accept deal; remain; leave without deal - then that would be a different matter. The Labour party won't offer that third option as the whole point of their policy is to reverse the democratic decision that's already been made - and before that decision has been tested by implementation.

We had a democratic vote to join the EU....

 

[ceptimus]

We had a democratic vote to join the EU....

When? I think you'll find that you're wrong and we had no such vote.

After we'd already joined the EEC (without a vote), we later had a referendum on whether to remain in it or not. That referendum was in favour of remain and the result was implemented. Although the EEC then morphed into the different EU, we weren't allowed another vote for forty years.

That's the right sort of time interval. I wouldn't mind it being even less than that - perhaps as little as ten years. But attempting to reverse a decision before it's even been implemented is wrong and contemptible.

 

[3point14]

We had a democratic vote to join the EU....

Democracy requires an informed electorate and honest campaigning.

There was no democratic vote.


There was the illusion of a democratic vote, a non binding referendum the results of which, had the poll been binding, would have been set aside due to illegal campaign finance.

There was no democratic vote.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Of course it's unreasonable. For one thing we've already had a democratic vote three years ago on this matter, and we'd like to see the result of that implemented before holding another vote that attempts to reverse the decision.
.

'We would like X' does not make Y unreasonable. You do understand that don't you?

Especially when Y is asking 'Do you really want X now that you know what X is?'

'Would you like a present?'

'YES PLEASE!'

'It's a box full of Ebola, still want it?'

'Well of course because it would be unreasonable and undemocratic to change my mind now after saying yes and you are a bad person for even asking me!'

 

[Tolls]

That's the right sort of time interval. I wouldn't mind it being even less than that - perhaps as little as ten years. But attempting to reverse a decision before it's even been implemented is wrong and contemptible.

How do you implement something that was sold as all things to all people?

That's why this line of thinking is utter nonsense.

Get a deal and put that to the people, not the rainbows and unicorns version they were promised in 2016.

That's democratic.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

When? I think you'll find that you're wrong and we had no such vote.

After we'd already joined the EEC (without a vote), we later had a referendum on whether to remain in it or not. That referendum was in favour of remain and the result was implemented. Although the EEC then morphed into the different EU, we weren't allowed another vote for forty years.

That's the right sort of time interval. I wouldn't mind it being even less than that - perhaps as little as ten years. But attempting to reverse a decision before it's even been implemented is wrong and contemptible.

Lying about something ... fine.

Voting for something based on lies... top of the class.

Asking someone if they want to change their mind after they know they were lied to .... wrong and contemptible.

Par for the course for Brexiteers.

 

[ceptimus]

'We would like X' does not make Y unreasonable. You do understand that don't you?

Especially when Y is asking 'Do you really want X now that you know what X is?'

'Would you like a present?'

'YES PLEASE!'

'It's a box full of Ebola, still want it?'

'Well of course because it would be unreasonable and undemocratic to change my mind now after saying yes and you are a bad person for even asking me!'

It wasn't though, was it? The question was, do you want to leave the European Union, or remain in the European Union? Nothing tricky or ambiguous about that question, despite your three-year long effort to convince us that there was.

 

[ceptimus]

How do you implement something that was sold as all things to all people?

That's why this line of thinking is utter nonsense.

Get a deal and put that to the people, not the rainbows and unicorns version they were promised in 2016.

That's democratic.

More nonsense. It was not "sold as all things to all people". It was do you want to leave or remain? A very clear cut choice. The majority that voted leave clearly understood what they were voting for, and most of them haven't changed their minds since.

 

[ceptimus]

Lying about something ... fine.

Voting for something based on lies... top of the class.

Asking someone if they want to change their mind after they know they were lied to .... wrong and contemptible.

Par for the course for Brexiteers.

Wrong again. What other democratic decisions have been reversed before being implemented? The only ones I can think of were when an electorate voted the opposite way to what the EU wished. There have been several examples of that already, we can only hope that Brexit does not become another.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The question was, do you want to leave the European Union, or Remain in the European Union? Nothing tricky or ambiguous about that question, despite your three-year long effort to convince us that there was.

And yet the answer to it turned out to be so tricky and ambiguous that Boris Johnson and the ERG voted against leaving and the Brexit party is now campaigning to prevent leaving on Boris Johnson's deal. Totally obvious what it means, yet it seems like no two Brexiteers can agree on what the totally obvious meaning is.

But the real problem here, which I'm sure you'll pretend is absolutely fine, is that we seem to have made a decision that cannot under any circumstances be reversed whatever the situation by any democratic means whatsoever. And this is the Brexiteer definition of democracy.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

Wrong again. What other democratic decisions have been reversed before being implemented?

Are you saying that every government ever elected has kept every manifesto promise they've ever made? If not, then the ones that weren't kept constitute your answer.

Dave

 

[sphenisc]

More nonsense. It was not "sold as all things to all people". It was do you want to leave or remain? A very clear cut choice. The majority that voted leave clearly understood what they were voting for, and most of them haven't changed their minds since.

Sure, but, as a dedicated sceptic willing to question their own claims, you'll recognise the benefit of collecting evidence to support that statement in the form of a referendum. Just so we don't have to take your word for it.

 

[ceptimus]

And yet the answer to it turned out to be so tricky and ambiguous that Boris Johnson and the ERG voted against leaving and the Brexit party is now campaigning to prevent leaving on Boris Johnson's deal.



Dave

They voted against May's deal. May supported remain, and her deal was Brexit in name only.

Johnson's deal is nearly as bad as May's, but because of the continuing remoaner power in parliament it became the only hope of actually leaving in any form.

Hopefully a Tory government with a good working majority will be returned. The remoaners that retain their seats in the election won't give up, but with a big enough leave majority in the House of Commons, it will become possible, at last, to ignore the continued efforts of the bleating remoaners.

 

[ceptimus]

Are you saying that every government ever elected has kept every manifesto promise they've ever made? If not, then the ones that weren't kept constitute your answer.

Dave

Total red herring and straw man. The question is, "What referendum results have been reversed before being implemented?"

There have been three such EU referendums already: Denmark on the Maastricht Treaty, Ireland on the Nice Treaty and Ireland again on the Lisbon Treaty.

I know you want Brexit to become a fourth example, but can you think of any others?

 

[ceptimus]

Sure, but, as a dedicated sceptic willing to question their own claims, you'll recognise the benefit of collecting evidence to support that statement in the form of a referendum. Just so we don't have to take your word for it.

We all have a chance to vote for leave or remain supporting parties in the election next week. The result of that should be a good indication.

I'm not opposed to holding another referendum as I've previously stated. Implement the result of the first one. Wait a few years so that people can see the outcome, then hold another referendum if there's a sizeable minority (or majority) calling for such. That's the democratic way.

If there is a referendum, don't try to exclude the option that the majority want to vote for from the ballot paper. Have three or more choices if that's what's needed.