UK - December 2019 General Election

[Tolls]

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.

But a majority of Leavers is not enough.
That would still almost certainly be a minority of the people who voted.

Therefore, ask the buggers whether this is OK, or would you rather simply stay.

 

[Dave Rogers]

Here's what needs to be done: There needs to be a time-limited debate on what is expected from a new deal. The time limit must be short enough to keep interest (7-30 days), the debate public and the wish must be realistic. If no realistic proposal for a deal can be made this should be communicated to the public, this is about the only thing that can happen. Then the referendum must be called, between either Bremain and no-deal Brexit, or else a threeway between Bremain, whatever deal is realistic (current deal +-) and no-deal Brexit.
The threeway referendum should either be in the form of a transferable vote or else two referendums with two ballots. The first ballot is whether the deal should be ratified or not, the second ballot is only counted if no wins and asks the question between no deal Brexit and Bremain. If Bremain wins the law should stipulate the question of Brexit is not debated again by Parliament for at least 10 years, to allow time to heal.

I'd vote for that. Sadly, nobody's offering it, and what Labour is offering seems to be the nearest to it.

Dave

 

[Dave Rogers]

I think a referendum, held because parliament couldn't itself reach a decision, and with the promise to the people that the result would be implemented, overrides any subsequent choices made by those politicians.

Unfortunately, you seem to be insisting that it also overrides any subsequent choices made by the people.

Dave

 

[McHrozni]

I'd vote for that. Sadly, nobody's offering it, and what Labour is offering seems to be the nearest to it.

The nearest to it seems to be what LibDems are offering. Labour are offering the exact same thing as the Tories, but with a referendum at the end.

McHrozni

 

[wobs]

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

Do you want a list? And I don't mean EU related.

 

[Tolls]

The nearest to it seems to be what LibDems are offering. Labour are offering the exact same thing as the Tories, but with a referendum at the end.

McHrozni

The LibDems are not offering that at all.
They will revoke.

Labour is the closest, because the highlighted bit is rather key. Indeed, the idea that it is in any way the same as the Tories is bizarre.

 

[The Don]

The LibDems are not offering that at all.
They will revoke.

Labour is the closest, because the highlighted bit is rather key. Indeed, the idea that it is in any way the same as the Tories is bizarre.

IMO the Labour position on Brexit is closer to the Conservative position than it is to the LibDem position. Both Labour and Conservative are officially pro-Brexit and the proposed Labour Brexit deal would be nearly as devastating for the UK economy (were it also not completely unfeasible).

That said, you're right that the Labour Party position is the closest one to the one proposed by McHrozni because it offers a second referendum on the Brexit deal.

 

[Dave Rogers]

The nearest to it seems to be what LibDems are offering.

What the LibDems are offering is closest to what I personally would like - an end to the whole sorry affair - but I'm increasingly concerned that it would lead to even more deterioration in the public perception of democracy. Much though I disagree with the Brexiteers, we have to share a country with them, and everyone on the Remain side knows how unpleasant it is to be told "Shut up, the decision is made and your views are not only not wanted but you're forbidden even to have them," because that's more or less what Brexiteers have been saying to us for three years. I fear that simply revoking Article 50 would do no more than switch places.

Dave

 

[Darat]

Parliament were QUITE capable of reaching a decision on EU membership prior to the referendum. It's only since the 'clear and simple' question was asked that there has been any problem deciding on anything.



The problem was the right wing of the Tories and the idiot machines in the right wing press. That's why we had a referendum.

And it has only been the MPs that want to leave the EU that have prevented us leaving months ago, the likes of Johnson and Mogg.

 

[Darat]

How many MPs voted in favour of holding the referendum?

How many MPs voted in favour of triggering Article 50?

Yes, that's right. Overwhelming majorities in favour both times.

Which political parties stood on manifestoes of implementing the referendum result? Both the major ones did, though Labour have sort-of half U-turned since then.

Months of wasted time because professional politicians won't accept the clear result of the ballot box.

Yet you seemingly want to see those same politicians that stopped us leaving the EU (and of which many were in charge of the planning and negotiations to leave) back in charge again.

 

[McHrozni]

The LibDems are not offering that at all.
They will revoke.

Labour is the closest, because the highlighted bit is rather key. Indeed, the idea that it is in any way the same as the Tories is bizarre.

Both want a unicorn Brexit deal, Labour are just offering the public to choose between that and Bremain.

Since the unicorns still don't exist their position is marginally better. It would be significantly better but since a large portion of British electorate now pray for a no deal Brexit this dillutes any positive effects down deep.

McHrozni

 

[McHrozni]

What the LibDems are offering is closest to what I personally would like - an end to the whole sorry affair - but I'm increasingly concerned that it would lead to even more deterioration in the public perception of democracy. Much though I disagree with the Brexiteers, we have to share a country with them, and everyone on the Remain side knows how unpleasant it is to be told "Shut up, the decision is made and your views are not only not wanted but you're forbidden even to have them," because that's more or less what Brexiteers have been saying to us for three years. I fear that simply revoking Article 50 would do no more than switch places.

It's the closest to a solution because they're advocating votes for them to be votes for Bremain, first and foremost. It's not the ideal solution by any means.

McHrozni

 

[jimbob]

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

I'm reasonably certain the Guardian is neither pro-Tory nor a tabloid.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ferendum-is-between-its-brexit-deal-or-remain
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...s-pledge-to-stay-neutral-in-second-referendum

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. This is what LibDems and SNP (and Democrats in USA) are doing, but Labour and Tory became clownish populist parties both at once. Referendums don't (or shouldn't) ask the public what to do next. Referendums (should) ask whether the electorate is sufficiently persuaded to back this proposal.The Brexit referendum was used in the wrong way and is the base reason for three and a half years of agony without a solution in sight. Labour proposal is to renegotiate the deal again, as though their wishes were somehow realistic. They are not.



The reasonable course of action would be to take a stance of what kind of a Brexit they want to back and propose a realistic deal and campaign to have it approved in a referendum. If no realistic deal can be made they should say so and campaign for Bremain. The proposal "we'll negotiate something way, way better and then ask you whether you support it or not, while staying silent on our opinion" is a politician or a political party dodging the very essence of their job.

Labour proposal is better than what Tories offer but that's not an impressive bar to set.

McHrozni

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

Exactly. The only way to trump a referendum result is with a subsequent referendum result.

Thanks to May, the betrayal narrative is well-used by the nutjobs. The only way to defeat that is to have another referendum where remain wins decisively.

That would actually be the result if we manage to get a referendum.

 

[3point14]

Exactly. The only way to trump a referendum result is with a subsequent referendum result.

Thanks to May, the betrayal narrative is well-used by the nutjobs. The only way to defeat that is to have another referendum where remain wins decisively.

That would actually be the result if we manage to get a referendum.

We won't.
Boris will lie his way into No. 10. He will then leave the EU and sign contracts with US healthcare firms that cost the British Taxpayer a fortune and will last loooong beyond his term, crippling the NHS for so long it will hurt your great grandchildren.

He will then leave office, get paid a fortune by those who are going to profit from this and then spend the rest of his life agitating and denigrating any non-Tory government that is having to deal with his **** while fathering an unknown number of illegitimate children.



I'm so depressed.

 

[dudalb]

We won't.
Boris will lie his way into No. 10. He will then leave the EU and sign contracts with US healthcare firms that cost the British Taxpayer a fortune and will last loooong beyond his term, crippling the NHS for so long it will hurt your great grandchildren.

He will then leave office, get paid a fortune by those who are going to profit from this and then spend the rest of his life agitating and denigrating any non-Tory government that is having to deal with his **** while fathering an unknown number of illegitimate children.



I'm so depressed.

Depressed enough to admit that Labor seems to have blown it in this election? It should have been a slam dunk for them.

 

[catsmate]

There are many reasons behind people supporting Brexit. Jeremy Corbyn's reasons are very different to Nigel Farage.

IMO however, a combination of jingoism. xenophobia and harking back to the days of Empire when "Britain was great" is certainly a factor for a significant number of Brexit supporters.

The Imperial Delusion.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

The nearest to it seems to be what LibDems are offering. Labour are offering the exact same thing as the Tories, but with a referendum at the end.

McHrozni

No the Lib Dems can only ever really offer whatever the Tories or Labour are offering because they will never form a government.

Basically the Lib Dems can offer a people's vote on whatever the Tories negotiate or a people's vote on whatever Labour negotiate.

So I am struggling to see how you think the Lib Dem offering is better.

 

[catsmate]

You know, if anyone had said this during the Scottish independence referendum we'd have been pilloried as all sorts of evil racist blood-and-soil nationalist scum. Actually, even though that sort of rhetoric was conspicuous by its absence in 2014 a lot of the commentators decided just to say it was happening anyway.

It's quite instructive the way the Scottish campaign was rigorously policed to squash anything like that as being unacceptable (and yet we were accused of it anyway), and yet now it seems to be the absolutely unashamed face of the English Brexiteer.

This is an interesting, very valid and important point. There is certainly a noxious double-standard regarding tribalism the UK.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

we have to share a country with them,

So what? What are they going to do?

Moan about the EU and foreigners and remoaners? Welcome to the last 20 years.

You have a bunch of red-faced old racists, people who were too stupid to know what they were voting for and people who voted Leave for a laugh.

I really don't care what they think. Let them moan about us remaining in the UK till they turn blue. Let's face it leaving the EU isn't going to stop them moaning anyway. They will just find the next scapegoat (same as the old scapegoat - brown people) to blame their ills on.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Both want a unicorn Brexit deal, Labour are just offering the public to choose between that and Bremain.

Since the unicorns still don't exist their position is marginally better. It would be significantly better but since a large portion of British electorate now pray for a no deal Brexit this dillutes any positive effects down deep.

McHrozni

You are honestly not making any sense to me now.

It doesn't matter that they are saying they want to negotiate unicorns. They won't get unicorns. And so they will have to put a unicornless deal to the public with the option to remain.

Since the majority of the country wants to remain now anyway, remain wins.

No doubt some red-faced racists will have some strokes and heart attacks but that seems like a win-win.