Brexit Negotiations

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

inu-kun:
Snip

The problem here is that some people don't seem to get that Brexit is a dumb idea, and should not be brought up again because of that. It's like a rock band member being repeatedly asked if he wants to be on drugs. Yeah, some might do it, but if he's not in that way inclined and he thinks it's a dumb idea, table that forever because it's done.

Avnger:

Xsjadoblayde:

inu-kun:

Gotta love the number 1 choice in it.

Gotta love the snark from people who don't have to live with literally any of the fallout from this and couldn't care less about those who do.

It's all about saying "screw you" to those liberals. The fact that people, even themselves, might harmed by the actions taken doesn't even factor into the equation. See poorer Americans in red states who voted for Donald Trump as an example.

Its indeed rather hard to emphasize with people who willingly and perhaps deep down even knowingly vote for whats bad for others and themselves just because they have an axe to grind with the establishment.
But its worth remembering that almost half of the british voters wanted to remain in the EU and that populist voters with legitimate concerns do exist. We should condemn people who vote populist just to stick it to the establishment but things start getting more legitimate when a voter is working in a field under threat by immigration. I think those groups are worth feeling sorry for at least.

inu-kun:

The thing that I find annoying is that it's damn obvious if the Remain camp will win any talks about doing another Brexit referendum will be taken as heresy.

...Can you reword this into something more coherent?

inu-kun:

But then you need to give make another poll in another 2 years if to do Brexit again. The thing that I find annoying is that it's damn obvious if the Remain camp will win any talks about doing another Brexit referendum will be taken as heresy. Maybe doing the best out 3 is better.

It's not "If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy." but rather "If a democracy will not allow results until they get what is desired by a single camp then it's not a democracy".

Do you think that the outcome is an accurate and trustworthy reflection of what the voters wanted?

How many people voted on the basis of the campaign promise of an additional ?350 million a week, or a major infusion of cash for the NHS? Those were major campaigning platforms, endorsed by the Foreign Secretary. It took less than a week after the polls had closed for the Leave campaign to disown that figure, and to admit that no additional money would go to the NHS.

If the reason for your vote is disowned by the very people who gave it as soon as the poll has closed, then the legitimacy starts to look a bit shaky, no? How democratic is a referendum in which lying is common practise?

Other people voted for Brexit, but not the terms. Some people had been promised-- by Daniel Hannon, for instance-- that the UK could remain a full member of the single market while simultaneously ending freedom of movement. This was factually untrue, and was also disowned by the Leave campaign once the poll had closed. Are these voters being served by the current Conservative Party platform? The terms of leaving were never voted on, but now the Government is pursuing the most extreme terms they can.

Silvanus:

inu-kun:

But then you need to give make another poll in another 2 years if to do Brexit again. The thing that I find annoying is that it's damn obvious if the Remain camp will win any talks about doing another Brexit referendum will be taken as heresy. Maybe doing the best out 3 is better.

It's not "If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy." but rather "If a democracy will not allow results until they get what is desired by a single camp then it's not a democracy".

Do you think that the outcome is an accurate and trustworthy reflection of what the voters wanted?

How many people voted on the basis of the campaign promise of an additional ?350 million a week, or a major infusion of cash for the NHS? Those were major campaigning platforms, endorsed by the Foreign Secretary. It took less than a week after the polls had closed for the Leave campaign to disown that figure, and to admit that no additional money would go to the NHS.

If the reason for your vote is disowned by the very people who gave it as soon as the poll has closed, then the legitimacy starts to look a bit shaky, no? How democratic is a referendum in which lying is common practise?

Other people voted for Brexit, but not the terms. Some people had been promised-- by Daniel Hannon, for instance-- that the UK could remain a full member of the single market while simultaneously ending freedom of movement. This was factually untrue, and was also disowned by the Leave campaign once the poll had closed. Are these voters being served by the current Conservative Party platform? The terms of leaving were never voted on, but now the Government is pursuing the most extreme terms they can.

Then why do it only for Brexit? Let's have general elections every year in case we find what the parties promised during the election didn't come into fruition.

And sorry, but the "they lied" argument doesn't work when is said by people who were against the idea in the first place. That's like if a year into Obama's first term someone said who didn't vote for him demands to do re election based on this:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-broken/

Ninjamedic:

inu-kun:

The thing that I find annoying is that it's damn obvious if the Remain camp will win any talks about doing another Brexit referendum will be taken as heresy.

...Can you reword this into something more coherent?

If it was subjected to the remain camp they would have infinite Brexit polls until they won and then forbid any other Brexit poll from ever existing.

They should do a poll every one or two years about Brexit until the current one agrees with the previous and make that result final until a large enough petition asks for another referendum. Or! Make it 0-15-30-40-Game where "game" only counts if you win by more than one score (have advantage), like Tennis. Currently, Brexit is at 15-love against Remain. So if remain wins four of the next five, remain wins, but if they lose three of the next five, then brexit wins. And if they win three and lose two, then we're at deuce.

Catnip1024:
And it removes any possible inclination the EU would have to negotiate earnestly and in good faith. And they would probably still fuck it up and act like such arrogant bellends that we would leave out of spite. See Juncker.

Right. So if Brexit is looking like a clusterfuck and as a nation opinions substantially turn against it, then we have to do it anyway? Is that sensible? Is that a fair reflection of public will?

It's not only that, but it's a better basis to vote. The initial referendum offered them the future of a known status quo or an almost totally unknown change. A second referendum can offer them a much better idea of what change actually is, to decide whether they truly want it. This is, after all, how laws are made conventionally. A bill is drafted, discussed, amended, and voted through to another chamber where it gets discussed and amended again, and perhaps bounced back and forth with more discussion and amendment, before it hits a final vote. We don't vote a few sentences of intention into an Act, and then post-hoc make up the detail of the law.

I made this analogy before: imagine the buses in your town are red. You have a poll to change the colour of the buses, and it passes 55-45. Two favourite choices are put forward for new bus colour, yellow and blue. Yellow wins the resultant second poll 60-40. But the people who prefer blue buses are split between preferring yellow or red. So we end up with a situation where 44% of the population are happy with the new bus colour and 56% wished it had never changed. In real life terms, look what happened when Aus or NZ voted on changing their flag: in both there was a majority desire to change the flag, but when given a specific alternative as replacement, they preferred the original.

And that's why it's better to have a vote when people have a decent idea what they're actually voting for.

inu-kun:
But then you need to give make another poll in another 2 years...

No, we don't.

Firstly, there is no reason to call a referendum without a specific and compelling circumstance or public appetite for one (as Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP found out). Secondly, there is no reason that the government cannot devise a more sensible system to weigh up leaving the EU (or any other decision of such magnitude) with one or more "all-or-nothing" referenda.

* * *

I do totally get the fear of hardcore Brexiters though. They never expected to win, they know their leave representatives told a ton of lies, and they lucked out on circumstances of the EU migration crisis (now greatly eased) and post-crash austerity causing additional heavy dissatisfaction at the time. This started them with a air of insecurity over the result, and that insecurity is only growing as they look at the rolling back of Brexit "promises", the shambolic handling of negotiationg and the growing sense of unease amongst the population at what it has really got itself into.

Brexit... we have two years of our politicians fighting each other and not working together to get something to cheer about.

GET IT TOGETHER YOU KNOBS!!!

inu-kun:

Then why do it only for Brexit? Let's have general elections every year in case we find what the parties promised during the election didn't come into fruition.

Maybe not that exactly, but why not something like that? When I think about what liberal politics means to me, it includes a (very) high premium on transparency and accountability.

Consequently, I feel compelled to question whether the opportunity to vote every five years just to pick a temporary dictatorship (that wins on the basis of a few policies despite potentially having lots of other deeply unpopular ones it also gets to ram up our arses whether we like it or not) is really the non plus ultra of accountability in representative democracy. Congratulations, your shower of shit was had less of a stench than the other guys: how about you run the country? I wonder whether our delightful national leaders are using their democratic mandate to serve we the people or their wealthy lobbyist and donor chums. And perhaps a little more democratic responsiveness might go some way to focusing attention away from who they're hob-nobbing with in exclusive golf clubs and executive suites back to us schlubs.

Agema:
I made this analogy before: imagine the buses in your town are red. You have a poll to change the colour of the buses, and it passes 55-45. Two favourite choices are put forward for new bus colour, yellow and blue. Yellow wins the resultant second poll 60-40. But the people who prefer blue buses are split between preferring yellow or red. So we end up with a situation where 44% of the population are happy with the new bus colour and 56% wished it had never changed. In real life terms, look what happened when Aus or NZ voted on changing their flag: in both there was a majority desire to change the flag, but when given a specific alternative as replacement, they preferred the original.

And that's why it's better to have a vote when people have a decent idea what they're actually voting for.

I think you're starting with a faulty premise here. The right-wingers advocating for Brexit both at the time and especially now have shown absolutely nothing to prove that they want the electorate to be knowledgeable; in fact, time and time again they have shown the exact opposite. The entire leave campaign was run on nothing but lies[1], misleading statements[2], and fear-mongering[3].

[1] Staying entirely in the common market while leaving the free movement zone
[2] Pretending Great Britain pays hundreds of millions into the EU while receiving no money in return
[3] Evil immigrants coming to take jobs/welfare/etc while committing tons of crimes in the process

inu-kun:

Then why do it only for Brexit? Let's have general elections every year in case we find what the parties promised during the election didn't come into fruition.

We do have more than one general election, though. We have one every five years, meaning that people can change their minds about who will govern them.

The structure of general election is designed in recognition that a single election is not enough. That supports my point. Were general elections treated like the Brexit referendum, we would have just the one, and then be stuck with the outcome forever.

inu-kun:

And sorry, but the "they lied" argument doesn't work when is said by people who were against the idea in the first place. That's like if a year into Obama's first term someone said who didn't vote for him demands to do re election based on this:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/rulings/promise-broken/

It sounds as if you're saying I don't get to argue about issues of democratic mandate, if I voted on the losing side. I shouldn't need to point out the disturbing implications of such a stance. The legitimacy of the argument does not rest on how I personally voted.

inu-kun:

If it was subjected to the remain camp they would have infinite Brexit polls until they won and then forbid any other Brexit poll from ever existing.

That's exactly what the leave side is trying to pull though, not content with banging on about leaving the Eurozone since they first joined back in 1974, they want to declare permanent victory and ignore all possible opposition, even though they have given nothing in the way of direction or vision since the campaign began.

Ask yourself this, don't you think the Leavers should have at least any level of planning put into how they were going to handle the EU negotiations, how to safeguard the British Economy, what changes will need to be made going forward or any of the hundreds of cans of worms the referendum opened?

Agema:
Right. So if Brexit is looking like a clusterfuck and as a nation opinions substantially turn against it, then we have to do it anyway? Is that sensible? Is that a fair reflection of public will?

It's not only that, but it's a better basis to vote. The initial referendum offered them the future of a known status quo or an almost totally unknown change. A second referendum can offer them a much better idea of what change actually is, to decide whether they truly want it. This is, after all, how laws are made conventionally. A bill is drafted, discussed, amended, and voted through to another chamber where it gets discussed and amended again, and perhaps bounced back and forth with more discussion and amendment, before it hits a final vote. We don't vote a few sentences of intention into an Act, and then post-hoc make up the detail of the law.

I made this analogy before: imagine the buses in your town are red. You have a poll to change the colour of the buses, and it passes 55-45. Two favourite choices are put forward for new bus colour, yellow and blue. Yellow wins the resultant second poll 60-40. But the people who prefer blue buses are split between preferring yellow or red. So we end up with a situation where 44% of the population are happy with the new bus colour and 56% wished it had never changed. In real life terms, look what happened when Aus or NZ voted on changing their flag: in both there was a majority desire to change the flag, but when given a specific alternative as replacement, they preferred the original.

And that's why it's better to have a vote when people have a decent idea what they're actually voting for.

People didn't know what staying in would mean either, but I didn't see prolonged discussions around that as power was centralised towards Europe. People never got to vote on the terms of that, as the EU expanded more rapidly than was sensible and got into the Greece situation.

It's funny how these issues only ever get brought up when it's the other side that wins. If Remain had won, I would have been irked, I would have felt that certain government actions in the run-up to the vote were unfair and borderline undemocratic (spending their own money to get around campaign spending rules, considering the head of the government ran the remain campaign), but I would have accepted the ultimate decision as the will of the people. And would have gone back to happily bitching about Europe's obsessive drive for centralisation.

Avnger:

I think you're starting with a faulty premise here. The right-wingers advocating for Brexit both at the time and especially now have shown absolutely nothing to prove that they want the electorate to be knowledgeable; in fact, time and time again they have shown the exact opposite.

That's not the issue; the fanatical Brexiters undoubtedly only do have one view - but they are a minority. The question is whether they get to demand the referendum is a fait accompli even if leaving the EU ends up a minority position and damaging for the country because many non-fanatics who voted Brexit change their mind.

Catnip1024:
People didn't know what staying in would mean either,

That's a ludicrous comparison.

The future is inherently unknown, but continuation of the status quo and the long-running discussions on where the EU should go provide a much more predictable set of possibilities. Leaving the EU involves a vastly larger range of uncertainties (e.g. hard or soft Brexit). The countless problems that have cropped up (e.g. Ireland border, Euratom, etc.) also clearly indicate the vast number of issues not even thought about.

but I didn't see prolonged discussions around that as power was centralised towards Europe.

That's odd, because it's been a virtually non-stop matter of controversy and debate for about 30 years in both politics and media. There have been whole treaty negotiations wrangling over that sort of thing.

People never got to vote on the terms of that

Until the referendum, the people have had as much voting power over the country's stance on the EU as they have had on taxation, the NHS, welfare, defence spending / military action, etc. If they never got to vote on the EU, then by the same logic they've never got to vote on any policy of government. You cannot reasonably claim the government's democratic mandate to run the country magically doesn't count on EU negotiations and treaties but does everywhere else.

, as the EU expanded more rapidly than was sensible and got into the Greece situation.

No, the Greece situation happened because of the Eurozone (and fraud), not EU expansion.

It's funny how these issues only ever get brought up when it's the other side that wins. If Remain had won, I would have been irked, I would have felt that certain government actions in the run-up to the vote were unfair and borderline undemocratic (spending their own money to get around campaign spending rules, considering the head of the government ran the remain campaign), but I would have accepted the ultimate decision as the will of the people. And would have gone back to happily bitching about Europe's obsessive drive for centralisation.

No-one's doubting the will of the people.

They're saying the will of the people as expressed on one particular day in mid-2016 doesn't have to be an inviolable decision. If enough of the people of Britain feel another referendum is important or desirable, there's nothing kind to be said about the democratic sentiments of people who would prevent them.

Agema:
The countless problems that have cropped up (e.g. Ireland border, Euratom, etc.) also clearly indicate the vast number of issues not even thought about.

Well, that should have been pointed out while campaigning, rather than being used as an excuse afterwards. I'm pretty sure the Irish were aware they had a border, and I'm pretty sure the Euratom chappies were a little edgy at the time.

That's odd, because it's been a virtually non-stop matter of controversy and debate for about 30 years in both politics and media. There have been whole treaty negotiations wrangling over that sort of thing.

But no popular vote. The overwhelming consensus has presented flavours of one side of the issue. The rising vote for a single issue party reflected the problem with that.

Until the referendum, the people have had as much voting power over the country's stance on the EU as they have had on taxation, the NHS, welfare, defence spending / military action, etc. If they never got to vote on the EU, then by the same logic they've never got to vote on any policy of government. You cannot reasonably claim the government's democratic mandate to run the country magically doesn't count on EU negotiations and treaties but does everywhere else.

Ah, so you accept that the government has a mandate to run the country? Therefore, following the advisory referendum, they have the mandate to implement that as they see fit?

No, the Greece situation happened because of the Eurozone (and fraud), not EU expansion.

The EU insists that new members at least plan to adopt the Euro. Which leads to this problem - if Greece stuck with the Drachma and joined, it's currency would have devalued, potentially allowing the economy to stabilise. Fraud is also a part of it, but the EU should have checked the books of a country that has defaulted numerous times in the last century a bit more carefully.

They're saying the will of the people as expressed on one particular day in mid-2016 doesn't have to be an inviolable decision.

Oh, okay. So which day suits you then? Because the world changes, and that excuse will hold valid for any single day you happen to choose.

Or are we going to go for that wonderfully moral line of argument where you are going to hope that enough people die by the next vote that it swings the other way?

Catnip1024:
Ah, so you accept that the government has a mandate to run the country? Therefore, following the advisory referendum, they have the mandate to implement that as they see fit?

Parliament is sovereign in UK, not the government. This is not a plebiscite democracy. Theresa May does not get to rule as a dictator because her party won the most seats in a general election. In our system, changes in the law must be approved by parliament. It's an important distinction, given the various attempts by Theresa May's government to subvert parliamentary democracy in order to give the government more powers than its mandate actually allows, which is for obvious reasons extremely anti-democratic.

Catnip1024:
Or are we going to go for that wonderfully moral line of argument where you are going to hope that enough people die by the next vote that it swings the other way?

You mean, kind of like that wonderfully moral line of argument where you hoped that not enough people were old enough to vote in the last vote because it increased the chance of you getting what you want, or do you see how ridiculous that allegation is? The demographics of the voting population change, this is normal.

Besides, it's more likely that some of the people who voted for Brexit have realised, at this point, that they have been lied to and mislead. The people who ran the campaign have acknowledged that they would not have won had they not promised millions would go to the NHS. Now, several of those same people have voted against a proposed amendment which would require them to fulfil those promises. People are not completely ignorant of what is going on.. and it strikes me as somewhat insulting to the character of our democracy if you genuinely believe that the majority of the British voting public are so ignorant that they have not yet realised what has happened here..

Catnip1024:

Or are we going to go for that wonderfully moral line of argument where you are going to hope that enough people die by the next vote that it swings the other way?

Gotta reach for that moral high ground eh?

Catnip1024:
Well, that should have been pointed out while campaigning, rather than being used as an excuse afterwards. I'm pretty sure the Irish were aware they had a border, and I'm pretty sure the Euratom chappies were a little edgy at the time.

But they weren't pointed out. Largely because no-one really thought about it, and this is a large part of explaining why Brexit is a far larger unknown than remain - which, as we are likely to find, a fair number of Brexit voters will end disappointed by.

But no popular vote. The overwhelming consensus has presented flavours of one side of the issue. The rising vote for a single issue party reflected the problem with that.

You're right - given the magnitude and contentiousness of the issue, a referendum was a reasonable way to approach the problem. But that's from about 2010 onwards. You can hardly complain about the government signing EU integration treaties up to then when opposition was far, far lower.

Ah, so you accept that the government has a mandate to run the country? Therefore, following the advisory referendum, they have the mandate to implement that as they see fit?

No. A government having a mandate is not the same thing as being able to do whatever they please or that the mandate has infinite remit.

The EU insists that new members at least plan to adopt the Euro. Which leads to this problem - if Greece stuck with the Drachma and joined,

FFS man. Greece joined the EEC in ~1980, nearly 20 years before the Euro.

it's currency would have devalued, potentially allowing the economy to stabilise. Fraud is also a part of it, but the EU should have checked the books of a country that has defaulted numerous times in the last century a bit more carefully.

Actually, Greece had not defaulted since the Great Depression, and all other defaults prior were 19th century. Whilst hardly a model of fiscal reliability, Greece's record was by no means terrible either.

Nor can the EU reasonably be expected to account for a country paying world class financial whizzes (Goldman Sachs in this case - although who else) to devise schemes deliberately designed to hide its debt. Never mind that it's pretty unusual for a government to kind of decide to do something that bizarre and reckless.

Oh, okay. So which day suits you then? Because the world changes, and that excuse will hold valid for any single day you happen to choose.

Or are we going to go for that wonderfully moral line of argument where you are going to hope that enough people die by the next vote that it swings the other way?

Don't pull that moral shit with me. How do you feel about the morality of forcing Brexit should a substantial chunk of leave voters come to feel they made the wrong decision because they were lied to and misled? It's clearly never going to cost you any sleep, given the way you're arguing.

I have no problems whatsoever with the political equivalent of an "Are you sure you want to delete this file Y/N" warning. In fact, could do worse than making them mandatory for any referendum vote with a margin under 55-45.

Ideally, I'd favour a more elegant solution that looked an extended time frame and thus minimised noise, if there were one practical, because I think all-or-nothing referenda (especially without clear, binary outcomes) are usually a chuffing stupid way to run a country.

Catnip1024:
I'm pretty sure the Irish were aware they had a border, and I'm pretty sure the Euratom chappies were a little edgy at the time.

You really don't get the situation in the north if you think you can just handwave it away like that. Then again, why am I not surprised? The alternative would to be concede the remainers may just have a point or two, and we can't be having that can we?

EDIT: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/19/boris-johnson-will-resign-weekend-theresa-may-goes-against-brexit/

No wonder Iannucci thought another Think Of It series would be pointless.

evilthecat:
You mean, kind of like that wonderfully moral line of argument where you hoped that not enough people were old enough to vote in the last vote because it increased the chance of you getting what you want, or do you see how ridiculous that allegation is? The demographics of the voting population change, this is normal.

My point is that normally people don't argue that they stand a better chance of winning now because people have died since. As well as being inaccurate, it's rather impolite.

And to be honest, idgaf about schoolkids getting the vote. That's a topic for an entirely different thread, but my position is that they are too young to have well-based opinions.

Ninjamedic:
Gotta reach for that moral high ground eh?

Well, given I'm not actively wishing for people to die, it's not much of a reach compared to some. Since I'm respecting the outcome of a vote rather than coming up with bullshit whiny excuses as to why it shouldn't have counted.

Ninjamedic:
You really don't get the situation in the north if you think you can just handwave it away like that. Then again, why am I not surprised? The alternative would to be concede the remainers may just have a point or two, and we can't be having that can we?

That's not the alternative at all. My point is that this issue should have been discussed at the time and not afterwards. If this was not discussed properly at the time, that is on the remain side as much as it is on the leave side. Otherwise your "point" is being scored after the match is over.

Why are you not surprised? Probably because you completely misinterpreted what was written to suit yourself. Ah, well...

Agema:
Don't pull that moral shit with me. How do you feel about the morality of forcing Brexit should a substantial chunk of leave voters come to feel they made the wrong decision because they were lied to and misled? It's clearly never going to cost you any sleep, given the way you're arguing.

I have no problems whatsoever with the political equivalent of an "Are you sure you want to delete this file Y/N" warning. In fact, could do worse than making them mandatory for any referendum vote with a margin under 55-45.

Ideally, I'd favour a more elegant solution that looked an extended time frame and thus minimised noise, if there were one practical, because I think all-or-nothing referenda (especially without clear, binary outcomes) are usually a chuffing stupid way to run a country.

Your argument comes down to wanting to shift the goalposts to avoid an outcome you personally disagree with. A simple majority didn't suit your purposes, so now you want a re-run, a different set of conditions to put the scales further in your favour, and to incentivise the EU to negotiate in bad faith just to weigh towards convincing people to not accept the deal in the follow-up referendum.

These were my original points, pretty much, but nothing you have said has persuaded me they are no longer valid.

I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. I'm happy with the functioning of the democratic process. Fictional people regretting their vote are no concern of mine.

Catnip1024:
Your argument comes down to wanting to shift the goalposts to avoid an outcome you personally disagree with. A simple majority didn't suit your purposes, so now you want a re-run, a different set of conditions to put the scales further in your favour, and to incentivise the EU to negotiate in bad faith just to weigh towards convincing people to not accept the deal in the follow-up referendum.

I could not be less interested in your paranoid fantasies about me and the EU. But thanks for letting me know you have no interest in discussing concepts of good process and governance, because you can't think beyond that people you disagree with must be operating in bad faith.

As much as I do not care for Varadkar's internal policies of the current FG line, I'm really hoping he puts the boot into the UK for their shenanigans and playing fast and loose with NI.

Catnip1024:
Well, given I'm not actively wishing for people to die, it's not much of a reach compared to some.

Good for you I guess, I'm not entirely sure how this is relevant to any of the points currently being discussed.

Since I'm respecting the outcome of a vote rather than coming up with bullshit whiny excuses as to why it shouldn't have counted.

Yes, because 15 months passing since a referendum where one side put no definition or elaboration into the biggest policy change in the UK possibly since the end of The Second World War with a 24 month deadline really is just nothing to be concerned over or warranting of any form of opposition or criticism. It's all just whining.

You know what? I'm stopping here, this really is pointless. You'll just continue to pontificate about the that dastardly EU or how any point against the Brexit campaign is just impotent whining. You're revision of the GFA concerns from the remain side into being non-existant is just another brick wall to any possible discussion.

Agema:
I could not be less interested in your paranoid fantasies about me and the EU. But thanks for letting me know you have no interest in discussing concepts of good process and governance, because you can't think beyond that people you disagree with must be operating in bad faith.

We've been over the governance issues in other threads. The EU has some significant issues. The UK has some significant issues. We ain't going to get anywhere.

It's not paranoia, it's general disdain at modern politics. I dislike people demanding re-run after re-run with no time lapse. I dislike the SNP for wanting another referendum so soon, I dislike the Remain campaign for wanting another referendum before we've even tried negotiating properly. I would have disliked Farage angling for another referendum until a good decade or so had passed, had the result been the other way.

But you are right, we aren't going to get anywhere with this.

Ninjamedic:
You're revision of the GFA concerns from the remain side into being non-existant is just another brick wall to any possible discussion.

???

Catnip1024:

Agema:
The countless problems that have cropped up (e.g. Ireland border, Euratom, etc.) also clearly indicate the vast number of issues not even thought about.

Well, that should have been pointed out while campaigning, rather than being used as an excuse afterwards. I'm pretty sure the Irish were aware they had a border, and I'm pretty sure the Euratom chappies were a little edgy at the time.

Learn to read. I'm not saying the Northern Ireland issue isn't significant, I'm saying you raise the issue at the time rather than whining about it afterwards. As the Remain campaign, I mean. It's a serious issue. And should have featured more heavily in the debate. But they were too busy giving Patrick Stewart cameo appearances...

Catnip1024:
It's not paranoia, it's general disdain at modern politics.

Don't you get that's the same reason I feel strongly about the integrity of process and quality of decision-making in politics?

I don't think you get just how deeply I feel about quality of information in political debate. A fundamental of liberal society and our ability to be free is the exercise of responsibility and ability to make good choices. But that is dependent on a system whereby we are provided with good and fair information to make a good choice. If I'm misled on a purchase or other forms of contract, for instance, I have the right of return or redress. I do not accept an absurd free-for-all where it is acceptable for media or politicians to say anything they please and trick people into believing what isn't true; and I think it leads to colossal distrust and disgust with the political system because in the end, people notice.

The referendum and last general election showed considerable contempt for the spirit of the law, with rampant use of loopholes to bypass spending limits and other shenanigans. Where breaches of the letter of the law have occurred, the punishment is trivial - cheating to win an election isn't just cheap at the price, there's barely a price at all. Hence why Arron Banks said "I don't give a monkey's what the Electoral Commission says". Many conventional politicians wouldn't admit that because of how it would seem, but that they're neck deep in such schemes show they agree with him. But isn't there something deeply wrong with our political process run as a free-for-all cheatathon?

In terms of "on the day" votes, they are simply a bad way to make huge decisions. Imagine for instance the here on climate change. One can notice the yearly variation, and the rolling average in the red line. Individual years can be far, far away from the general trend and are terrible ways to assess the overall picture. Imagine you decided to use ~1878 (the big spike) as representative for the temperature 1860-1900. And this is what referenda can do - determine decades of policy at an instant that is potentially unrepresentative of the broader picture, and that gets ever more problematic at ever closer margins.

Now, moving tack slightly, were I suggesting the elites should foist another referendum on us whether we like it or not, you might have more of a point. But I am saying that if democracy means anything, then the people must have the right to countermand their own decision if they wish. That could be done by several democratically viable mechanisms. But a popular demand for a new referendum is one - and so there should be no shame in being prepared to campaign for one for those interested.

Agema:
Don't you get that's the same reason I feel strongly about the integrity of process and quality of decision-making in politics?

I don't think you get just how deeply I feel about quality of information in political debate. A fundamental of liberal society and our ability to be free is the exercise of responsibility and ability to make good choices. But that is dependent on a system whereby we are provided with good and fair information to make a good choice. If I'm misled on a purchase or other forms of contract, for instance, I have the right of return or redress. I do not accept an absurd free-for-all where it is acceptable for media or politicians to say anything they please and trick people into believing what isn't true; and I think it leads to colossal distrust and disgust with the political system because in the end, people notice.

The problem is, there was no neutral coverage in the run-up to the referendum, and there has been no real neutral coverage since. The system does need reform, but ignoring the results of the system because it needs reforming is creating more problems.

The referendum and last general election showed considerable contempt for the spirit of the law, with rampant use of loopholes to bypass spending limits and other shenanigans. Where breaches of the letter of the law have occurred, the punishment is trivial - cheating to win an election isn't just cheap at the price, there's barely a price at all. Hence why Arron Banks said "I don?t give a monkey?s what the Electoral Commission says". Many conventional politicians wouldn't admit that because of how it would seem, but that they're neck deep in such schemes show they agree with him. But isn't there something deeply wrong with our political process run as a free-for-all cheatathon?

Again, both sides were shit and breached rules. But since they all do it, nobody will hold anyone to account.

In terms of "on the day" votes, they are simply a bad way to make huge decisions. Imagine for instance the here on climate change. One can notice the yearly variation, and the rolling average in the red line. Individual years can be far, far away from the general trend and are terrible ways to assess the overall picture. Imagine you decided to use ~1878 (the big spike) as representative for the temperature 1860-1900. And this is what referenda can do - determine decades of policy at an instant that is potentially unrepresentative of the broader picture, and that gets ever more problematic at ever closer margins.

Which is a valid general point, but not really representative of this situation. Anti-EU sentiment was growing. Putting a referendum off another 5 years would likely have made the whole UKIP thing more of an issue, and could well have seen them in a government coalition.

Now, moving tack slightly, were I suggesting the elites should foist another referendum on us whether we like it or not, you might have more of a point. But I am saying that if democracy means anything, then the people must have the right to countermand their own decision if they wish. That could be done by several democratically viable mechanisms. But a popular demand for a new referendum is one - and so there should be no shame in being prepared to campaign for one for those interested.

From what I have seen, there is no desire to have another referendum. The only people talking about this are politicians from the losing side. The polls I have seen indicate that people just want this thing to be dealt with.

Catnip1024:

I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. I'm happy with the functioning of the democratic process. Fictional people regretting their vote are no concern of mine.

Fictional people, right. Am I to understand you believe only an insignificant number were swayed by the promise of ?350 million, or for other large sums for the NHS? Or by the promise that we could remain in the single market while ending freedom of movement?

People who voted found out, fewer than five days later, that many of the primary pledges of the campaign were outright fabrications. Am I to believe that these pledges played no big part in the decision-making process, and that the outcome would have been the same? How can I trust such a colossal assumption?

Catnip1024:
From what I have seen, there is no desire to have another referendum. The only people talking about this are politicians from the losing side. The polls I have seen indicate that people just want this thing to be dealt with.

Well, them and a third of the population.

Catnip1024:
The problem is, there was no neutral coverage in the run-up to the referendum, and there has been no real neutral coverage since. The system does need reform, but ignoring the results of the system because it needs reforming is creating more problems.

"Neutral" coverage is not so much the problem as a media and political class that appear to treat public information with outright contempt, where lying and knowlingly misleading is all okay as long as they get the result they want. By all means push a point of view, but at least keep it within reasonable limits.

Actually, overturning or re-running the results of a fraudulent or broken system is exactly what needs to be done, just like if someone lies about a product they sell you, you have a right of return or other compensation. Without some form of penalty or redress, what motivation exists to make any improvements? What does anyone think they're really saying when they argue "it's be nice if there were change, but let's not stop them getting away with it".

Again, both sides were shit and breached rules. But since they all do it, nobody will hold anyone to account.

Yes, but shouldn't we be agitating to do something about it, not just metaphorically shrugging? Half the problem with politics is that people sit around dreaming of the idea that morally upright people will just happen to arrive and do the right thing despite a system that offers little in the way of stick or carrot to do the right thing. The job is to install systems and institutions that do have sticks and carrots, and they must come from public pressure rather than public apathy.

Which is a valid general point, but not really representative of this situation. Anti-EU sentiment was growing. Putting a referendum off another 5 years would likely have made the whole UKIP thing more of an issue, and could well have seen them in a government coalition.

If it did, then so be it. I have no problems whatsoever with acceding to a Brexit passed by a (preferably) substantial margin from a fairly run campaign where everyone knows at least reasonably well what they're getting.

From what I have seen, there is no desire to have another referendum.

About a third of the country and rising.

Which is the point of persuading people that there is value in another referendum. You're not and never will be interested - you want to be shot of the EU at any cost and fair enough. But there are potential millions who might be interested in revisiting it, particularly if they end up staring at two Brexit scenarios (deal or no deal) they don't like the look of.

If enough of the public decide that the Brexit decision needs revisiting, if you want them denied, it will be you standing against democracy.

Personally I think we as a country need to work towards getting the best possible deal we can rather than fighting amongst ourselves trying to get a second referendum now. I think when we've got as good a exit deal we can get, then we take it back to the British public and say to them, this is what we'll be like after Brexit, we'll have this relationship with the EU, we've got these trade deals lined up with these other countries, do you want to go ahead with this and let the people decide if they've made a good enough deal.

Unfortunately I think I'm being too optimistic there and we wont get anything like that, we'll get whatever the government can scrounge and like it.

Define a good Brexit deal that's realistic, will be largely accepted by the public, won't result in the fall of the government, and won't result in defunding of the Tory party by their own donors.

I see a lot of talk of the Brits holding a second referendum to see if they really want to leave. I'm not entirely convinced it is in the EU's best interest to allow such a way back. On the one hand, the Brits pay more to the EU than they receive so they are financially speaking an asset and the trade benefits of having them is also nice. Another reason for keeping the Brits in is that it would currently be the easiest way to prevent all kinds of Northern Irish nastyness. On the other hand, the institutional functioning of the EU requires a lot of consensus or near consensus and having a big europskeptic country with veto powers permanently in there is not very helpful. In some area's, like privacy concerns that affect me I am only glad to have the British out of that conversation.

warmachine:
Define a good Brexit deal that's realistic, will be largely accepted by the public, won't result in the fall of the government, and won't result in defunding of the Tory party by their own donors.

There isn't one. This is what happens when you let the lunatics take control of the asylum; the Tories backed themselves into a corner where they either do what's best for the country (x)or they do what their rabid base and donors want. God forbid the Tories put country before party and fall on their sword for the gigantic clusterfuck they unleashed in order to somewhat mitigate it.

Avnger:

warmachine:
Define a good Brexit deal that's realistic, will be largely accepted by the public, won't result in the fall of the government, and won't result in defunding of the Tory party by their own donors.

There isn't one. This is what happens when you let the lunatics take control of the asylum; the Tories backed themselves into a corner where they either do what's best for the country (x)or they do what their rabid base and donors want. God forbid the Tories put country before party and fall on their sword for the gigantic clusterfuck they unleashed in order to somewhat mitigate it.

In that case, the best possible deal that we, as a country, need to work towards has to drop at least one of the four criteria I defined. The first, realistic, can't be dropped. The third, government doesn't fall, must stay otherwise the government can't see it through. Fourth, Tory party not losing its donors, must stay otherwise Tory party grandees would remove May to stop it. That leaves dropping the second, largely accepted by the public.

That is, Bobular wants the country to work towards the best Brexit deal that the majority of the public won't like. That's politics for you. As the DUP won't accept customs border with the RoI or the UK, we're stuck with customs union with the EU. As Tory party donors want single market access and little immigration control, we're stuck with that.

We, as a country, must work towards a Brexit deal with customs union with the EU, single market access and little immigration control and sod the public.

Agema:
Actually, overturning or re-running the results of a fraudulent or broken system is exactly what needs to be done, just like if someone lies about a product they sell you, you have a right of return or other compensation. Without some form of penalty or redress, what motivation exists to make any improvements? What does anyone think they're really saying when they argue "it's be nice if there were change, but let's not stop them getting away with it".

If both sides are breaking rules, that's not an appropriate response. Because the status quo is what one side wants. The time to deal with this would have been in the run-up to the referendum, because any attempt to call a rerun over foul play afterwards smacks of poor losership, whichever way the result went.

About a third of the country and rising.

Which is the point of persuading people that there is value in another referendum. You're not and never will be interested - you want to be shot of the EU at any cost and fair enough. But there are potential millions who might be interested in revisiting it, particularly if they end up staring at two Brexit scenarios (deal or no deal) they don't like the look of.

If enough of the public decide that the Brexit decision needs revisiting, if you want them denied, it will be you standing against democracy.

So still less than the portion that wanted remain in the first place. That's pretty much the figure I have been seeing throughout, so there has been no surge in support.

If there is clear evidence of heavy support for wanting a re-referendum, I would suggest we should have a referendum on whether we want a referendum on the final deal. It's the only democratic way...

warmachine:

Avnger:

warmachine:
Define a good Brexit deal that's realistic, will be largely accepted by the public, won't result in the fall of the government, and won't result in defunding of the Tory party by their own donors.

There isn't one. This is what happens when you let the lunatics take control of the asylum; the Tories backed themselves into a corner where they either do what's best for the country (x)or they do what their rabid base and donors want. God forbid the Tories put country before party and fall on their sword for the gigantic clusterfuck they unleashed in order to somewhat mitigate it.

In that case, the best possible deal that we, as a country, need to work towards has to drop at least one of the four criteria I defined. The first, realistic, can't be dropped. The third, government doesn't fall, must stay otherwise the government can't see it through. Fourth, Tory party not losing its donors, must stay otherwise Tory party grandees would remove May to stop it. That leaves dropping the second, largely accepted by the public.

That is, Bobular wants the country to work towards the best Brexit deal that the majority of the public won't like. That's politics for you. As the DUP won't accept customs border with the RoI or the UK, we're stuck with customs union with the EU. As Tory party donors want single market access and little immigration control, we're stuck with that.

We, as a country, must work towards a Brexit deal with customs union with the EU, single market access and little immigration control and sod the public.

Your post right here pretty much ran through the exact same process that will probably take the party months (even with the clock already ticking) to follow, if they don't throw up their arms shouting "fuck you" to both the EU and the entirety of Britain and go for a "hard Brexit" to try and save face.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here