EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[DynamicSpirit]

A second vote would still be to leave, providing the ridiculous idea of a 3 option poll as pushed by the ridiculous "People's Vote" lot is laughed away.

Why would 3 options in a poll be ridiculous? There clearly are three very different potential paths we can take: Stay, leave with deal, and leave without deal. (Arguably 4 different potential paths if you include EFTA membership). If there are several very distinct options, then surely any referendum is meaningless unless you allow people to choose between those options.

To my mind, one of the (many) problems with the previous referendum is that it lumped two very different choices ('soft' Brexit and 'hard' Brexit) together as one choice, making it impossible for voters to distinguish between them.

More important is the awful precedent a second vote would introduce.

I am somewhat sympathetic to this argument. Much as many of us feel the first referendum was flawed, the Government did make certain commitments about what it would do based on the referendum results, and it looks pretty bad if those commitments aren't followed through. But on the other hand, you could argue that the Government has actually done a huge amount (albeit often in an incompetent manner) to seek to honour that referendum. If the result of all those efforts is that it concludes it can't deliver Brexit in a way that won't substantially harm the economy, then it doesn't seem particularly bad to go back to the 'people' and say, "Do you still want us to do this?

You could also argue that statements along the lines of 'we've had a vote. It's set in stone. No changing of minds allowed' also set an awful precedent, since a fundamental part of democracy and politics is that decisions evolve as new facts come to life, and people get regularly consulted (via elections) in which it's perfectly acceptable to vote a different way from the previous election.

 

[nidave]

For those who keep banging on about immigration (yes I realize the irony)

But what Javid didn’t mention is that Brexit will stop the process of returning asylum seekers to wherever they arrived in Europe known as the Dublin Convention.

David Wood, former deputy chief executive of the Border Agency and ex-director general of immigration enforcement at the Home Office, yesterday warned that leaving the EU would make Sajid Javid’s insistence that asylum seekers are sent back to other European countries unlikely.

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/brexit-will-stop-uk-returning-asylum-seekers-to-europe/03/01/

 

[mmh]

40 years. Why should I be poorer for the next 40 years amd the country loose out. (jrm said it would take 50 years for us to see any benefits before you shout fake news)

It's all me, me, me when it comes down to it with Remainers, isn't it? Ask one why they're so pro-EU and they'll usually reply with something about themselves. "I want to retire to Holland", "I want a shorter queue at the airport", I, I, I.

Will it still be a brexit win? Are you sure..
If so why not prove it. There is nothing wrong with asking if people are sure and think the same way.
As for setting a precedent.. That's not a bad thing... That's how we evolve as a country. Or are you scared leave would not win.

Yes, I do think it would still be a brexit win. Otherwise I wouldn't have said that. I don't agree with the concept of voting again and again until the right result is produced, as fashionable as it is with the EU. I don't recall confirmation votes being needed for any other ballots, of which there are many with "less conclusive" results, including recent referendums.

You want a second vote because you lost.

 

[mmh]

For those who keep banging on about immigration (yes I realize the irony)

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/brexit-will-stop-uk-returning-asylum-seekers-to-europe/03/01/

The only person here who keeps banging on about immigration appears to be, umm, you.

 

[Geezertronic]

Why would 3 options in a poll be ridiculous? There clearly are three very different potential paths we can take: Stay, leave with deal, and leave without deal. (Arguably 4 different potential paths if you include EFTA membership). If there are several very distinct options, then surely any referendum is meaningless unless you allow people to choose between those options.

Surely you have a conflict of interest in those three particular options, for the Leave voters anyway. Taking the 2016 referendum results as an example, you could have:

48% vote to Remain
A split of 52% voting to either Leave with Deal or Leave without Deal - say 26% each choice

Which provides an easy win for Remain as far as percentages go because Remain have one option to vote for, and Leave have two options to vote for. If a Peoples vote is to be held, Remain should not be on the ballot paper if the other two options are split between Leave

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Surely you have a conflict of interest in those three particular options, for the Leave voters anyway. Taking the 2016 referendum results as an example, you could have:

48% vote to Remain
A split of 52% voting to either Leave with Deal or Leave without Deal - say 26% each choice

Which provides an easy win for Remain as far as percentages go because Remain have one option to vote for, and Leave have two options to vote for. If a Peoples vote is to be held, Remain should not be on the ballot paper if the other two options are split between Leave

The solution to that would have been to allow people to number their options in order of preference. If no option gets over half the votes, the bottom option gets eliminated and the votes for that get re-allocated to whatever each person put as their next preference. It's a long established system that's used in a few countries for elections, though I'm not sure if anyone has used it for referenda before.

I agree that, if you just followed the UK's traditional system of 'option with the highest number of votes wins' and don't allow people to express more than one preference, then having more than two options would be very unfair.

 

[Ianno87]

Surely you have a conflict of interest in those three particular options, for the Leave voters anyway. Taking the 2016 referendum results as an example, you could have:

48% vote to Remain
A split of 52% voting to either Leave with Deal or Leave without Deal - say 26% each choice

Which provides an easy win for Remain as far as percentages go because Remain have one option to vote for, and Leave have two options to vote for. If a Peoples vote is to be held, Remain should not be on the ballot paper if the other two options are split between Leave

You could counter that via a first preference vote (the one where you rank in order of preference).

In your example, assuming the %ages are as you suggest, Remain wouldn't win outright after round one.

So the Second preference votes from the loser of 'Leave Deal' vs 'Leave No Deal' would be distributed. Which could lead to a result anywhere between 48% Remain and 74% Remain - more likely somewhere around the lower end of that range I would punt.

Actual percentages may vary of course!

My view is that any Peoples Vote would almost certainly be far from conclusive in its conclusion.

 

[EM2]

Equally, remainers cannot expect Brexiters, who won the vote, to sit back and allow its overturn before it has even been inplemented.

If a solution can't be found that satisfies the majority of those that voted to leave, what would you prefer?

 

[EM2]

A second vote would still be to leave, providing the ridiculous idea of a 3 option poll as pushed by the ridiculous "People's Vote" lot is laughed away.

To leave on what basis?

 

[EM2]

It's all me, me, me when it comes down to it with Remainers, isn't it? Ask one why they're so pro-EU and they'll usually reply with something about themselves.

I just want the country to not be a basket case.

 

[Ianno87]

It's all me, me, me when it comes down to it with Remainers, isn't it? Ask one why they're so pro-EU and they'll usually reply with something about themselves. "I want to retire to Holland", "I want a shorter queue at the airport", I, I, I.

Because the benefits of being in the EU are tangible and meaningful to us.

You want a second vote because you lost.

Because Brexit is turning into an utter cockshambles, to the point where we've forgotten why we wanted to do it in the first place (other than "we voted for it"), and people may die as part of the consequences of No Deal.

Still waiting to hear an *actual* (not made up, nor something we could have had anyway like Blue Passports) benefit of Brexit, by the way.

 

[Muttley]

I just want the country to not be a basket case.

But that's not true.
You want the status quo.
And that wasn't in the ballot paper, either.

 

[Ianno87]

But that's not true.
You want the status quo.
And that wasn't in the ballot paper, either.

Yes it was. "Remain".

 

[Muttley]

Yes it was. "Remain".

Tut tut tut, such ignorance, and you a Remainer.
I thought it was only Leavers that were a) stupid and b) didn't know what they were voting for.

 

[EM2]

But that's not true.
You want the status quo.
And that wasn't in the ballot paper, either.

Well, no I don't. I like the status quo, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't be improved. And in my opinion, the best way to do that is as members of the EU, where there's a much better chance of influencing change, as we have in the past.

 

[mmh]

Still waiting to hear an *actual* (not made up, nor something we could have had anyway like Blue Passports) benefit of Brexit, by the way.

This thread is 2 and a half years and 14,000 posts long. Just because you don't want to hear the opposing viewpoints doesn't mean they haven't been given, countless, countless times.

 

[mmh]

Well, no I don't. I like the status quo, but that doesn't mean that it couldn't be improved. And in my opinion, the best way to do that is as members of the EU, where there's a much better chance of influencing change, as we have in the past.

Can you give some examples of that?

 

[EM2]

Can you give some examples of that?

Supporting the 2004 and 2007 eastern European expansion.
Supporting the creation of a single market.

 

[mmh]

Supporting the 2004 and 2007 eastern European expansion.
Supporting the creation of a single market.

Bizarre, your examples of us influencing change are examples of us agreeing? I was rather hoping for things we've managed to alter or prevent.

 

[EM2]

Bizarre, your examples of us influencing change are examples of us agreeing? I was rather hoping for things we've managed to alter or prevent.

You misinterpret the meaning of the word 'support' in this instance. These were ideas in which the UK were influential in the ideas gaining traction among EU members.
The UK pushed especially aggressively in the late '80s for the creation of a single market.
The monetary committee behind the Euro was chaired by a Brit, and the UK’s expertise in financial markets led to some critical changes that ensured a smoother integration of the Euro: British-led initiatives included the introduction of legal certainty for contracts (making sure that there was no ambiguity in converting contracts drawn up prior to the introduction of the euro). It was also the British who pointed out, for instance, that there simply was not time to introduce physical notes and coins in 1999 as the EU intended, and that a gap between the legal and physical introduction of the euro was absolutely essential.
And if you're the kind of person that thinks we should get out of the EU because the Germans and the French call all the shots, maybe you should see what Simon Hix, professor of political science at the London School of Economics and Political Science has to say.

"Many of the EU's liberalizing achievements are due to the role the U.K. has played, with like-minded countries, for example in pushing for the single market program, the liberalization of goods and services markets, and enlargement to 28 countries.
If the U.K. withdraws, the liberal democratic project for Europe will become marginalized, as the EU will become dominated by the corporatist and bureaucratic instincts of some of the French and German elites and the politics of the growing populist right movements."

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/22/what-has-the-uk-ever-done-for-the-eu-anyway.html

 

[bnm]

I thought it was only Leavers that were a) stupid and b) didn't know what they were voting for.

Nice to see that confirmed.

 

[Muttley]

Nice to see that confirmed.

Erm...no, it proved exactly the opposite.
Do keep up.

 

[Ianno87]

Tut tut tut, such ignorance, and you a Remainer.
I thought it was only Leavers that were a) stupid and b) didn't know what they were voting for.

22nd June 2016 UK was in the European Union.

The ballot paper was to Remain in or Leave the European Union.

If Remain had won, we'd have continued as members of the European Union on the same terms and that would've been that.

That is the very definition of Status Quo.

This thread is 2 and a half years and 14,000 posts long. Just because you don't want to hear the opposing viewpoints doesn't mean they haven't been given, countless, countless times.

I have read a good many posts on this thread (not all, far from it) and.... nope. None that stand up to any scrutiny in my eyes. And certainly none that are worth risking the ramifications of No Deal Brexit for.

 

[VioletEclipse]

22nd June 2016 UK was in the European Union.

The ballot paper was to Remain in or Leave the European Union.

If Remain had won, we'd have continued as members of the European Union on the same terms and that would've been that.

That is the very definition of Status Quo.




I have read a good many posts on this thread (not all, far from it) and.... nope. None that stand up to any scrutiny in my eyes. And certainly none that are worth risking the ramifications of No Deal Brexit for.

I'm pretty sure that the UK is still technically in the EU, for now at least.

 

[EM2]

This thread is 2 and a half years and 14,000 posts long. Just because you don't want to hear the opposing viewpoints doesn't mean they haven't been given, countless, countless times.

A number of times in those 2-and-a-half years I have asked this question, and not once have I had an answer from a Leave voter that was in any way concrete. So I'll ask it again:
'Once we have completely left the EU, after any transition period, what will you, as an individual, be able to do that you cannot do today?'

 

[Sad Sprinter]

A number of times in those 2-and-a-half years I have asked this question, and not once have I had an answer from a Leave voter that was in any way concrete. So I'll ask it again:
'Once we have completely left the EU, after any transition period, what will you, as an individual, be able to do that you cannot do today?'

That’s not not the point of Brexit, it’s a social philosophical question, not a question regarding civil liberties. By being in the European Union, your essentially agreeing to become “one” with a greater European identity. By agreeing to become part of a greater European identity, your essentially asking whether Britain can survive as a lone nation, or surrender various parts of its sovereignty to survive. Therefore, the question changes from “do you think britian should leave or remain in the European Union?” To “do you agree Britain needs to cede national sovereignty to the EU for its own survival?” The answer me and many other people will give to that is “No.”

 

[EM2]

That’s not not the point of Brexit, it’s a social philosophical question, not a question regarding civil liberties. By being in the European Union, your essentially agreeing to become “one” with a greater European identity.

Well, we're not agreeing to that, because we have an exemption from closer political union. So your argument falls at the first fence.

 

[bnm]

Erm...no, it proved exactly the opposite.
Do keep up.

Satire.
Do keep up.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Well, we're not agreeing to that, because we have an exemption from closer political union. So your argument falls at the first fence.

No it doesn’t. Look at the opposition in the 1990s to the Maastricht Treaty, look at the continued emphasis in the 1975 referendum that common market membership would not undermine the sovereignty of parliament and reassuring us we would not be joining a political union. EU opposition isn’t limited to the creation of a nation state, it pretty much begins at the first instance we have to enact an EU ruling. At that point, there is virtually no point in being inside the EU.

Furthermore, it’s short sighted to believe we have exemption from ever closer union. The chances are a Labour government with a high majority would be quite pro-EU and for ideological reasons would want to tie us closer to Europe. Who knows what the EU itself would want us to sign up to in the future. Cameron got us a get out to ever closer union in 2016, the people voted Leave-so we clearly didn’t trust that opt-out enough.

What’s the point in being in something that’s main reason for existence is ever closer union, only to have an opt out from it?

 

[Jonny]

And by the way, if you still think the EU is unreasonable, try this: Next time you want to resign from any society or organisation that you're a member of: Try approaching them and saying, "I'm going to resign my membership. What kind of special deal are you going to give me after I've left that will make me more important than everyone else who isn't a member of your society" .... see how far you get!

That is an egalitarian way of looking at it! The trouble with that approach is that, although it is fair to say that everyone is socially equal, this is not a social situation. It is more like a business arrangement, where one participant is entitled to seek different terms and/or a way out if they feel that they are getting a raw deal.

Also, it's fair to say that the Egal (egalitarianism in its purest form, represented as an animal) crash landed on its rotund posterior on Referendum day 2016 and if it were such a being and had any sense, it would be heading back to continental Europe with its tail between its legs.