EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[DynamicSpirit]

The longer the Brexit farce goes on, the more I lose faith in the concept of universal suffrage democracy.

If you mean, you'll lose your faith in referenda, than I'd argue that's not a bad thing - because referenda really are a completely inappropriate way to solve the kinds of complex problems that face any Government. And the Brexit farce has amply demonstrated that.

The political class are so out of touch with how most ordinary people live it’s no wonder we are in this mess with little hope of getting out of it.

I totally disagree here. From what I've seen knowing quite a few councillors and one MP fairly well, politicians are generally very well aware of how people live. Most politicians are after all deluged with letters and casework from constituents with problems that they hope the politicians can solve. In general, politicians are not out of touch at all (although there are exceptions. Boris, anyone?).

The problem is that many 'ordinary people' live in a World where the the news that they believe comes via Facebook feeds which are clearly more trustworthy than any established news sources, and everything has simple solutions. Brexit will solve all our problems. The NHS would be brilliant and waiting lists would disappear if only the Government would tax the evil rich a little bit more. Immigrants have stolen all our jobs and reduced wages to a tiny fraction of what they would otherwise have been. Global warming is a hoax dreamt up by evil bureaucrats to justify excessive tax increases. And everything is a big plot by multinationals to indoctrinate us all. Yes I exaggerate a bit. But the point is... to a large extent, when it comes to working out solutions to our problems, lots of ordinary people live in a largely fictional world. But politicians and Governments have to live in the real world and try to come up with solutions to problems that are actually going to work. Inevitably that means they don't come up with the same simple (but usually, useless) 'solutions' that the people behind all those Facebook memes demand. And of course, when politicians don't just go along with those simple (but usually, useless) 'solutions', the people behind those facebook memes start shouting 'You're out of touch!'

 

[Puffing Devil]

This turned up in my Facebook feed yesterday. I'm not sure where it's from, but to my mind, it very accurately sums up the fundamental flaw with the 2016 referendum.


View attachment 58244

Brilliant!

 

[AlterEgo]

The problem is that many 'ordinary people' live in a World where the the news that they believe comes via Facebook feeds which are clearly more trustworthy than any established news sources, and everything has simple solutions. Brexit will solve all our problems. The NHS would be brilliant and waiting lists would disappear if only the Government would tax the evil rich a little bit more. Immigrants have stolen all our jobs and reduced wages to a tiny fraction of what they would otherwise have been. Global warming is a hoax dreamt up by evil bureaucrats to justify excessive tax increases. And everything is a big plot by multinationals to indoctrinate us all. Yes I exaggerate a bit. But the point is... to a large extent, when it comes to working out solutions to our problems, lots of ordinary people live in a largely fictional world. But politicians and Governments have to live in the real world and try to come up with solutions to problems that are actually going to work.

This is exactly how political classes are out of touch with the electorate. They view the world entirely differently.

At this moment, I don’t think I will ever vote again.

 

[Esker-pades]

This is exactly how political classes are out of touch with the electorate. They view the world entirely differently.

At this moment, I don’t think I will ever vote again.

So should politicians make laws for a world which doesn't exist?

 

[bramling]

any many of the electorate are poorly educated and unable to understand the concepts involved! We are in a mess.

I offer myself as supreme overlord.

The difficulty with that is that the logical conclusion is not to have elections as people can't be trusted to make an informed choice. Generally that's regarded as being an even worse outcome!

 

[HH]

People need to be better educated. However, this is easier said than done, especially with all the fake news around these days.

 

[ainsworth74]

The difficulty with that is that the logical conclusion is not to have elections as people can't be trusted to make an informed choice. Generally that's regarded as being an even worse outcome!

No I'd broadly take the view that @DynamicSpirit took. Referenda are a terrible idea because, as we've seen, they can end up being divisive and put a hugely complex question to people who are not experts, who probably don't have time to do all the research that they should and may end up being swayed (in whatever direction) by less than reputable sources.

However, that is why we use representative democracy. Effectively every five years we go "You! Go and make decisions on my behalf because I can't be bothered/don't have time to research/don't care/etc and if I don't like what happens you'll be out on your backside in five years." That person then should have the time to think about these decisions, take advice, do research, etc etc and then come to a decision.

Obviously I'm being somewhat idealistic (and this doesn't address issues with First Past the Post and the system used to choose our representatives) there but broadly if someone suggested referenda were a bad idea because people are idiots (basically ) whilst if they suggested representative democracy is a bad idea then I'd very much agree with you. An even worse outcome!

 

[bramling]

No I'd broadly take the view that @DynamicSpirit took. Referenda are a terrible idea because, as we've seen, they can end up being divisive and put a hugely complex question to people who are not experts, who probably don't have time to do all the research that they should and may end up being swayed (in whatever direction) by less than reputable sources.

I can understand the point about referenda. It doesn't help that the political system simply hadn't addressed the EU issue over many years, partly due to it not neatly fitting around party dividing lines. However I'd say the bigger problem with the EU referendum was that Cameron banked on one particular outcome, and had zero intention of delivering the other.

 

[AlterEgo]

So should politicians make laws for a world which doesn't exist?

No, but perhaps you can explain the point of democratically electing lawmakers given that dichotomy of experience.

 

[sprunt]

However I'd say the bigger problem with the EU referendum was that Cameron banked on one particular outcome, and had zero intention of delivering the other.

This, exactly. Before the Scottish independence referendum, the Scottish government published a huge amount of information about what exactly a vote to move away from the status quo would result in. Before this referendum, nothing, so everyone who wanted to leave, not unreasonably, assigned their own ideal version of leaving to it. Sheer maladministration from Cameron.

 

[Senex]

But politicians and Governments have to live in the real world and try to come up with solutions to problems that are actually going to work. Inevitably that means they don't come up with the same simple (but usually, useless) 'solutions' that the people behind all those Facebook memes demand. And of course, when politicians don't just go along with those simple (but usually, useless) 'solutions', the people behind those facebook memes start shouting 'You're out of touch!'

Politicians live in the real world? May? Corbyn? Rees-Mogg? Duncan-Smith? And an endless etc ....

 

[thenorthern]

5) Leaving the EU was never a big thing until the referendum - it was an annoyance in UKIP and mainly for the Tories. It's gone from a minor concern, behind jobs and the NHS to a full on issue dividing the country. It's going to take years to recover from this clusterfeck.

When we joined in 1973 withdrawal was a real possibility hence why Labour held a referendum on the subject in 1975. Also at the 1983 General Election one of the flagship policies of the Labour government was to withdraw from the then Common Market. Since then the talk of withdrawal from Labour has died down.

The Lisbon Treaty in 2007 I think re-ignited a lot of Euroscepticism although for many years there was talk about the need for "change and reform" of the EU from the Conservative party something the EU wasn't interested in when David Cameron went there in 2016.

 

[Puffing Devil]

I missed voting in the 1983 election by one year, so the issues passed me by.

The Lisbon treaty did set a precedent for a second referendum when the Irish didn't get the response that they expected. They went back an explained clearly the implications of failing to ratify and a majority finally voted for. And they are completely pro-EU now.

I agree that there is a need for change and reform in the EU - I just hope we staying in somehow and bring about that change. We certainly can't do it outside of the club.

 

[Esker-pades]

No, but perhaps you can explain the point of democratically electing lawmakers given that dichotomy of experience.

The people dictate the outcomes that they would like to see by electing lawmakers. The processes and detail that is required to achieve these outcomes is what we elect lawmakers to do.

Of course, the premise which this bit of debate is based on is that lawmakers know what they are doing. I'm not convinced that they do.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

No, but perhaps you can explain the point of democratically electing lawmakers given that dichotomy of experience.

The way I would see it, the lawmakers have the time and inclination to think things through properly - by virtue of that, studying issues etc. is a big part of their full time jobs.

The elections and the input from voters is important for two reasons. Firstly that, it makes sure that their concerns aren't completely ignored (which would be very easy to do if politicians weren't answerable to the population in some way). And secondly because, although 'normal voters' generally don't have the expertise to decide the best economic policy and so on, each voter does have one point of expertise: Each voter knows exactly what frustrations s/he has in his/her life, what dreams and goals s/he has, what his/her daily life is like, and so on. The voter might not be in a position to know what the best solutions are, but they are definitely in a good position to know - at least at a personal level - what their problems are. To my mind representative democracy is the least bad way anyone has yet managed to come up with to ensure both that an awareness of people's frustrations and concerns is fed into the Government while also making sure that decisions are made in a somewhat more informed way than would be the case if we - say - had referenda for everything.

 

[AlterEgo]

The people dictate the outcomes that they would like to see by electing lawmakers. The processes and detail that is required to achieve these outcomes is what we elect lawmakers to do.

Of course, the premise which this bit of debate is based on is that lawmakers know what they are doing. I'm not convinced that they do.

But the people apparently wanted to leave Europe, yet elected a government which had no interest in doing so and in fact campaigned against it.

 

[Esker-pades]

But the people apparently wanted to leave Europe, yet elected a government which had no interest in doing so and in fact campaigned against it.

Leaving Europe is not the important thing, rather the reason why people wanted to leave. IE: Leaving the EU is only part-way through the process of thought. The outcome is, for example, a better life because of a lower level of immigration, or because the UK can trade more freely with the rest of the world.

Thus, leaving the EU is not the outcome, rather part of the process towards that outcome.

Say you wanted to trade more freely with the rest of the world. Someone like Fox or Davis would say that leaving the EU would be the best way to do this. But, this is not the only viewpoint (such free trade deals would take years to put together, multiple EU countries already trade with non-EU states, and better than we do etc.). So, government and the civil service would then have to run through various methods to increase overseas trade and come up with the best solution. Maybe leaving the EU is this solution. Maybe there is an alternative solution.

 

[EM2]

James Dyson to move his company's Head Office to Singapore.
P&O Ferries to register its entire fleet in Cyprus.
Sony to relocate its European HQ to the Netherlands.
Brittany Ferries to reschedule 10,000 customer journeys because of capacity needed to move goods in case of no deal.
4,000 more lorries per week expected to and from Portsmouth, Poole and Plymouth (the latter two having no motorway access).

 

[thenorthern]

I missed voting in the 1983 election by one year, so the issues passed me by.

The Lisbon treaty did set a precedent for a second referendum when the Irish didn't get the response that they expected. They went back an explained clearly the implications of failing to ratify and a majority finally voted for. And they are completely pro-EU now.

I agree that there is a need for change and reform in the EU - I just hope we staying in somehow and bring about that change. We certainly can't do it outside of the club.

The Irish Second referendum on the Lisbon I think only re-enforced the Eurosceptic viewpoint that the EU will simply make you vote again if it doesn't like the way you vote as what happened with Ireland in 2001 and Denmark in 1992. I think as well the Lisbon Treaty was seen as unpopular as it was almost the same as the EU Constitution which was shelved in 2005 after being rejected by France and The Netherlands in referendums, the United Kingdom was due to vote on the EU Constitution in 2006. Had there been a vote on the Lisbon Treaty in 2008 I am almost certain British voters would have rejected it.

There are other things as well like who are Jean Claude Junker and Donald Tusk? Who elected them and what do they do? Very few British people saw them as their leaders and neither of them did much to try and improve their image in the UK. Before Brexit the majority of comments about them I heard came from Nigel Farage who was never going to be positive about them.

Also the MEPs think about it do you know who your MEPs are. Most of the time turnout for EU elections was very low and used the d'Hondt system of elections which most people don't understand. Also very few people cared about a party manifesto in an EU election it was just a chance to give the Governing party at Westminster a good kicking. Really the EU elections should be seen as important as the EU does make a large number of our laws, also because of the way the EU parliament works the only way to have power was to vote Labour in EU elections (its complex why but there is truth to this) but people still voted Conservative and UKIP in EU elections despite it effectively being a wasted vote. Also MEPs don't seem to like to turn up for work and can resign then replaced without a by-election also switch parties without anyone noticing. If what British MEPs have done since 2014 been replicated at Westminster we would have had over 100 By-Elections and MEPs crossing the floor.

Really Westminster and Brussels should have tried to improve the image of the EU in the years leading up to the referendum but they didn't seem to care.

 

[EM2]

The Irish Second referendum on the Lisbon I think only re-enforced the Eurosceptic viewpoint that the EU will simply make you vote again if it doesn't like the way you vote as what happened with Ireland in 2001 and Denmark in 1992.

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what happened, because Ireland renegotiated Lisbon (and Nice) with the EU before the second vote.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...-hold-second-referendum-on-Lisbon-Treaty.html

Brian Cowen, the Irish prime minister, said that his country would hold a second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty in October after he secured assurances from EU leaders likely to boost a Yes vote.

The Taoiseach, who held private talks with Gordon Brown yesterday, won guarantees from European Union leaders that Irish policies on tax, abortion and military neutrality would not be affected by Ireland ratifying the treaty.

"I feel we will be in a position to hold a second referendum at the start of October," he said at the close of a European Union summit in Brussels.

"I am confident that we now have a solid basis to go to the Irish people and ask them to ratify the Treaty so that Europe can move forward."

Mr Cowen needed the guarantees in the form of a "protocol" - the most legally watertight form of EU agreement. He said he could not reverse last year's Irish No to the treaty without the protocol.

The deal involves wording in the conclusions stating explicitly that the guarantees given to Ireland will not require any form of re-ratification in any other member state.

 

[Howardh]

James Dyson to move his company's Head Office to Singapore.
P&O Ferries to register its entire fleet in Cyprus.
Sony to relocate its European HQ to the Netherlands.
Brittany Ferries to reschedule 10,000 customer journeys because of capacity needed to move goods in case of no deal.
4,000 more lorries per week expected to and from Portsmouth, Poole and Plymouth (the latter two having no motorway access).

Poole is quite a sought-after area, bing a marina, close to Sandbanks and Studland beach/reserve; the sort of place if I were having a British holiday I'd head for.

Are the locals happy with a massively increased amount of lorries heading their way?

 

[Basher]

The way that some politicians go on makes me laugh. A lot of them would not get a job of responsibility in industry.
Certainly I would not give a lot of them a second interview if they had applied for job with me.
This attitude of 'we know best for you' will kill peoples faith in democracy, so may be we need a good dictator to step in to help clean out parliament!

 

[Basher]

any many of the electorate are poorly educated and unable to understand the concepts involved! We are in a mess.

I offer myself as supreme overlord.

You probably would do better than them!

 

[hooverboy]

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what happened, because Ireland renegotiated Lisbon (and Nice) with the EU before the second vote.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...-hold-second-referendum-on-Lisbon-Treaty.html

hmmm.
and what do we have now

1)tax....EU threatens ireland over corporation tax as apple and microsoft aren't paying enough

2)abortion....well that is irelands decision, but the EU mantra is you must assimilate with the borg

3)military.....read the smallprint of the EU common defence policy...ireland CANNOT be neutral under it, they are legally obliged to provide a contingent of such a force.they are not members of NATO but do get cover from the US, which may well be removed if EU plans for an army are realised and trump gets the hump and decides not to send his guys over any more.

 

[thenorthern]

This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what happened, because Ireland renegotiated Lisbon (and Nice) with the EU before the second vote.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wo...-hold-second-referendum-on-Lisbon-Treaty.html

I am aware that there an honest explanation to it but like many political things its a long and complicated one which doesn't go down with voters who just read tabloid headlines.

 

[Basher]

Military:- Ireland as with other European neutral countries are on a good thing. they pay no money into NATO. I do not think NATO would allow say Russia to just walk in to those countries. They are living off our backs.

 

[EM2]

1)tax....EU threatens ireland over corporation tax as apple and microsoft aren't paying enough

So you want states to be able to allow certain companies to pay less tax than others. Is that fair?

2)abortion....well that is irelands decision, but the EU mantra is you must assimilate with the borg

What on earth has their position on abortion have to do with the EU? It is completely banned in Malta, and limited in Spain, Portugal and Poland for example.

3)military.....read the smallprint of the EU common defence policy...ireland CANNOT be neutral under it, they are legally obliged to provide a contingent of such a force.they are not members of NATO but do get cover from the US, which may well be removed if EU plans for an army are realised and trump gets the hump and decides not to send his guys over any more.

You do know that Ireland has already been part of NATO-led and EU peacekeeping forces, for example in Bosnia and Kosovo?

 

[Senex]

Really Westminster and Brussels should have tried to improve the image of the EU in the years leading up to the referendum but they didn't seem to care.

I'm not sure about improving the image, but Westminster politicians should certainly have done very much more to explain the importance of the EU elections and the way they fitted in to the whole picture. But to do that would, of course, have been to downplay their own massively overwhelming sense of self-importance, so it was never going to happen, was it? If either parliament really needs to be smashed and replaced, it's Westminster, not Brussels.

 

[Ianno87]

Military:- Ireland as with other European neutral countries are on a good thing. they pay no money into NATO. I do not think NATO would allow say Russia to just walk in to those countries. They are living off our backs.

But presumably NATO members benefit from protecting non-NATO payees as immediate allies and trading partners?

 

[EM2]

By the way, Singapore signed a trade deal with the EU last October, so that means that Dyson can continue selling his products to the EU tariff-free.
In the words of John Lydon, 'Ever get the feeling you've been cheated?'.