Brexit matters

[edwin_m]

That is a false assumption, and one used by Remainers to try and justify overturning the 2016 referendum result.

The only thing you can reasonably assume about those who didn't vote is that opinions are split as per the latest opinion polls.

You certanly can't make assumptions about the intentions of those who didn't vote just because the result of an election or referendum didn't go the way you wanted it to.

Since autumn 2018 the latest opinion polls have consistently favoured remaining, or after departure considered that leaving was a mistake.

I see reports today that Liz Truss is only grant Scottish independence if 50% of the entire electorate vote in favour...

I was in favour of a second referendum to determine whether the actual deal secured was preferred over remaining - the above opinion polls suggest a majority were opposed to it. Had that still come down in favour of leaving then I would have regretfully accepted it. If that's overturning the 2016 referendum then 2016 is equally overturning the original referendum in the 1970s - the argument that what people got wasn't what they voted for applies to both.

 

[E27007]

Thinking of the the consequences if the Referendum had gone the other way, a vote to remain.
Brussels may have interpreted the situation as a change of signal aspect, a single yellow to a green.
UK to be "leaned upon" to:
1) Join Schengen.
2) drop the rebate for UK contributions.
3) Join the Euro
.
Brussels would have sought expansion, rapidly acceding four more countries, Albania/Montenegro/N Macedonia/Serbia..
Those four States being especially backward, requiring big handouts from the EU budget, and once acceded. triggering a mass exodus of their natives.

Since the Referendum, we rarely hear of those States seeking accession, perhaps Brussels cannot stomach the cost, minus the UK, the GDP of EU27 is now the EU10.
The GDP of the UK being equivalent to 17 lesser members of the EU.

 

[najaB]

Thinking of the the consequences if the Referendum had gone the other way, a vote to remain.
Brussels may have interpreted the situation as a change of signal aspect, a single yellow to a green.

Aliens may also have invaded, or Little Mix may have released an actually listenable album...

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Because people have the right to change their minds.

If they haven't changed their mind, then what is the harm in asking?

The harm is that you are - in effect - changing the rules of the referendum AFTER people have voted. The referendum was held under the widely known understanding that it was a once-in-a-generation chance for the people to decide whether the UK's future should be in or out of the EU, on the basis that 50%+1 decides the result. That is the basis on which people voted. And you simply can't meaningfully run a democracy if you do it on the basis of, 'Hey, we didn't like the result last time. Let's just re-run it on the pretext that people might have changed their minds!'

 

[jon0844]

UK to be "leaned upon" to:

And in every case, we could say no.

Also, anyone having a laugh at Tim Martin having a bit of a breakdown over Brexit?

 

[AM9]

And in every case, we could say no.

Also, anyone having a laugh at Tim Martin having a bit of a breakdown over Brexit?

Precisely, - do these anti EU scare tactics never end now we have the cold reality of the referendum result to endure.

 

[najaB]

The harm is that you are - in effect - changing the rules of the referendum AFTER people have voted. The referendum was held under the widely known understanding that it was a once-in-a-generation chance for the people to decide whether the UK's future should be in or out of the EU, on the basis that 50%+1 decides the result.

But it doesn't change the rules of the referendum. Nobody (well, nobody worth paying attention to) was saying "Ignore the previous referendum, run it again". Ignoring those who voted to remain (and even those who did not vote), there was still an valid argument for a confirmatory referendum - the fact that there was (and still is) disagreement what "Leave the EU" actually meant.

There were people who voted for Brexit who didn't want to leave the CU/SM - that is an incontrovertible fact. Those people may well have preferred to stay a member of the EU than leave the CU/SM - do they not deserve a chance to be heard?

 

[E27007]

And in every case, we could say no.

The rebate was a derogation, not set in the EU treaties, it was negotiated as part of the Multiannual Financial Framework every seven years and had to be unanimously agreed, and not too popular from my contact within Brussels, you would not wish to hear the resentment in Brussels towards the UK over our selfish "opt-outs".
They were bound to be dismantled piece-by-piece if the referendum result had swung towards the EU, I can think of a certain Europhile British ex-PM as the snake in the grass to deliver the prize

 

[317 forever]

Aliens may also have invaded, or Little Mix may have released an actually listenable album...

Talking of which, even after Jesy's departure, a majority of Little Mix are still from Leave voting boroughs: Jade & Perrie from South Tyneside but only LeighAnne from (Remain) Wycombe. Jesy is from Havering, which as well as being the furthest London borough from central London, was London's most heavily Leave leaning borough.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

But it doesn't change the rules of the referendum. Nobody (well, nobody worth paying attention to) was saying "Ignore the previous referendum, run it again". Ignoring those who voted to remain (and even those who did not vote), there was still an valid argument for a confirmatory referendum - the fact that there was (and still is) disagreement what "Leave the EU" actually meant.

I could see an argument for the Government in 2018-ish saying something like, 'you voted for Brexit, but we can't figure out what kind of Brexit to deliver, so we're going to have another referendum to let you choose.' That would simply be adding nuance to the first referendum. But that was never how the argument for a 2nd referendum was presented. It was always something like, let's have another referendum to see if the people still want Brexit. In other words, a referendum whose real aim was to try to cancel the result of the first referendum. That's not democratic.

You described that idea in your earlier post as 'what is the harm in asking', but the practical effect would have been that, for all the people who previously voted for Brexit in 2016 on the understanding that that was their decisive say, you'd basically be telling them that you've changed your mind and you're now only going to deliver what they already voted for IF they go and vote again. That would have been a betrayal of what the Government had previously promised, and would've been hugely damaging to many people's faith in democracy.

 

[Enthusiast]

Ireland, Denmark and France had referendums because their constitutions required them to do do .
UK citizens did not have to have referendums as its constitution (written and codified ) does not exist .
Parliament has the power to vote for or against major changes to the policies / treaties etc. not the public.

Which raises some interesting points. I think only Ireland required a referendum before the treaty could be ratified (though I stand to be corrected and in any case it is of no consequence). France voted to accept the treaty by 51.0% (and I don't recall there being howls of disquiet at such a narrow majority). Denmark rejected it by 50.7%. After the defeat Denmark negotiated and received four opt-outs from portions of the treaty: Economic and Monetary Union, Union Citizenship, Justice and Home Affairs, and Common Defence. The second referendum approved the treaty amended with the opt-outs by 56.7%. I don't think it is arguable that the UK could have secured any significant opt-outs (over and above those it already enjoyed). Mr Cameron tried that before the referendum and failed.

Nobody (well, nobody worth paying attention to) was saying "Ignore the previous referendum, run it again". Ignoring those who voted to remain (and even those who did not vote), there was still an valid argument for a confirmatory referendum - the fact that there was (and still is) disagreement what "Leave the EU" actually meant.

Let's take a little look at one or two of the people who perhaps may be worth listening to (depending on your point of view). First of all, Vince Cable, one time leader of the LibDems, speaking in 2018, just before his resignation as leader:

Vince Cable declares Brexit 'can and must be stopped' in final conference speech

Sir Vince Cable fluffs a sex joke about the "exotic spresm" of Brexiteers during his keynote speech to the Liberal Democrats' annual autumn conference.

www.businessinsider.com

Theresa May knows that Brexit "can and must be stopped," Liberal Democrat leader Vince Cable declared today, as he called on the prime minister to abandon the "whims of the extremists" in her party and back a second referendum on leaving the European Union.

I remember quite clearly, Mr Cable being among the first politicians I heard commenting after the referendum result was announced: "Oh there's no need to worry too much. We can reverse this." he uttered contemptuously.

Now, the Liberal Democrats in general, at their conference before the 2019 General Election:

Lib Dems pledge to revoke Brexit without referendum

Delegates at annual conference agree to revoke article 50 if party wins election

www.theguardian.com

The Liberal Democrats have overwhelmingly approved the party’s plan of going into an election with the promise to revoke Brexit without a referendum, despite warnings from delegates at their annual conference in Bournemouth that it risked alienating some voters.

Under the plan, the Lib Dems would still support a second Brexit referendum with an option of remain, but going into an election would promise to revoke article 50 if the party won an absolute majority – which is seen as highly unlikely.

Now, Keir Starmer, then shadow Brexit Secretary, now Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition:

Keir Starmer: Labour must not rule out backing second EU referendum

Labour must not rule out backing a second referendum if it fails to force a general election, Keir Starmer has insisted.

www.politicshome.com

Labour must not rule out backing a second referendum if it fails to force a general election, Keir Starmer has insisted.

There are plenty more where that came from. There were plenty of people (both worth listening to and not) who were dismissive of the referendum result and said variously that it should be set aside, ignored or re-run.

There were people who voted for Brexit who didn't want to leave the CU/SM...

Then they should have voted to remain. As per my earlier post, the two are inextricably linked.

...do they not deserve a chance to be heard?

No. As I mentioned earlier, had the result been reversed there is no chance that disappointed leavers would have been granted a chance to be heard (perhaps by the government negotiating a departure from the SM and/or the CU). So why the other way around?

 

[Annetts key]

The harm is that you are - in effect - changing the rules of the referendum AFTER people have voted.

So just like what happens AFTER NEARLY EVERY general election then, when ministers or the PM uses an event as an excuse to either not do something they promised or to do something that they had not advertised…

Where exactly have the Conservatives ever said in pre-election publicity or election manifestos that they were going to put taxes up? But over the years they have raised various different taxes.

The referendum was held under the widely known understanding that it was a once-in-a-generation chance for the people to decide whether the UK's future should be in or out of the EU

Which at the very same time was legally only an advisory referendum, as in this country, unless the law is changed, it’s acts of Parliament that change the legal status of our laws.

And you simply can't meaningfully run a democracy if you do it on the basis of, 'Hey, we didn't like the result last time. Let's just re-run it on the pretext that people might have changed their minds!'

Err, we do that every time there is an election, and furthermore that is exactly what happens when the Government does not like amendments made by either the House of Commons or the House of Lords…

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Err, we do that every time there is an election, and furthermore that is exactly what happens when the Government does not like amendments made by either the House of Commons or the House of Lords…

Not the same thing at all. Elections are held with the explicit understanding that election results last for a maximum of 5 years, or until the Government calls another election. No-one feels betrayed when you hold a new general election because that's perfectly in line with the understanding on which the previous election was held.

By contrast, the 2016 referendum was held on the explicit understanding that it was a once-in-a-generation vote, and that was the basis on which people voted. You can't under those circumstances legitimately just decide that because you didn't like the result, you want to run it again. (And the legal nicety about it being legally advisory is irrelevant. No-on in the Government declared when the 2016 referendum was announced that it was advisory and the Government might or might not do what people voted for. It was always widely understood and advertised as being a referendum in which the people would decide and the Government would abide by that decision),

 

[Annetts key]

…the 2016 referendum was held on the explicit understanding that it was a once-in-a-generation vote, and that was the basis on which people voted.

At the time the government was saying that, they fully expected that the result would be against leaving the E.U., so it’s likely that the idea was to put to bed the idea for many, many years. They had not really planned on what to do if the result was ‘leave’.

Did the result of the referendum change politics in this country, yes. Did a simple in/out referendum result fully describe exactly what the people wanted? The argument is that it did not. Hence the large difficulties the government then had trying to come up with a programme that it could get through Parliament.

At that point, it would have been wise to actually find out what the people actually wanted. But instead we got further months of chaos. Then a general election. By that time most people were sick to death of the subject. Plus various other factors resulted in Boris winning said general election.

This sorry whole episode is a good illustration of how badly our political, election and decision making systems in this so called sovereign country are.

 

[edwin_m]

I could see an argument for the Government in 2018-ish saying something like, 'you voted for Brexit, but we can't figure out what kind of Brexit to deliver, so we're going to have another referendum to let you choose.' That would simply be adding nuance to the first referendum. But that was never how the argument for a 2nd referendum was presented. It was always something like, let's have another referendum to see if the people still want Brexit. In other words, a referendum whose real aim was to try to cancel the result of the first referendum. That's not democratic.

You described that idea in your earlier post as 'what is the harm in asking', but the practical effect would have been that, for all the people who previously voted for Brexit in 2016 on the understanding that that was their decisive say, you'd basically be telling them that you've changed your mind and you're now only going to deliver what they already voted for IF they go and vote again. That would have been a betrayal of what the Government had previously promised, and would've been hugely damaging to many people's faith in democracy.

What about the betrayal of the people who voted for Brexit in 2016 who wanted to stay in the CM and/or CU? Given the small size of the majority it's highly likely that if that had been on the ballot paper, the vote would have been to remain. The way opinion polls turned narrowly against Brexit when the details started to become known supports this conclusion.

 

[Enthusiast]

What about the betrayal of the people who voted for Brexit in 2016 who wanted to stay in the CM and/or CU? Given the small size of the majority it's highly likely that if that had been on the ballot paper, the vote would have been to remain. The way opinion polls turned narrowly against Brexit when the details started to become known supports this conclusion.

They were not "betrayed". As I said earlier, those wanting to retain membership of the SM and/or CU should have voted to remain. I can see no reason to want to leave the EU if you want to remain in the SM/CU and to believe that such a likelihood was probable was foolish. Such an option was not on the paper - it was remain or leave. Those voting to leave should have been prepared for a so-called "hard" (aka "proper") Brexit.

 

[najaB]

I can see no reason to want to leave the EU if you want to remain in the SM/CU...

And I see no reason that people want to listen to Harry Styles or BTS.

… and to believe that such a likelihood was probable was foolish.

Even when you are told, by the members of the official Leave campaign, that that was exactly what was going to happen?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Even when you are told, by the members of the official Leave campaign, that that was exactly what was going to happen?

I don't remember that being a definitive thing that if we Brexit, we'd stay in the single market and customs union. Obviously it's a long time ago and memories are not perfect, but my memory from the time is that there was a huge amount of speculation about what Brexit would mean, with a lot of discussion in debates and tv programs on the options for a 'soft Brexit' or a 'hard Brexit', and the strong impression that Brexit was a step into the unknown. Doubtless, many individual campaigners gave their opinions on what they thought/hoped Brexit would mean, and some would have been aiming for a 'soft' Brexit. But what was on the ballot paper was 'Leave the EU', not 'Leave the EU and stay in the SM/CU'.

 

[najaB]

But what was on the ballot paper was 'Leave the EU', not 'Leave the EU and stay in the SM/CU'.

Equally, what was on the ballot paper was not "Leave the EU, the Single Market and Customs Union" - and there are non-EU states who participate in the Single Market and Customs Union.

 

[jon0844]

From interviews on TV the day after, some people voted to leave the EU immediately (as in walk away and tell them to f*** themselves, and to hell with any consequences), some voted because they were unhappy with David Cameron, some voted because they fancied a change, and some were just going on about immigration.

I am not sure many were even aware of what the other implications were, unless they were directly involved in a business that imported or exported - other than just going to Europe for a holiday once or twice a year. Those in business who had asked were told repeatedly that we'd stay in the single market and customs union - which it now seems was a lie at worst, and wishful thinking at best.

The 'common man' had been sold Brexit on the basis that we were going to be free of the shackles of the EU, that they were full of unelected bureaucrats telling us what we can and can't do, that our borders were open because of Europe (forgetting the Schengen Area and all that), that Turkey was minutes from joining which - given all the pictures on the TV in 2015 and 2016 showing immigrants flooding into Europe and heading for Germany, Sweden and trying to get to the UK, that was something people were quite likely to believe and be terrified of, and that the money saved by leaving the EU was going to make us significantly richer and we could spend it on, say, the NHS (source: red bus).

 

[tomuk]

Would it have been any different if it said the 'true' £250 million a week figure? Or the higher figure we would have now been contributing if we remained?

 

[E27007]

From interviews on TV the day after, some people voted to leave the EU immediately (as in walk away and tell them to f*** themselves, and to hell with any consequences), some voted because they were unhappy with David Cameron, some voted because they fancied a change, and some were just going on about immigration.

I am not sure many were even aware of what the other implications were, unless they were directly involved in a business that imported or exported - other than just going to Europe for a holiday once or twice a year. Those in business who had asked were told repeatedly that we'd stay in the single market and customs union - which it now seems was a lie at worst, and wishful thinking at best.

The 'common man' had been sold Brexit on the basis that we were going to be free of the shackles of the EU, that they were full of unelected bureaucrats telling us what we can and can't do, that our borders were open because of Europe (forgetting the Schengen Area and all that), that Turkey was minutes from joining which - given all the pictures on the TV in 2015 and 2016 showing immigrants flooding into Europe and heading for Germany, Sweden and trying to get to the UK, that was something people were quite likely to believe and be terrified of, and that the money saved by leaving the EU was going to make us significantly richer and we could spend it on, say, the NHS (source: red bus).

In 1975 we were sold that the UK would become rich if we joined the EEC, we "the poor man of Europe " witnessed our balance of trade turning from positive to negative quickly, we were flooded with imports and manufacturing felt the pinch, many jobs lost.
We were also lumbered into shouldering the burden of funding the bulk Common Agricultural Policy, at the time 70% of the EEC budget, intended to be funded by Germany. De Gaulle gave a speech warning the EEC the burden of CAP would crush Britain, a revelation since French Agriculture was the key recipient of CAP subsidies.
Sold the EEC would make us rich, and sold Brexit would make us poor, what is the truth?

 

[Doppelganger]

Sold the EEC would make us rich, and sold Brexit would make us poor, what is the truth?

It did, and it is.

 

[najaB]

Sold the EEC would make us rich, and sold Brexit would make us poor, what is the truth?

Err... They're the same claim, no? Being in is good for the economy, being out is bad.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Equally, what was on the ballot paper was not "Leave the EU, the Single Market and Customs Union"

Well yes, exactly. What was on the ballot paper, was simply, 'Leave the EU', and if you voted for that, then you were voting to leave the EU, not for any particular form of Brexit. It was arguably a badly designed question because it left so much open, but that was the question that was asked and which people voted on. And the result was that more people voted for Brexit, whatever that entailed, than for Remain, whatever that entailed. If someone wanted to leave the EU but only if we stayed in the single market + customs Union, then it was up to that person to decide whether they preferred to vote for an undefined Brexit that therefore carried the risk of a harder Brexit than they wanted, or to vote for Remain.

 

[Annetts key]

Well yes, exactly. What was on the ballot paper, was simply, 'Leave the EU', and if you voted for that, then you were voting to leave the EU, not for any particular form of Brexit. It was arguably a badly designed question because it left so much open, but that was the question that was asked and which people voted on.

That’s exactly why, having put it to the people in the form of a (far too simplistic) referendum, there should have been some meaningful follow up questions. Some debate about what kind of arrangements did the people want going forward, and then a referendum to select which option was preferred.

Every single decision no matter how complex can be reduced to series of binary questions and answers. The important point being that a single decision is very often based on a large number of these binary questions and answers. But with the referendum, all we got was a SINGLE binary question and answer.

The simple answer to the simple question did not inform anyone on what the people wanted in the complex arrangements, laws and treaties. All it really told us was that 52% of the people who voted wanted change.

The fact that the vote to leave the E.U. means different things to different people tells you this. Even the people campaigning to leave did not agree on what it meant.

 

[jon0844]

Yet the vote to remain was simple. Keep things as they are and move on.*

* Yes, you could obviously still want changes with our relationship with the EU, but that would be done through conventional means and not through a referendum.

 

[Enthusiast]

... and there are non-EU states who participate in the Single Market and Customs Union.

Yes there are.

Single Market: two countries whose electorates could not be persuaded to join the EU, plus the micro state of Liechtenstein, as well as Switzerland. The latter operates in the SM under bilateral agreements which the EU is currently threatening to rescind.

Customs Union (IIRC): Andorra, San Marino, Monaco, Turkey and again Switzerland (agreement under threat).

Neither really extensive.

I fully maintain that remaining in the SM/CU was never a realistic option. I don't recall being told that it was (not that I was taking much notice) but anybody believing that (regardless who told them) hadn't really thought it through. It would have amounted to simply crossing the UK off the list of EU members - no more than that.

Yet the vote to remain was simple. Keep things as they are and move on.*

* Yes, you could obviously still want changes with our relationship with the EU, but that would be done through conventional means and not through a referendum.

The EU does not "keep things as they are." The UK would have been consigned to accept whatever changes the other 27 wanted. The idea that we could veto anything we didn't like is false. Qualified Majority Voting has been extended to an increasing number of areas and will probably be extended to all decisions in the future. The "European Project" would not be derailed by a Perfidious Albion.

 

[edwin_m]

Single Market: two countries whose electorates could not be persuaded to join the EU

Leaving aside the disparaging tone, why should that situation somehow disqualify the status from consideration? Both Iceland and Norway had their own reasons for not joining the EU, but are apparently happy to be in the SM. I don't see why that a country that had decided to leave the EU couldn't remain in the SM in the same way.

 

[jon0844]

The EU does not "keep things as they are." The UK would have been consigned to accept whatever changes the other 27 wanted. The idea that we could veto anything we didn't like is false. Qualified Majority Voting has been extended to an increasing number of areas and will probably be extended to all decisions in the future. The "European Project" would not be derailed by a Perfidious Albion.

But we don't decide things with referendums here. The referendum was simple - leave or remain.

Simple for remain for the reason I explained - stay in and continue as normal (and deal with issues as we did for everything else before).

Not simple for leave as there were a million different ways to leave, or else there would be no negotiations. It would be a straight hard Brexit at a given date and that's that. Which of course some people wanted.