EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[furnessvale]

Remember the EU trade deal with Canada not going through first time because it wasn't backed by MEPs from one region of Belgium? It would be just as easy for a party like the SNP to get an amendment to a trade deal because the original deal could have a negative effect on Glasgow.

I presume you are talking about the SNP within a UK parliament? In which case, only if the SNP had a veto over the proposal, which they don't have.

If, however, they were able to muster a majority that would be a different matter.

 

[najaB]

It really doesn't; that's very reductive.

Not really. You can't expect anyone to know that you want a curry if you never tell anyone that you want a curry. In the same way, if you don't engage in the political process in any way (and I'm not limiting that to voting) then you can't realistically expect expressions of outrage to be taken very seriously.

 

[northwichcat]

I presume you are talking about the SNP within a UK parliament? In which case, only if the SNP had a veto over the proposal, which they don't have.

If, however, they were able to muster a majority that would be a different matter.

No I mean the SNP could do that in the European parliament, which is why I gave the example of one politicians from one area of Belgium forcing an amendment to the EU trade deal with Canada!

We had the power to block many EU laws or deals but as we didn't we can only presume the British MEPs thought it was in Britain's best interests.

 

[AlterEgo]

It's how you express your democratic right.

You can have no overall control both for a parliament and a local council or one party with a very slim majority, which is why some of the policies of the biggest party might not go through but it'll be rare if they are the headline vote winning policies that don't go through.

It's also your democratic right not to vote, if you so wish.

You seem to be explaining why a referendum is different. As you say there were two choices and many people wouldn't have fully understood the implications of either option.

If Remain had won would we have had another referendum if something significant happened e.g. Turkey joining the EU? Would a third option of "Remain for now but review again in x years or if y happens" have beaten Leave if it had been available? Or would an option of 'Leave but only if we can remain in single market' have won if it had been available? We don't know and if anyone suggests a second vote to determine if the public want hard Brexit or not then the pro-hard Brexit believers claim it's a 'threat to democracy.'

In 2010 some voters decided to switch from Labour to Lib Dem but switched back in 2015 after the Lib Dems formed a coalition with the Conservatives. With Brexit we aren't trying it for 5 years and the information available now is different to the information which was provided prior to the referendum.

Which is exactly why people who didn't vote should not be chastised for their choice.

To be clear, my specific point is that choosing not to vote, for whatever reason, does not mean the person loses the right to complain when they suffer detriment. That goes for whether you're choosing an elected representative, or voting in a referendum. The principle is exactly the same regardless of the mechanics.

As you correctly point out in the bolded part of the quote, the winners do not get to impose a tyranny, and losers can still legitimately express discontent and have a right to be heard. Even though they fully knew, and accept that under the EU referendum, a large-scale democratic exercise, they should accept that they lost.

 

[AlterEgo]

Not really. You can't expect anyone to know that you want a curry if you never tell anyone that you want a curry. In the same way, if you don't engage in the political process in any way (and I'm not limiting that to voting) then you can't realistically expect expressions of outrage to be taken very seriously.

If only choosing a political party or a constitutional position was as simple as "do I want a curry?".

 

[najaB]

If only choosing a political party or a constitutional position was as simple as "do I want a curry?".

I agree. But it annoys me when I see people, for example, posting on Facebook after an election expressing rage about the result when they didn't post anything about it beforehand.

 

[AlterEgo]

I agree. But it annoys me when I see people, for example, posting on Facebook after an election expressing rage about the result when they didn't post anything about it beforehand.

Clearly that is unjustified; I agree, if they didn't vote, they can't complain that X side/party won "OMG Tories got in again, but hey I didn't vote" - but I argue they do retain the right to complain about detriment to themselves. "I don't mind whether we go for a curry, a Chinese, or burgers, but blimey, this burger restaurant we've gone to is unclean and the waiter is rude".

 

[furnessvale]

No I mean the SNP could do that in the European parliament, which is why I gave the example of one politicians from one area of Belgium forcing an amendment to the EU trade deal with Canada!

We had the power to block many EU laws or deals but as we didn't we can only presume the British MEPs thought it was in Britain's best interests.

You've just given me another good reason for leaving the EU if that is true.

I thought the Wallonia issue was that each regional assembly in Belgium had to agree before Belgium itself could sign off the Canada deal. Wallonia took the opportunity to squeeze a bit for itself, as is quite normal within EU deals.

 

[northwichcat]

You've just given me another good reason for leaving the EU if that is true.

I thought the Wallonia issue was that each regional assembly in Belgium had to agree before Belgium itself could sign off the Canada deal. Wallonia took the opportunity to squeeze a bit for itself, as is quite normal within EU deals.

If deals aren't forced on to countries unless the country is united behind the deal, then we only sign up to deals which are in the UK's best interests. If deals are forced on to other countries (like Belgium) against their wishes then the same would happen to us. Brexiters always seem to struggle to use the Canada-Belgium deal in an argument.

 

[Barn]

If deals aren't forced on to countries unless the country is united behind the deal, then we only sign up to deals which are in the UK's best interests. If deals are forced on to other countries (like Belgium) against their wishes then the same would happen to us. Brexiters always seem to struggle to use the Canada-Belgium deal in an argument.

We cannot do deals:

(a) quickly, because of all of the multi-lateral negotiation and approvals needed; or
(b) in a way which is tailored to the economies of the UK and our bilateral partner, because of protectionist concerns among the other members of the EU.

The result has been slow, clunky and often fairly uninspiring trade deals. Often these do not adequately cover areas which are most of interest to the UK, such as financial services or the creative industries.

Remainers often use the sheer amount of time it takes to conclude a deal as an argument for remaining, when actually it just demonstrates the difficulty the EU faces in negotiating nimbly.

(I do appreciate that the current UK Government is not doing a particularly good impression of being nimble negotiators).

 

[northwichcat]

We cannot do deals:

(a) quickly, because of all of the multi-lateral negotiation and approvals needed; or
(b) in a way which is tailored to the economies of the UK and our bilateral partner, because of protectionist concerns among the other members of the EU.

The result has been slow, clunky and often fairly uninspiring trade deals. Often these do not adequately cover areas which are most of interest to the UK, such as financial services or the creative industries.

Remainers often use the sheer amount of time it takes to conclude a deal as an argument for remaining, when actually it just demonstrates the difficulty the EU faces in negotiating nimbly.

(I do appreciate that the current UK Government is not doing a particularly good impression of being nimble negotiators).

While I agree that trying to get a deal which suits numerous countries will not be a quick process, don't forget other countries have told us we'll be back of the queue for new trade deals due to a deal with just the UK not being as attractive for countries like America, Canada or Japan as a deal with the EU. A few months ago the Canadian PM said it wouldn't be an issue if Canada lost it's trade agreement with the UK because there's plenty of opportunities for trade with Ireland. We're really not seen as the super power some people think we are. I suppose Canada having a Liberal PM and the UK having a Conservative PM who is willing to run and fetch sticks for Donald Trump doesn't help.

 

[EM2]

...a very niche set of political opinions and absolutely nobody who embodies or represents them to vote for.

So why not stand for office yourself?

 

[AlterEgo]

So why not stand for office yourself?

With a niche set of political opinions? You may as well throw money down the drain.

 

[najaB]

Clearly that is unjustified; I agree, if they didn't vote, they can't complain that X side/party won "OMG Tories got in again, but hey I didn't vote" - but I argue they do retain the right to complain about detriment to themselves.

I don't even say that they necessarily needed to vote - though, that is the best way to get the government you want - but if they were completely apathetic and uninvolved prior the vote and become hellfire and brimstone activists afterwards then I feel justified in discounting their rantings.

 

[AndrewNewens]

The 'we can negotiate great trade deals' argument is something I just can't get my head round. What evidence is there the UK is being held back by the lack of such good deals?

Under exatly the same terms and conditions, Germany exported 88 billion's worth of goods and services to China last year, the UK could not even manage to export 8 billion's worth.

I don't think it the lack of a good trade deal that held us back, it was the fact that we don't make anything the Chinese feel they need to buy. How will leaving the EU change that?

Boris et al are simply wishing on a star. Come on children, all you have to do is believe, and everything will be wonderful.

We have major structural problems in the UK with education, manufacturing and the economy in general, but scapegoating the EU as a problem (or the one and only problem if we listen to Kippers) is delusional. Almost as delusional as the belief that better trade deals are going to save us.

 

[northwichcat]

Ways of preventing a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic include NI remaining in the single market and having a Norway style relationship with the EU. The option of NI retaining MEPs post-Brexit has also been mooted as Northern Irish citizens are entitled to Irish citizenship and Ireland will remain a member of the EU.

 

[AlterEgo]

Ways of preventing a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic include NI remaining in the single market and having a Norway style relationship with the EU. The option of NI retaining MEPs post-Brexit has also been mooted as Northern Irish citizens are entitled to Irish citizenship and Ireland will remain a member of the EU.

I see the debate hasn't moved on very far with the Irish border. The option for NI to retain its MEPs is bonkers. I'm an Irish citizen, can I have an MEP please even though I live in the UK?

 

[northwichcat]

I see the debate hasn't moved on very far with the Irish border. The option for NI to retain its MEPs is bonkers. I'm an Irish citizen, can I have an MEP please even though I live in the UK?

In reality it's not that different to Gibraltar being represented. Gibraltar isn't part of the UK or a member of the EU but it's a UK overseas territory within Europe so gets treated like it is part of the UK in the context of the EU.

 

[AlterEgo]

In reality it's not that different to Gibraltar being represented. Gibraltar isn't part of the UK or a member of the EU but it's a UK overseas territory within Europe so gets treated like it is part of the UK in the context of the EU.

It is very much different. Gibraltar is not in the UK. Northern Ireland is.

The relationship between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland is in no way akin to the relationship between the UK and Gibraltar.

 

[northwichcat]

It is very much different. Gibraltar is not in the UK. Northern Ireland is.

Gibraltar votes in the 'South West & Gibraltar' region in the European elections so people in Bristol are voting for the same candidates as those in Gibraltar. While it's not the same it wouldn't be all that different if holders of Irish passports in Belfast could vote for a MEP in the 'North of Ireland' region of Ireland.

 

[AlterEgo]

Gibraltar votes in the 'South West & Gibraltar' region in the European elections so people in Bristol are voting for the same candidates as those in Gibraltar. While it's not the same it wouldn't be all that different if holders of Irish passports in Belfast could vote for a MEP in the 'North of Ireland' region of Ireland.

There are many difficulties with this.

Firstly, the idea of the "north of Ireland" is almost exclusively a nationalist shibboleth, whereby the implication is that Northern Ireland is a region of a larger geographical entity - it is used to avoid the usage of the term "Northern Ireland", still viewed by some as an illegitimate constitutional entity. Two of Northern Ireland's three MEPs are unionists and would not accept the idea that the "north of Ireland" is a distinct region substituted for the proper name of the six counties, which is Northern Ireland.

The second difficulty is in the fact that the EU is going to be on very dodgy ground if it designates Northern Ireland as in any way, shape or form politically contiguous with the Republic of Ireland. Irish affairs north and south are best agreed by the people of the island of Ireland - something which has broad consensus along all sides of Irish and Northern Irish political division.

Given the above, the third difficulty is the current political impasse in Northern Ireland, with Sinn Fein refusing to form an executive. Currently, there are a number of demands and red lines on the table on both sides, and consensus will be difficult to reach. The introduction of an additional issue, particularly around anything approaching constitutional politics, will complicate matters significantly. Also worth bearing in mind is the fact that it's Sinn Fein that will want MEPs to remain in Northern Ireland and they are in a strategically weak position already.

 

[AndrewNewens]

Information for anyone who want's to join in. Details of where the Manchester anti Brexit march starts and finishes on the 1st October (the day the Tory party conference opens in the city).

 

[Howardh]

Information for anyone who want's to join in. Details of where the Manchester anti Brexit march starts and finishes on the 1st October (the day the Tory party conference opens in the city).

Like to think it would, but it won't do a scrap of good. Think the election result made the Tories - well those apart from the die-hard Brexiteers - realise that 16 million is an awful lot of votes and that remainers mustn't be ignored.

I'm reasonably confident that we will have a softish Brexit now, if only the likes of Boris and Fox would shut the up and let May and Davis see what they can come up with.

However, whatever the result, i would like a vote on the outcome. Brexiters don't want that of course, so that means if THEY don't like the outcome (too soft? Too much *in* the EU??) they can't have a vote either.

 

[bramling]

Like to think it would, but it won't do a scrap of good. Think the election result made the Tories - well those apart from the die-hard Brexiteers - realise that 16 million is an awful lot of votes and that remainers mustn't be ignored.

I'm reasonably confident that we will have a softish Brexit now, if only the likes of Boris and Fox would shut the up and let May and Davis see what they can come up with.

However, whatever the result, i would like a vote on the outcome. Brexiters don't want that of course, so that means if THEY don't like the outcome (too soft? Too much *in* the EU??) they can't have a vote either.

I really don't see a connection between the election result and Brexit. The pro EU party was the Liberal Democrats and they gained no traction at all. The UKIP vote collapsed, as expected, but went to both Labour and the Conservatives, both of which are pro Brexit, notwithstanding the fact that Labour's position is extremely muddled.

I'd say the election result was driven by other factors, probably including an utterly terrible campaign by the Conservatives. It's worth remembering the changes in seat numbers were largely driven by some quite small changes in results.

Brexit is by no means the only issue people voted on.

 

[Howardh]

I really don't see a connection between the election result and Brexit. The pro EU party was the Liberal Democrats and they gained no traction at all. The UKIP vote collapsed, as expected, but went to both Labour and the Conservatives, both of which are pro Brexit, notwithstanding the fact that Labour's position is extremely muddled.

I'd say the election result was driven by other factors, probably including an utterly terrible campaign by the Conservatives. It's worth remembering the changes in seat numbers were largely driven by some quite small changes in results.

Brexit is by no means the only issue people voted on.

Think the key in the election was may spoke of "no deal is better than a bad deal" scaring the pants off us and stood on the steps of Drowning Street and asked for an increased majority....and look where that got her!

Many like me who normally vote Tory defected to Labour as we had little chance of getting our local Libdem candidates elected - on the ticket of they wanted to remain in the SM and CU. That also turned out to be untrue (or maybe it was true...who knows??) and the result was the loss of her already small majority.

The next election is due in 2022 unless there is one earlier it will probably be fought on the aftermath of being out of the EU for two years and the state the country is in then.

If Brexit's bad and the Tories are still in power then, they haven't a hope of winning. Which is why they will probably back away from a "hard" Brexit if they feel it would be bad for them first, and the country last.

Only a complete fool of a Tory MP would want the UK to end up under WTO rules - however there are more than enough complete fool Tory MP's in this world. But they can still run away and hide in their tax-havens - so why should they worry??

 

[Sad Sprinter]

As Brambling mentioned, I think the reason why Theresa May lost her majority was that she offered nothing substansive. Labour's manifesto had some clear points- railway renationalisation, raising corporation tax to support public sector spending increases, staying in the single market to avoid the "reckless" Tory Brexit etc. Theresa on the other hand did not offer much at all apart from buzzphrase after buzzphrase and cutting social care. What she spoke of when she came to power last June; greater workers rights in business, curtailing foreign ownership of British firms and infrasturcture and focusing on manufacturing would have won her a golden ticket-if she actually mentioned it at all this June!

 

[HSTEd]

Turns out Corbyn is actually a veteran campaigner with years of experience - and has learned lessons of the 80s very well [have to capture the popular culture zeitgeist and do everything to boost turnout amongst your supporters].

Just not the same lessons that the Blairite wing of the labour party learned.

 

[northwichcat]

As Brambling mentioned, I think the reason why Theresa May lost her majority was that she offered nothing substansive. Labour's manifesto had some clear points- railway renationalisation, raising corporation tax to support public sector spending increases, staying in the single market to avoid the "reckless" Tory Brexit etc. Theresa on the other hand did not offer much at all apart from buzzphrase after buzzphrase and cutting social care. What she spoke of when she came to power last June; greater workers rights in business, curtailing foreign ownership of British firms and infrasturcture and focusing on manufacturing would have won her a golden ticket-if she actually mentioned it at all this June!

Theresa May saw it as the 'Brexit election' so thought she would win on the basis that she could convince the public 'her team' are better negotiators than 'Corbyn's team.' The Lib Dems also saw it as a Brexit election and put forward a headline policy of giving the UK a say on the final terms of Brexit. Labour didn't mention Brexit so much and a large proportion of the public seemed to see it as an election where we could either get rid of the Tories so there was a lot of tactical voting going on.

 

[bramling]

As Brambling mentioned, I think the reason why Theresa May lost her majority was that she offered nothing substansive. Labour's manifesto had some clear points- railway renationalisation, raising corporation tax to support public sector spending increases, staying in the single market to avoid the "reckless" Tory Brexit etc. Theresa on the other hand did not offer much at all apart from buzzphrase after buzzphrase and cutting social care. What she spoke of when she came to power last June; greater workers rights in business, curtailing foreign ownership of British firms and infrasturcture and focusing on manufacturing would have won her a golden ticket-if she actually mentioned it at all this June!

Agreed. May offered nothing to anyone really, and also managed to turn off a lot of people with stuff like the social care 'proposals'. Thinking back to 2015 Cameron had things to appeal to many groups, for example the inheritance tax changes, tax cuts, changes to minimum wage, etc. I simply cannot think of one thing May put on the table to appeal to voters, apart from the sound bites.

I think many people have moved on from Brexit now - they just want it delivered. The Lib Dems gained no ground at all really, and Labour's position was and is muddled. Note also the SNP lost a lot ground - despite having a hard anti-Brexit message in a part of the country which was more biased towards Remain (although not by as much as the picture painted by some).

 

[bramling]

Turns out Corbyn is actually a veteran campaigner with years of experience - and has learned lessons of the 80s very well [have to capture the popular culture zeitgeist and do everything to boost turnout amongst your supporters].

Just not the same lessons that the Blairite wing of the labour party learned.

Corbyn is very good at delivering his core message, the sort of message which is well received at something like the Durham miners' gala. He quickly crumbles when off that core message. I genuinely don't see what 'the young' see in him at all - to me he is trying to manipulate a subset of the population who have less life experience and thus no real-world experience of these sorts of policies being enacted in practice.

No one really knows Corbyn's position on Brexit, which is a ridiculous situation. Either he's hiding something or is terrible at articulating himself - unsatisfactory either way.