The EU "Deal" - poll!

[Mvann]

Well the EU would say stop when the correct answer is given going on its previous record

 

[Mvann]

leave Mr Fishfinger alone. He was one of the funniest satirists for years.

I prefer lord buckethead, but wish he would have kept his pledge on demolishing Birmingham and turning it into a space port

 

[Ken H]

The logic follows then that we have referenda every two to three years on the European issue. Or do we stop having them as soon as the correct answer of Remain is given? How you can entertain this and pretend you have some kind of democratic virtue at the same time is bizarre.

We had a referendum in 1975 when were were comprehensively lied to by Ted heath and the newspapers, telling us we were joining a trade club and there was no loss of sovereignty. We now know Heath knew that to be false. I remember, I voted in it, i was 18.

We were told the 2016 referendum was a once in a lifetime vote. No talk of best of three, or maybe have another think in a couple of years time.

 

[WelshBluebird]

What new evidence would that be?

That the leave campaign lied?
That there is no "£350m for the NHS".
That the comments from the leave campaign about the possibilities of a Norway or EEA type deal were clearly just lies (considering the same people who made those claims are the same ones trying to get as hard a Brexit as possible now).
The fact that our government is incompetent.
The fact the only deal that realistically will happen (and the only one that would ever realistically happen) won't actually make anyone happy.

Why the strange prefixing of vote with "democratic" with the subtext that there have been any undemocratic votes?

Not strange at all. Just pointing out that a vote would be democratic, so to claim it would somehow undo any trust in British democracy is insane.
Offering people the chance to change their mind is not at all anti democratic.

Because the only people suggesting a new vote are those who hope it will result in a different outcome to last time. The "Peope's Vote" campaign demonstrates this wonderfully - it is a pro-Remain campaign badly veiled as a campaign for "more democracy" and giving all a second choice. Whenever its leaders and supporters are interviewed it is clear the agenda is to overturn the Leave result and nothing else. You haven't changed your opinion since the "first" vote, because you voted sensibly and "correctly". Why do you assume anybody who voted the other way will have?

You see, this is the difference. I do not assume people have changed their minds. But I think people should be given the option to considering what has happened since the vote.

Nigel Farage is of no relevance. Neither is Johnson, Gove, Rees-Mogg, Hoey etc etc. It's not, and was not, about individuals and suggesting it was won't change anyone to your point of view. Rather, belittling people with a different opinion does the opposite - it makes them more resolute in their view.

It absolutely is about individuals. We are all individuals.
What individuals say is important. As is what they do.
You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about those of us who think there should be a second vote, but I bet you did not at all hurl these suggestions of it being antidemocratic etc when a leave campaigner was making the suggestion.

As for "belittling" people - it may be unpopular but some people (actually in this case with the EU, a hell of a lot of people) are so misinformed / ill informed that they need to be called out on it.
Just as if I was talking about something I know nothing about I would expect to be told so.

And there's a perfect example of that. He clearly does, he's articulate in explaining his view, which will no doubt even parallel yours when it comes to the incompetence of the Government over preparing for the referendum and acting on the result, but because you voted a different way you can't bring yourself to admit that and resort to being rude.

Anyone who wants a no deal has no clue.
Everything we do with the EU relies on a deal. Everything. To suggest that we could drop out without a deal and have only "short term disruption" just shows how much he doesn't have a clue.
Now, we all know the reality is there would likely be some kind of emergency deal to make sure everything carried on OK. But anyone who actually wants (or would be at least ok with) an actual no deal either hasn't looked into it enough, or is into disaster capitalism and will make money on it.

The logic follows then that we have referenda every two to three years on the European issue. Or do we stop having them as soon as the correct answer of Remain is given? How you can entertain this and pretend you have some kind of democratic virtue at the same time is bizarre.

Well except that isn't how it follows at all. The only reason myself (and others) want a second vote is because of what has come to light since. The lies, the law breaking, the reality that those pushing Brexit are now pushing a hard Brexit (rather than the options discussed before the vote), the fact our government is incompetent in doing anything, that the only deal that realistically will happen won't actually make anyone happy

 

[Bletchleyite]

Have you forgotten the blockades over fuel prices during Blairs government?

That was non-violent. Some Brexiteers seem to be suggesting rather more.

 

[ALAN BYRNE]

No way can we remain in the EU; May was possibly the worst home secretary in my 40+ voting years, and now she's given it all away without a fight to a bunch of Eurocrats who have never quite got over the fact that we saved their collective nations in both World Wars. I speak as one who has travelled Europe extensively, and even had a German Wife; for them its simply 'Pay Back' time!

 

[WelshBluebird]

No way can we remain in the EU; May was possibly the worst home secretary in my 40+ voting years, and now she's given it all away without a fight to a bunch of Eurocrats who have never quite got over the fact that we saved their collective nations in both World Wars. I speak as one who has travelled Europe extensively, and even had a German Wife; for them its simply 'Pay Back' time!

And this is why some of us struggle to take Brexiteer's seriously.

Really trying hard not to bite to be honest, though I do want to ask one question - how on earth is us leaving, and so the EU telling us that we can't have the benefits of the EU without being a member and accepting what that comes with, anything at all to do with the world wars of the rest of the EU wanting "pay back".

Literally the only people who are even thinking of the world wars are people like ALAN BYRNE who seem to think our being as a country is defined by our past military victories. I have lived and worked with people from many different countries (both EU and not), and literally only a particular set of Brits go on about the wars. Nobody else. What does that say? (You also see it with a small section of the England football fanbase with the stupid "two world wars, one world cup" song).

 

[EM2]

The logic follows then that we have referenda every two to three years on the European issue.

Why is that a problem? Ireland has a referendum on every issue that has a material effect on the constitution.

 

[mmh]

Why is that a problem? Ireland has a referendum on every issue that has a material effect on the constitution.

Given how the last 2 years have shown how difficult it is to leave the thing once, I don't think leaving or joining it every 2 or 3 years would be massively practical.

 

[birchesgreen]

No way can we remain in the EU; May was possibly the worst home secretary in my 40+ voting years, and now she's given it all away without a fight to a bunch of Eurocrats who have never quite got over the fact that we saved their collective nations in both World Wars. I speak as one who has travelled Europe extensively, and even had a German Wife; for them its simply 'Pay Back' time!

Nigel is it you?

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

That the leave campaign lied?
That there is no "£350m for the NHS".
That the comments from the leave campaign about the possibilities of a Norway or EEA type deal were clearly just lies (considering the same people who made those claims are the same ones trying to get as hard a Brexit as possible now).

and the remain campaign told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth did it?

The fact that our government is incompetent.

how will another referendum make the government less incompetent?

Not strange at all. Just pointing out that a vote would be democratic, so to claim it would somehow undo any trust in British democracy is insane.

the problem with pointing out that a vote would be democratic is that remainers try and claim that because they didn't win the argument there should be a democratic vote.... so what was the referendum? undemocratic? you can't have it both ways... either a vote is a democratic act or it isn't... you can't pick and choose when something is democratic based on whether your argument won the vote or not..

You see, this is the difference. I do not assume people have changed their minds. But I think people should be given the option to considering what has happened since the vote.

If you do not assume that people have changed their minds what is the point of campaigning for a 2nd vote.... obviously you believe that enough people have changed their mind to change the outcome else all you are advocating is conducting an exercise that will do nothing other than waste valuable tax-payers money on a pointless exercise..

It absolutely is about individuals. We are all individuals.
What individuals say is important. As is what they do.
You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about those of us who think there should be a second vote, but I bet you did not at all hurl these suggestions of it being antidemocratic etc when a leave campaigner was making the suggestion.

However, as a democratic society we as individuals have to accept that sometimes, when we are in the minority view, we have to abide with what the majority wants.

As for "belittling" people - it may be unpopular but some people (actually in this case with the EU, a hell of a lot of people) are so misinformed / ill informed that they need to be called out on it.

of course there are many in the "leave" camp that would say that actually they have the real facts and that remainers have been hoodwinked by the "company lie" of the EU!

Anyone who wants a no deal has no clue.
Everything we do with the EU relies on a deal. Everything. To suggest that we could drop out without a deal and have only "short term disruption" just shows how much he doesn't have a clue.

so in effect what you are saying is that there is no way that we would be able to function as a country if we leave without a deal? so what you are also saying is that throughout the talks the EU have been holding us to ransom with a gun against our heads...

Now, we all know the reality is there would likely be some kind of emergency deal to make sure everything carried on OK. But anyone who actually wants (or would be at least ok with) an actual no deal either hasn't looked into it enough, or is into disaster capitalism and will make money on it.

We know nothing of the sort... and neither is it a case of not "looking into it enough" I, personally, believe the risks are worth it in the long run, maybe not in MY lifetime... but certainly I believe, with the direction the EU has taken since Maastricht, that being outside the EU will be of benefit to the UK

Well except that isn't how it follows at all. The only reason myself (and others) want a second vote is because of what has come to light since. The lies, the law breaking, the reality that those pushing Brexit are now pushing a hard Brexit (rather than the options discussed before the vote), the fact our government is incompetent in doing anything, that the only deal that realistically will happen won't actually make anyone happy

No, the only reason why any remainer would want a 2nd vote is because they don't agree with the result... in other words because they didn't get their own way.

 

[EM2]

either a vote is a democratic act or it isn't... you can't pick and choose when something is democratic based on whether your argument won the vote or not..

To quote the law and policy writer David Allen Green, 'A mandate can be either democratic or irreversible. But it cannot be both.'
http://jackofkent.com/2017/07/a-man...reversible-but-it-cannot-be-both-an-argument/

The argument in support of this proposition goes as follows:

1. To say a referendum result provides a mandate for an issue once and for all is to say it is irreversible.

2. The position in (1) contrasts with mandates from general elections. Usually in UK politics, the result of a general election does not mandate any MP to vote for anything. The only real constitutional effect of a mandate from a general elections is that, by convention, any mandated measure cannot be blocked or delayed by the House of Lords (the “Salisbury doctrine”).

(Something is said to be mandated from a general election if it is set out in the manifesto of a party which obtains an overall majority.)

3. Following from (2): (a) opposition MPs can vote against measures in the winning party’s manifesto, (b) no government is obliged to follow its own manifesto (and often does not), and (c) in certain circumstances, a government can abandon and reverse policies where there is a mandate without waiting for a general election.

(A classic illustration of (c) is the poll tax, for which a Conservative government had a detailed mandate from the 1987 general election. Few sensible people, if any, would have argued that the Tories were bound to keep this tax in 1990 because of “democracy” when it came to be seen widely as wrong in principle and unworkable in practice.)

4. Following from (2) and (3), mandates in UK politics are usually reversible, if they are followed at all.

5. In any case, anything “mandated” by a general election result will always (and logically) be reversible at another election.

(In the case of (3)(c), there would not even be the wait for a general election. For example, nobody in 1990 was saying about the poll tax: “let’s wait for the next general election for a mandate for something else”. The policy was rightly ditched mid-parliament.)

6. Following from (2), (3), (4) and (5) if a policy is (a) wrong in principle and (b) unworkable in practice then it is difficult to see how any perceived mandate from a general election can override that.

7. Mandates also can come from referendums. The questions to now ask are: What should be the position with mandates from referendums? Should such mandates have an irreversible quality which a mandate from a general election does not? And if it has an irreversible quality, would such a mandate still be “democratic”?

8. In respect of whether such a mandate would be democratic, one can apply the famous tests of Tony Benn. He suggested five tests for anyone with power: What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you use it? To whom are you accountable? How do we get rid of you?

9. It is the last one that is problematic about referendum results, and prompts the following questions: How do you reverse a referendum result? Can an electorate at one point in time bind all future electorates in a way that no parliament could ever do? Why should a majority at point A have more inherent power than an electorate at point B? These questions all point to one plausible answer: to say a referendum result is mandatory for all time and not reversible in any circumstances is to rob future electorates of their power.

(As a side note, no Brexiteer – rightly – seems to believe that the UK was bound for all time by the 1975 referendum result.)

10. If the position at (9) is valid, then for a referendum mandate to be democratic, it must be capable of being revisited (either to affirm it or reverse it), else it cannot be democratic. One electorate would have dictated a measure to all future electorates.

11. If the position at (10) is valid, this is not to suggest a second referendum (see my post here – my view is that any such decision in a parliamentary democracy should be made, well, by parliament). Instead, if the position at (10) is valid then it means that referendum results (or anything else) should not be given the status of an absolute mandate in a democracy, for to do so would thereafter render that polity as undemocratic. This is because something will have been done that cannot be undone, whether by voters directly or through parliament.

12. And so on the basis of the positions above, a mandate – whether by means of a general election or a referendum – can be either democratic or irreversible, but it cannot be both.

And before there's any bleating about 'Remainer scare tactics', be aware that Green supports leaving the EU.

 

[EM2]

so in effect what you are saying is that there is no way that we would be able to function as a country if we leave without a deal? so what you are also saying is that throughout the talks the EU have been holding us to ransom with a gun against our heads...

Name any other country in the world that trades without being in any form of trading bloc?

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

To quote the law and policy writer David Allen Green, 'A mandate can be either democratic or irreversible. But it cannot be both.'
http://jackofkent.com/2017/07/a-man...reversible-but-it-cannot-be-both-an-argument/


And before there's any bleating about 'Remainer scare tactics', be aware that Green supports leaving the EU.

the whole point though is that we were told {as were the Scots with Indyref} that it was a "once in a lifetime" decision... we made that decision... to leave... to then bring up 1975's referendum is a red herring... even if back then we were told it was a "once in a generation/ lifetime" decision it's still valid to overturn that result in 2016 because it is over 40 yrs later.... and a "generation" is generally accepted to be 30 yrs... also.. a thought to those calling for a 2nd vote on Brexit... how many of those advocating would willingly give Sturgeon and her cronies the satisfaction of a 2nd Indyref?

Name any other country in the world that trades without being in any form of trading bloc?

oh dear, so you are STILL under the illusion that the EU is a trading block are you? it hasn't been a trading bloc since Maastricht... that treaty formed the basis for the EEC {European Economic Community} to become a political union {hence the significant change of name from EEC to EU}... Of course you might wish to argue otherwise but then you would have to argue that the United Kingdom isn't a political union but just a trading bloc....

 

[EM2]

to then bring up 1975's referendum is a red herring... even if back then we were told it was a "once in a generation/ lifetime" decision it's still valid to overturn that result in 2016 because it is over 40 yrs later....

So you agree that a mandate is not irreversible? Excellent, we agree.

... that treaty formed the basis for the EEC {European Economic Community} to become a political union

Which the UK is exempt from.
But to go back to the question that I asked, can you name any other country in the world that trades without being in any form of trading bloc?

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

So you agree that a mandate is not irreversible? Excellent, we agree.

not at all... if you read what I said you would see that I agreed that a referendum can be overturned once the time frame it is bound for is fulfilled... in the case of 1975 the "once in a generation" caveat ended in 2005. However if there was a 2nd Brexit vote now that WOULD be undemocratic as we are still within a generation of the Brexit vote.

Which the UK is exempt from.

for now.... with majority voting whose to say that in 10 yrs time we wouldn't be forced into full political union with the EU?

 

[EM2]

not at all... if you read what I said you would see that I agreed that a referendum can be overturned once the time frame it is bound for is fulfilled... in the case of 1975 the "once in a generation" caveat ended in 2005. However if there was a 2nd Brexit vote now that WOULD be undemocratic as we are still within a generation of the Brexit vote.

In your opinion.
If no parliament can bind a successor, then it surely follows that one electorate on one day in June 2016 cannot bind future electorates?

 

[Ken H]

not at all... if you read what I said you would see that I agreed that a referendum can be overturned once the time frame it is bound for is fulfilled... in the case of 1975 the "once in a generation" caveat ended in 2005. However if there was a 2nd Brexit vote now that WOULD be undemocratic as we are still within a generation of the Brexit vote.

for now.... with majority voting whose to say that in 10 yrs time we wouldn't be forced into full political union with the EU?

I think Lisbon did that.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

In your opinion.
If no parliament can bind a successor, then it surely follows that one electorate on one day in June 2016 cannot bind future electorates?

ok so take it to the extreme... do you advocate part of your breakfast regime should involve voting in a general election every day? after all I might change my mind about who I want as PM 3 times a day!

 

[Howardh]

Name any other country in the world that trades without being in any form of trading bloc?

Mauritania.

There we go, the UK is turning into Mauritania. Should have been on a bus.

 

[EM2]

ok so take it to the extreme... do you advocate part of your breakfast regime should involve voting in a general election every day? after all I might change my mind about who I want as PM 3 times a day!

If the law of the land decreed it to be so, then yes.
But there is nothing written down anywhere in law that says a certain length of time must have passed before a referendum result (especially one that was advisory) can be reversed, or even has to be implemented at all.

 

[EM2]

Mauritania.

There we go, the UK is turning into Mauritania. Should have been on a bus.

Even Mauritania is a member of the African Union.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

If the law of the land decreed it to be so, then yes.
But there is nothing written down anywhere in law that says a certain length of time must have passed before a referendum result (especially one that was advisory) can be reversed, or even has to be implemented at all.

except that we were told it was a "once in a generation" vote and that the government would respect the outcome of the referendum... of course I suppose as the government hasn't kept to the promise of delivering Brexit in anything but name then there could be an argument for a 2nd referendum... but IMHO the only choices on that paper should be "accept deal" or "leave without a deal"

 

[EM2]

with majority voting whose to say that in 10 yrs time we wouldn't be forced into full political union with the EU?

We cannot be, because it is enshrined in the Treaties of the EU.

“It is recognised that the United Kingdom, in the light of the specific situation it has under the Treaties, is not committed to further political integration into the European Union. The substance of this will be incorporated into the Treaties at the time of their next revision in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Treaties and the respective constitutional requirements of the Member States, so as to make it clear that the references to ever closer union do not apply to the United Kingdom”

And the phrase is actually 'ever closer union', the word 'political' is not mentioned. The full phrase is 'ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen'.

 

[EM2]

except that we were told it was a "once in a generation" vote and that the government would respect the outcome of the referendum...

It doesn't matter what we were told. It is not law.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

We cannot be, because it is enshrined in the Treaties of the EU.


And the phrase is actually 'ever closer union', the word 'political' is not mentioned. The full phrase is 'ever closer union among the peoples of Europe, in which decisions are taken as openly as possible and as closely as possible to the citizen'.

hmmm... so deciding more and more centrally in Brussels is "as closely as possible to the citizen" is it? As to it not mentioning political... well there comes a point where to get any closer in union you HAVE to politically unite.... of course this is where the EU is clever... it doesn't talk about national governments being dissolved in favour or one European parliament.... but it wouldn't would it? 28 national governments rubber stamping new EU laws allows the EU to keep up the sham facade of democracy it has covered itself with

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

It doesn't matter what we were told. It is not law.

lol I like that one... here we are debating the ins and outs for 2 yrs and now you say it doesn't matter what we were told on the subject.. absolutely brilliant... that's a new one on me... so if it doesn't matter what we were/ weren't told why have the remain camp been doing a group impersonation of Pvt Fraser from Dad's Army for 2 yrs?

 

[EM2]

hmmm... so deciding more and more centrally in Brussels is "as closely as possible to the citizen" is it?

What is decided centrally in Brussels without debate and discussion by elected representatives?

As to it not mentioning political... well there comes a point where to get any closer in union you HAVE to politically unite....

Does there? Why?

28 national governments rubber stamping new EU laws allows the EU to keep up the sham facade of democracy it has covered itself with

28 governments agreeing to implement a law sounds pretty democratic to me.

 

[EM2]

so if it doesn't matter what we were/ weren't told why have the remain camp been doing a group impersonation of Pvt Fraser from Dad's Army for 2 yrs?

We're talking law.
Your argument is that the vote cannot be reversed because we were told it was a 'once in a generation' choice. There is no legal basis why the vote cannot be reversed or not implemented.

 

[Teflon Lettuce]

We're talking law.
Your argument is that the vote cannot be reversed because we were told it was a 'once in a generation' choice. There is no legal basis why the vote cannot be reversed or not implemented.

no legal basis? ever heard of the legal concept of a verbal contract?