Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 22, 2019, 08:02:09 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  International General Discussion (Moderators: Gustaf, afleitch, Hash, Balkan Hitman)
| | |-+  Should There be a Revote on Brexit?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 Print
Poll
Question: Should Britons be able to have a revote on Brexit?
Briton: Yes   -8 (5%)
Briton: No   -10 (6.3%)
Non-Briton: Yes   -62 (38.8%)
Non-Briton: No   -80 (50%)
Show Pie Chart
Total Voters: 160

Author Topic: Should There be a Revote on Brexit?  (Read 4956 times)
Filuwaúrdjan
Realpolitik
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 62,302
United Kingdom


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: January 16, 2019, 07:28:06 am »

Some of you might do well to remember that Brexit is something that is going to have a huge human cost.

As it stands it's going to break up families, destroy livelihoods and so on. But sure, Britain should go through with it because I've got a bunch of facile clichés to flog

Just consider one immediate issue: if there is a 'No Deal' situation, then there will be a bottleneck and a backlog at Dover and all the ports because of the extra time required to process everything. This won't last for particularly long in the grand scheme of things, not even in the worst case scenario, but many pharmaceuticals are imported, including insulin. This is not a game.
Logged
DavidB.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,329
Netherlands


Political Matrix
E: -1.74, S: 5.13

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #76 on: January 16, 2019, 08:01:27 am »

A revote would mean that the cosmopolitan class will truly never take no for an answer and that the EU truly is Hotel California: you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave. It would essentially mean that democracy in Britain is no more - not that it is presumably any better in other EU countries.

Of course, if this happens, God forbid, it would be mostly because of delusional Brexiteer fools in the Conservative party who think May's perfectly fine deal isn't good enough, who think the UK can just replace its EU trade relations with some Commonwealth countries that don't even produce what Britain needs.
Logged
¢®🅰ß 🦀 ©@k€ 🎂
CrabCake
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,942
Kiribati


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #77 on: January 16, 2019, 09:34:09 am »

I'm increasingly sure another referendum is essential to get us out of the logjam, although not a revote per se. If I was May and wanted to deliver Brexit what I'd do is put my vote up to a public vote, in effect daring the Hard Brexit wing to publicly campaign alongside arch remainers and imperil Brexit itself. The hope there would be that the public is so sick of Brexit and yammering all day about whether Tory MPs have bigger boners for European flags or Union Jacks that we will just vote yes and never have to concern ourselves with this tedious debate ever again.
Logged
rc18
Full Member
***
Posts: 106
United Kingdom


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: January 16, 2019, 12:38:05 pm »

A revote would mean that the cosmopolitan class will truly never take no for an answer and that the EU truly is Hotel California: you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave. It would essentially mean that democracy in Britain is no more - not that it is presumably any better in other EU countries.

Of course, if this happens, God forbid, it would be mostly because of delusional Brexiteer fools in the Conservative party who think May's perfectly fine deal isn't good enough, who think the UK can just replace its EU trade relations with some Commonwealth countries that don't even produce what Britain needs.
You appear confused. The whole reason May’s deal isn’t a “fine deal”, amongst other things, is precisely because the backstop and the stubborn refusal to stipulate we can unilaterally end it is a thinly-veiled attempt to ensure the EU has a veto on keeping us within the Customs Union, and probably large parts of the Single Market.

As for “producing what Britain needs” what exactly is it you think this is? In terms of goods imports by far the most dominant imports are cars, medicines, and machinery. The world is not going to stop turning if German cars become more expensive. Not to mention this sector is probably going to change radically in the coming decades anyway with new technologies on the horizon.  As for medicines this is an area that Europe, and the developed world in general, are ceding to developing countries. In fact some formerly expensive drugs I use now come from India.  Machinery is perhaps the only real problematic area as transition to new supply chains will take time, but again it’s not like there aren't alternatives anymore. As for UK service “imports”, by far the largest value is British holiday-makers to EU states. If they choose other destinations so be it, if they spend their money in the UK instead then even better. In fact this alone could wipe out a huge fraction of our trade deficit with the EU.

The EU is rapidly dropping in importance to trade, it has dropped as a percentage of our exports by 1/5th in the last decade alone. It’s the rest of the world that is growing. As for imports this is distorted by the so-called Rotterdam effect.  As you may well know a large proportion of our imported goods come from non-EU sources that are shipped through Rotterdam, inflating our EU trade deficit and making the EU seem more important than it is. These goods would be cheaper if not for the EU customs union external tariff.  It would be economically insane to keep us tethered to a customs union in perpetuity, and it would be precisely the opposite of regaining soveriegnty which in part motivated the vote.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2019, 12:46:51 pm by rc18 »Logged
DavidB.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,329
Netherlands


Political Matrix
E: -1.74, S: 5.13

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #79 on: January 16, 2019, 12:55:29 pm »

I am not "confused", you simply disagree with me - don't get it twisted.

It makes no sense for the UK to leave the highly profitable single market and I never expected the UK to actually do that. The UK benefited from being able to export its products to the rest of the EU and the British economy is highly interconnected with other EU economies. The costs of changing to other supply chains will be big (and unnecessary), small and medium-sized businesses would have to find new reliable partners overseas in countries that don't necessarily have the same culture in doing business as their partners in the EU at all, and it will all just be a big waste of money. I'm not a UK citizen and I frankly couldn't care less since I don't have a job that is in any way affected by Brexit, but the no-vote on this deal out of the desire to completely leave the single market just seems like a dumb decision.

For me Brexit was all intergovernmentalism prevailing over supranationalism. The UK already had control over its own borders to a large extent due to the opt-out, but there is an argument to be made that as the EU becomes an ever-closer union, the UK's sovereignty to decide on its own borders and its own demographics would diminish. What's more, I've always supported European economic cooperation and deep economic trade relationships without the political integration, so a soft Brexit always made sense to me - and May's final deal is pretty close to what seemed good to me, and certainly better than anything I expected after the EU and Barnier's tough talk. Your negotiators really got the best they could get. A new round of negotiations could yield even more, who knows, but the principles behind the agreement seem good to me.
Logged
rc18
Full Member
***
Posts: 106
United Kingdom


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #80 on: January 16, 2019, 04:28:02 pm »

I am not "confused", you simply disagree with me - don't get it twisted.

No it isn't disagreement, you simply appear to have an unrealistic conception of what leaving the EU actually entails. It seems to be some walter mitty fantasy of having your cake and eating it; being sovereign and free of the political union while enmeshed in its economic system.  With all due respect this attitude is completely away with the faeries.  Repeatedly during the EU referendum politicians on both sides made clear that leaving the EU in a way that returns sovereignty over the most important aspects of British life in practise means leaving the Single Market and Customs Union.

It makes no sense for the UK to leave the highly profitable single market and I never expected the UK to actually do that.
but there is an argument to be made that as the EU becomes an ever-closer union, the UK's sovereignty to decide on its own borders and its own demographics would diminish.
The deal is not (nominally at least) about the Single Market; the official line of both the government and Labour is not to remain in the Single Market.

As Mutti has consistently reiterated the Single Market and Freedom of Movement are intimately linked.  You cannot "decide on [your] own borders and [your] own demographics" and stay in the EU's Single Market.  Staying in the Single Market is thus politically unpalatable, and would only be certain to happen if god forbid we remain.

The issue with May's deal is nominally about the Customs Union (though using it to keep us in parts of the Single Market, and thus Freedom of Movement, via the backdoor is unlikely that far away).  In what universe does it make sense to leave the EU's political union, single market, but then remain tethered to the EU's trade policy forever, an economy with completely different needs to our own?  It's even less sovereignty over trade than we have now, it's not acceptable to anyone but hardcore federalist remainers.

For me Brexit was all intergovernmentalism prevailing over supranationalism.
Dude, where have you been the last few decades?

The supranationalists/federalists won.  What's more our political institutions, even in a eurosceptic country like the UK, came to be dominated by federalist sympathisers.  

But our population most certainly aren't. Even a large proportion of people who voted remain don't particularly like the increasing federalism of the EU.  That's why the hardcore are desperate to keep us in before we officially leave, they know the UK won't vote to return to an even more closely integrated EU any time soon.  Leaving is a last resort, there is no changing the EU from within back to a trading bloc, it's supranationalism or bust now.  If you disagree then you need to leave, that's what we chose.

What's more, I've always supported European economic cooperation and deep economic trade relationships without the political integration, so a soft Brexit always made sense to me - and May's final deal is pretty close to what seemed good to me, and certainly better than anything I expected after the EU and Barnier's tough talk. Your negotiators really got the best they could get. A new round of negotiations could yield even more, who knows, but the principles behind the agreement seem good to me.
I have no objection to a free trade agreement with the EU, but sovereignty is impossible whilst remaining in the Customs Union or Single Market.  Even leavers would say half-in/half-out is worse for sovereignty than even remaining in the political union, at least we'd still have a vote.

What do you think leaving the EU means?  You seem to be labouring under the assumption you can just leave the political union and regain sovereignty and retain much of the old EC.  But they are intimately linked now. Leaving the political union but remaining in the Single Market and Custom Union gives the EU sovereignty of our economics and borders with no representation, a federalists wet dream.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2019, 04:52:46 pm by rc18 »Logged
DavidB.
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,329
Netherlands


Political Matrix
E: -1.74, S: 5.13

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #81 on: January 16, 2019, 05:57:18 pm »

I don't necessarily disagree with a lot of what you say, but that condescending tone is simply ludicrous and you need to get rid of it if you want to have a serious discussion on this subject. I fully agree that the EU is not reformable from within, which is why I had a great night back then in 2016 and why I envy the UK for leaving it (and why I want Brexit to be a success: if the UK is screwed, no EU country will leave anymore, which is why the current sh**tshow in the UK is pretty painful to watch for a Nexiteer).

However, I also think half-in/half-out would for now allow the UK to gradually move beyond the EU market and become less interconnected with that EU market. You don't have a vote in the EU (not that it matters much...), but you're able to end the agreement unilaterally at any time, which means it is intergovernmental and not supranational - this is an enormous difference to being in the EU. The UK is in control. There is a reason why Norwegians are mostly very happy with their current arrangement. And a non-EU immigration opt-out the UK already had. Subsequently taking in millions of Pakistanis anyway just to show the Tories how successful the multicultural dream would be was your own Labour government's absolutely brilliant decision.

I wouldn't necessarily trust your political elites to actually implement this "diversification" of economic ties as, indeed, many are cosmopolitans and globalists at heart, but the end of that process would ideally entail the disentanglement of the UK and EU economies except for a free trade agreement. By contrast, a hard Brexit right now (or a no-deal Brexit) would do a lot of damage to the UK economy which seems wholly unnecessary.
Logged
rc18
Full Member
***
Posts: 106
United Kingdom


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #82 on: January 16, 2019, 07:10:18 pm »

I don't necessarily disagree with a lot of what you say, but that condescending tone is simply ludicrous and you need to get rid of it if you want to have a serious discussion on this subject. I fully agree that the EU is not reformable from within, which is why I had a great night back then in 2016 and why I envy the UK for leaving it (and why I want Brexit to be a success: if the UK is screwed, no EU country will leave anymore, which is why the current sh**tshow in the UK is pretty painful to watch for a Nexiteer).
The tone probably had something to do with calling brexiteers delusional about May's deal.  Hell, even the non-federalist remainers don't like this aspect of her deal.

The sh**tshow is an inevitable consequence of having a political class of federalists wedded to the political union. They are not going to give up without a fight, it was never going to be easy.  Parliament has degenerated into a talentless farce, but we can't fix it while in the European political system.  

However, I also think half-in/half-out would for now allow the UK to gradually move beyond the EU market and become less interconnected with that EU market. You don't have a vote in the EU (not that it matters much...), but you're able to end the agreement unilaterally at any time, which means it is intergovernmental and not supranational - this is an enormous difference to being in the EU.
May's deal gives the EU a veto on leaving the arrangement. We cannot unilaterally end the agreement at any time. We are stuck in it for however long the EU wants (a.k.a forever). This is a hook to reel us back into the EU, that's why brexiteers aren't going to vote for it.

And a non-EU immigration opt-out the UK already had. Subsequently taking in millions of Pakistanis anyway just to show the Tories how successful the multicultural dream would be was your own Labour government's absolutely brilliant decision.
I have no love for our own politicians, let me be clear it's not like the EU is the source of all our problems, but at least they're our bastards and theoretically we can get rid of them.

I wouldn't necessarily trust your political elites to actually implement this "diversification" of economic ties as, indeed, many are cosmopolitans and globalists at heart, but the end of that process would ideally entail the disentanglement of the UK and EU economies except for a free trade agreement. By contrast, a hard Brexit right now (or a no-deal Brexit) would do a lot of damage to the UK economy which seems wholly unnecessary.
I don't think any leavers trust them to, but it will be an inevitable consequence of a so-called "hard" brexit (or as I call it, leaving).  You can't be weaned off the EU, it doesn't work like that. You say Norway is happy, but remember their political class is very much in favour of joining the EU.

As for predictions of doom, literally every piece of "conventional" wisdom over the last 2 and a half years has shown to be pretty much the opposite of true.  That's because the "expert" opinion isn't an educated guess, it's just the projection of the prejudices of those self-same cosmopolitans and globalists.  The fact is no one knows what will happen.  I'm sure in the beginning there'll be much wailing in the media, but at the end of the day life goes on.  It's very much in the economic interests of the globalists for it to do so.  In the long run is being wedded to a dying continent that we have no influence in that good for our economy?

I get it, you are scared about brexit's effect on others in the EU who are not fond of the way the continent is going, but at the end of the day a clean break leave is the only way we are not going to be drawn back in.
« Last Edit: January 16, 2019, 07:49:22 pm by rc18 »Logged
Balkan Hitman
Kalwejt
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 51,955


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #83 on: January 17, 2019, 08:53:09 am »

A revote would mean that the cosmopolitan class will truly never take no for an answer and that the EU truly is Hotel California: you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave. It would essentially mean that democracy in Britain is no more - not that it is presumably any better in other EU countries.

The UK, like any other member state, should be able to leave, but when you leave a club, you also lose certain priveledges afforted to members. The British government kind of acted like they could eat a cake and still have it, raising unreasonable expectations in the process and thus finding themselves in an impossible position, unable to satisfy any side. And I'm saying this as somebody who didn't want to see a "hard Brexit", as something bad for both sides.

Things turned out this way and both the EU and the UK have to go throught this. A re-vote wouldn't make things any better.
Logged
The Chad Ralph Northam
bruhgmger2
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,731
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.32, S: -5.91

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #84 on: January 17, 2019, 08:02:56 pm »

Absolutely not. The British people voted to leave the EU. Sorry cosmopolitans, you lost and you don't get to have the nation vote on the same issue over and over again until they finally give you the answer you want.
Logged
Secret Cavern Survivor
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 49,972
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #85 on: January 18, 2019, 02:23:36 am »

Some of you might do well to remember that Brexit is something that is going to have a huge human cost.

As it stands it's going to break up families, destroy livelihoods and so on. But sure, Britain should go through with it because I've got a bunch of facile clichés to flog

Just consider one immediate issue: if there is a 'No Deal' situation, then there will be a bottleneck and a backlog at Dover and all the ports because of the extra time required to process everything. This won't last for particularly long in the grand scheme of things, not even in the worst case scenario, but many pharmaceuticals are imported, including insulin. This is not a game.

Well, of course, only a psychopath or someone who lives in complete denial could be actively rooting for a no-deal Brexit.

The thing is, a no-Brexit solution is also unacceptable, because yes, democracy does need to matter and have consequences. There's nothing inconsistent about holding both positions, as long as you're willing to support compromises like May's deal (whatever you can say about May herself, and I have little good to say about her).

The tragedy is that the psychopaths/denialists on one side and the shameless elitists on the other each thought rejecting the deal would lead to their preferred outcome. And they both have a fair chance of being proven wrong, although I'd say the elitists are in a slightly better position.
Logged
thumb21
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,612
Cyprus


Political Matrix
E: -3.90, S: 1.30

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #86 on: January 18, 2019, 08:38:06 am »

I support a vote on no deal vs Theresa May's deal, but whether or not we're leaving has already been decided.

At this point, this is not only desirable, but essential. I don't see any way that Parliament can resolve this, the only solution is to allow the people to vote. May's deal vs No Deal.
Logged
parochial boy
parochial_boy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,132


Political Matrix
E: -8.38, S: -6.78

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #87 on: January 18, 2019, 08:44:48 am »

In May, Switzerland is going to be having a referendum about a question that it had 2 years ago - because the circumstances and the options available have changed in the mean time.

Of course, no-one is up in arms about this, because this is how mature direct democracies actually work.

Either you have a coherent logic about how, why and when referendums are held - or else whining about what the "democratic will of the people" is is essentially meaningless.
Logged
IceAgeComing
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,390
United Kingdom


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #88 on: January 18, 2019, 09:51:00 am »

In May, Switzerland is going to be having a referendum about a question that it had 2 years ago - because the circumstances and the options available have changed in the mean time.

Of course, no-one is up in arms about this, because this is how mature direct democracies actually work.

Either you have a coherent logic about how, why and when referendums are held - or else whining about what the "democratic will of the people" is is essentially meaningless.

I think that this is a key point; circumstances change, the options available to people change and frankly people change their minds when more facts become available.  The fact is that in 2016 the model of Brexit that was proposed was not possible - as many of us made clear at the time - and so asking a question between the status quo and a more precise version of Brexit would be clear.  This wouldn't be against the norms of other Westminster system countries - look at the New Zealand electoral reform referendums (the first question was a simple "do you want electoral reform" and a list of proposed alternatives as a second question, then three years later they asked "do you want MMP or FPTP?" - and hell they had a second repeat of that process again a few years ago to double check with people only they stopped after MMP got majority support in stage 1) or the above mentioned Canada situations for examples of that.

To use the democracy argument against a second referendum is very silly in my eyes - that argument could be easily used against having regular general elections for example.  There are many reasons to be against a second referendum (and for a long time I was: its divisive and if you can find a solution that meets the result of the referendum without tanking the economy of the country or alienating significant numbers of people then you should compromise and do that instead of asking the question again or leaving a lot of very dissatisfied people) but the democracy one is silly.
Logged
mvd10
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,781


Political Matrix
E: 2.58, S: -2.61

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #89 on: January 18, 2019, 10:28:22 am »

I think it's best for the UK to exit the EU on May's deal (which is fairly reasonable I think) and see how life is outside the EU. If they don't like it they can always come back, but Leave won the referendum. Now there might not be a grand democratic argument against a second referendum, but a second referendum will mean that Brexit and the EU likely will continue to be an issue in the UK in the years to come (95% of Leavers still backs Leave and they will be incredibly pissed if Remain narrowly wins...) and I don't think the Brexit/EU obsession has been very healthy for the UK. Leave won, get over it. If life outside the EU turns out to be miserable (it likely will) they can always come back in a few years, but I do think it's fairly important that Brexit atleast happens.

I would have voted Remain if I were British by the way, Brexit likely will be very damaging economically. The EU is 50% of British exports and they're not going to get a deal remotely comparable to the Single Market with any other trading partner. Tariff-free trade maybe, but tariffs aren't the biggest trade barriers.
Logged
Hardline Remainer
Blairite
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,442
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #90 on: January 18, 2019, 11:18:25 am »

tag yourself I'm wanting a foreign country's economy to be devastated so that that country will implement your preferred foreign and trade policies towards other foreign countries

Huh

Whom are you referring to?

Blairite, the Californian who's "looking forward to the UK getting its economy smashed".

I'm not genuinely looking forward to it (unlike some socialists who want liberal institutions to fall apart so they can implement all their favored policies), and it'll be a shame if/when it occurs. However, it could serve as a valuable wake up call to voters globally as to the results of their actions, and convince everyone else of the merits of liberal international institutions. British voters will get what they voted for, suffer a bit, then rejoin the EU within the decade with their insane ego taken down a couple pegs.

But at the simplest level:
Yes because Brexit is bad and therefore anything that could block it is good.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2019, 11:51:48 am by Michael Bloomberg »Logged
True Federalist
Ernest
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 36,391
United States


View Profile WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #91 on: January 18, 2019, 11:28:46 am »

The idea that voters learn from past mistakes in other countries is ludicrous. There won't even be many British voters who will learn from this mistake.
Logged
Justice Blair
Blair2015
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 7,091
United Kingdom


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #92 on: January 18, 2019, 02:52:39 pm »

A revote would mean that the cosmopolitan class will truly never take no for an answer and that the EU truly is Hotel California: you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave. It would essentially mean that democracy in Britain is no more - not that it is presumably any better in other EU countries.

Of course, if this happens, God forbid, it would be mostly because of delusional Brexiteer fools in the Conservative party who think May's perfectly fine deal isn't good enough, who think the UK can just replace its EU trade relations with some Commonwealth countries that don't even produce what Britain needs.

I don’t how a democratically elected parliament mandating a national vote is the end of democracy? Or do we have to wait 40 years like we did after 1945?
Logged
Gass3268
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,755
United States


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #93 on: January 18, 2019, 04:28:50 pm »

Of course there should now that the public actually has all the facts and not the lies that were spread in 2016.
Logged
Secret Cavern Survivor
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 49,972
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #94 on: January 18, 2019, 08:40:28 pm »

In May, Switzerland is going to be having a referendum about a question that it had 2 years ago - because the circumstances and the options available have changed in the mean time.

Of course, no-one is up in arms about this, because this is how mature direct democracies actually work.

Either you have a coherent logic about how, why and when referendums are held - or else whining about what the "democratic will of the people" is is essentially meaningless.

I think that this is a key point; circumstances change, the options available to people change and frankly people change their minds when more facts become available.  The fact is that in 2016 the model of Brexit that was proposed was not possible - as many of us made clear at the time - and so asking a question between the status quo and a more precise version of Brexit would be clear.  This wouldn't be against the norms of other Westminster system countries - look at the New Zealand electoral reform referendums (the first question was a simple "do you want electoral reform" and a list of proposed alternatives as a second question, then three years later they asked "do you want MMP or FPTP?" - and hell they had a second repeat of that process again a few years ago to double check with people only they stopped after MMP got majority support in stage 1) or the above mentioned Canada situations for examples of that.

To use the democracy argument against a second referendum is very silly in my eyes - that argument could be easily used against having regular general elections for example.  There are many reasons to be against a second referendum (and for a long time I was: its divisive and if you can find a solution that meets the result of the referendum without tanking the economy of the country or alienating significant numbers of people then you should compromise and do that instead of asking the question again or leaving a lot of very dissatisfied people) but the democracy one is silly.

The difference between Switzerland and the UK is that in Switzerland the initiative for referendums is also in the hands of the people. In the UK, parliament has the absolute prerogative on determining what issue to put or not to put to a referendum. That's a considerable power, and when the parliament abuses it to ask the same question again when they didn't like the first answer they got (let's face it, there would be zero chance of a second referendum if remain had won), that creates a terrible precedent.
Logged
IceAgeComing
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,390
United Kingdom


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #95 on: January 19, 2019, 03:08:17 am »

to be utterly pedantic; the Brexit referendum was a redo on a referendum - as were both devolution referenda.  Its been done before when situations have changed significantly to warrant asking the question again and I think that its fair this time.
Logged
parochial boy
parochial_boy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,132


Political Matrix
E: -8.38, S: -6.78

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #96 on: January 19, 2019, 01:03:15 pm »

The incumbent party holding a referendum on a marginal issue as a form of internal party management is not exactly great precedent either.

And if the Swiss rules with regards to referendums applied in the UK, you can absolutely guarantee that there would be a second referendum.
« Last Edit: January 19, 2019, 06:10:56 pm by parochial boy »Logged
olowakandi
olawakandi
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 23,503
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.84, S: -0.17

View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #97 on: January 19, 2019, 03:46:12 pm »

May needs to go and Labour and other groups wont support any Brexit deal. If she remains
Logged
Farmlands
Full Member
***
Posts: 116


View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #98 on: January 20, 2019, 10:34:28 am »

As someone who was originally in favour of Brexit, and has now seen that the UK is only going to get pure disaster, not money for healthcare, absolutely. I never thought the negotiations would be such an incompetent circus, but I've learned now not to assume anything decent when it comes to the Tories. More independence just doesn't cut it either.
Logged
Secret Cavern Survivor
Antonio V
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 49,972
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
View Profile Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #99 on: January 21, 2019, 02:28:58 am »

to be utterly pedantic; the Brexit referendum was a redo on a referendum - as were both devolution referenda.  Its been done before when situations have changed significantly to warrant asking the question again and I think that its fair this time.

The 1973 referendum had a concrete outcome: the UK became part of the EU for the next half-century. The Brexit vote still, to this day, hasn't produced anything meaningful. The irony, of course, is that this is the hard brexiteers' fault. The UK could have left the EU long ago if it had gone for a Norway-style kind of arrangement that avoided the most painful (and therefore difficult to negotiate) consequences of Brexit. Instead, May decided to go all-in on pandering to, not the Brexit voters, but a radicalized subset of the Brexit voters. And this may well have doomed the whole Brexit project.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines