Remove ads

Introducing the LemonFools Personal Finance Calculators

BREXIT

High levels of moderation
Forum rules
no trolling, name calling, no arguments.
Material posted here that is disparaging towards any group on the basis of race, faith, nationality, gender, disability or sexual orientation will be deleted and any poster of such material risks suspension.
Ashfordian
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1088
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 5:47 pm
Has thanked: 151 times
Been thanked: 78 times

Re: BREXIT

#192572

Postby Ashfordian » January 10th, 2019, 9:17 pm

Lootman wrote:
GeoffF100 wrote:
Lootman wrote:OK, so since people change their minds all the time, you want constant votes on this, going on in perpetuity?

With us presumably bouncing in and out of the EU, seemingly on a whim? That's your vision for our future?

I would hope that people would not be so fickle, but I would not want to deny them their say.

OK, so how often do you think we should hold this ongoing and never-ending series of Brexit votes?

Annually? Every 3 years?

And would the driver be opinion polls, as you seem to be suggesting?


Remainers conveniently forget that the referendum was part of the Conservative manifesto because UKIP had the largest vote share in the 2014 EU elections. The Conservatives had to do something ahead of the 2015 GE otherwise they were going to lose power. This is democracy in action.

As this is how UK democracy works, remainers would never be so authoritarian as to suggest that a future referendum should be called other than by the winning party in a GE.

GeoffF100
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1552
Joined: November 14th, 2016, 7:33 pm
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 164 times

Re: BREXIT

#192617

Postby GeoffF100 » January 11th, 2019, 7:55 am

Lootman wrote:
GeoffF100 wrote:
Lootman wrote:OK, so since people change their minds all the time, you want constant votes on this, going on in perpetuity?

With us presumably bouncing in and out of the EU, seemingly on a whim? That's your vision for our future?

I would hope that people would not be so fickle, but I would not want to deny them their say.

OK, so how often do you think we should hold this ongoing and never-ending series of Brexit votes?

Annually? Every 3 years?

And would the driver be opinion polls, as you seem to be suggesting?

We have always known that leaving the EU is likely to take ten years or more, and that the same is true for rejoining, so we are not likely to have a rapidly revolving door. There is also unlikely to be a case for another referendum, unless public opinion (as measured by the polls) has materially changed.

Hopefully, the public will learn from experience. If the country takes a big financial hit as result of leaving, they will deterred from repeating the experience.

In our political system, the government decides whether or not it wants to call a referendum. Parliament can seek to influence the government, and if that fails, vote it down. It is then up to the people to decide which party they elect.

djbenedict
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 180
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 11:44 am
Has thanked: 57 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: BREXIT

#192652

Postby djbenedict » January 11th, 2019, 9:50 am

Lootman wrote:
djbenedict wrote:
Lootman wrote:If Remain had won in 2016 you would not now be placing any emphasis on the vote being merely "advisory". Nor would you be arguing for another vote. You'd have said that the 2016 vote settled things and that the people had spoken.

Correct, it would be Leavers making this argument in this hypothetical case. That is my point. The 2016 referendum has settled nothing, as is clear from a very cursory glance at any news outlet.

The difference is that a second vote would never have been granted to the Leave campaign. It would be considered "one and done".


2016 was a second vote. I make it 1-1 now. Which all just underlines the fact that nothing has been decided yet, as much as you refuse to accept that.

djbenedict
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 180
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 11:44 am
Has thanked: 57 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: BREXIT

#192654

Postby djbenedict » January 11th, 2019, 9:58 am

Lootman wrote:
GeoffF100 wrote:
Lootman wrote:The reality is that a 2019 re-do is fundamentally unfair because "Leave" would then have had to have won twice whereas "Remain" would only have to have won once. Or are you suggesting that we also have a third vote in, say, 2020, on a "best of three" principle?

Of course I am suggesting that we should have third vote if opinion has changed, and a fourth, and a fifth... Democracy never ends.

OK, so since people change their minds all the time, you want constant votes on this, going on in perpetuity?

With us presumably bouncing in and out of the EU, seemingly on a whim? That's your vision for our future?


There is a demographically-driven shift towards remain that makes bouncing out very unlikely. In rough numbers there are 0.5M new voters added each year and 0.5M old people die. Generally young people prefer remain, so the minority for leaving (17.4M out of a voting-age population of about 46M) will get smaller and smaller over time. I don't know why people have trouble accepting this.

SteMiS
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1680
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:41 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 118 times

Re: BREXIT

#192684

Postby SteMiS » January 11th, 2019, 11:27 am

djbenedict wrote:
Lootman wrote:
GeoffF100 wrote:Of course I am suggesting that we should have third vote if opinion has changed, and a fourth, and a fifth... Democracy never ends.

OK, so since people change their minds all the time, you want constant votes on this, going on in perpetuity?

With us presumably bouncing in and out of the EU, seemingly on a whim? That's your vision for our future?

There is a demographically-driven shift towards remain that makes bouncing out very unlikely. In rough numbers there are 0.5M new voters added each year and 0.5M old people die. Generally young people prefer remain, so the minority for leaving (17.4M out of a voting-age population of about 46M) will get smaller and smaller over time. I don't know why people have trouble accepting this.

The explanation generally given is that people become more Eurosceptic as they grow holder. So your effect is supposedly offset by a conversion of people from Remain to Leave as they pass the age of 50. Why that should be the case is never really justified other than drawing a comparison with the drift rightward of people's views as they get older. On the other hand, computer use is lower amongst the old but we don't expect the younger generation to start giving up their computers as they get older. In many ways that's actually a better analogy...

SteMiS
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1680
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:41 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 118 times

Re: BREXIT

#192685

Postby SteMiS » January 11th, 2019, 11:29 am

SteMiS wrote:
djbenedict wrote:
Lootman wrote:OK, so since people change their minds all the time, you want constant votes on this, going on in perpetuity?

With us presumably bouncing in and out of the EU, seemingly on a whim? That's your vision for our future?

There is a demographically-driven shift towards remain that makes bouncing out very unlikely. In rough numbers there are 0.5M new voters added each year and 0.5M old people die. Generally young people prefer remain, so the minority for leaving (17.4M out of a voting-age population of about 46M) will get smaller and smaller over time. I don't know why people have trouble accepting this.

The explanation generally given is that people become more Eurosceptic as they grow holder. So your effect is supposedly offset by a conversion of people from Remain to Leave as they pass the age of 50. Why that should be the case is never really justified other than drawing a comparison with the drift rightward of people's views as they get older. On the other hand, computer use is lower amongst the old but we don't expect the younger generation to start giving up their computers as they get older. In many ways that's actually a better analogy...

Older not holder... ;)

richfool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1366
Joined: November 19th, 2016, 2:02 pm
Has thanked: 227 times
Been thanked: 224 times

Re: BREXIT

#192691

Postby richfool » January 11th, 2019, 11:35 am

I was watching some of "Today in Parliament", on TV yesterday afternoon. A conservative MP made the point that he didn't like the result of the General Election back when Tony Blair became PM., but he didn't demand a second General Election. He accepted the result and got on with the implications. And indeed when later when Conservatives won a subsequent General Election, labour didn't then insist on a second General Election, because they didn't like or agree with the outcome..

With the referendum about Brexit, Parliament gave the decision to the people by way of a referendum. The people voted, and it was now the job of parliament to deliver that. End of.....

SteMiS
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1680
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:41 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 118 times

Re: BREXIT

#192692

Postby SteMiS » January 11th, 2019, 11:43 am

richfool wrote:I was watching some of "Today in Parliament", on TV yesterday afternoon. A conservative MP made the point that he didn't like the result of the General Election back when Tony Blair became PM., but he didn't demand a second General Election. He accepted the result and got on with the implications.

Really? Did he vote for all the policies that Labour brought forward to the HoC, on the basis that the people had spoken, even if they weren't in Labour's manifesto?

GeoffF100
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1552
Joined: November 14th, 2016, 7:33 pm
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 164 times

Re: BREXIT

#192698

Postby GeoffF100 » January 11th, 2019, 11:56 am

richfool wrote:A conservative MP made the point that he didn't like the result of the General Election back when Tony Blair became PM., but he didn't demand a second General Election. He accepted the result and got on with the implications. And indeed when later when Conservatives won a subsequent General Election, labour didn't then insist on a second General Election, because they didn't like or agree with the outcome..

But he got one, and another, and another, and another, when is party won.

stevem01
Posts: 16
Joined: January 10th, 2019, 4:04 pm

Re: BREXIT

#192707

Postby stevem01 » January 11th, 2019, 12:43 pm

GeoffF100 wrote:But he got one, and another, and another, and another, when is party won.

The UK can have another referendum on EU membership - after the verdict of the second referendum has been implemented. Oh! and after a similar time as it took between the first EEC referendum in 1975 and the EU referendum in 2016 . i.e about 40 years.

The time between referendums wouldn't have been as long, if the second EU referendum had been held when the UK government signed the Maastricht Treaty (without a referendum) or the Lisbon Treaty (without a referendum). UK law now requires the UK government of the day to hold a referendum whenever the EU brings a new Treaty forward. So, if the remainers have their way and we remain in the EU, we might have to get used to EU referendums.

richfool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1366
Joined: November 19th, 2016, 2:02 pm
Has thanked: 227 times
Been thanked: 224 times

Re: BREXIT

#192713

Postby richfool » January 11th, 2019, 12:52 pm

Steve & Geoff, I thought the point was simple and clear, - although he didn't agree with the outcome of the general election (the decision of the electorate), he abided by it, and didn't demand a rerun of the election.

We had the Brexit referendum in June 2016, stated to be a once and only vote/decision, the people gave their answer, quite clearly. I think it is outrageous that people like Anna Soubry are now seeking to thwart that decision (of the people), essentially because she disagrees with it, by calling for a second referendum. They (MP's) now have a duty to carry out the wishes of the people. I trust she and others will lose their seats at the next general election.

ursaminortaur
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3527
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 125 times
Been thanked: 102 times

Re: BREXIT

#192720

Postby ursaminortaur » January 11th, 2019, 1:09 pm

stevem01 wrote:
GeoffF100 wrote:But he got one, and another, and another, and another, when is party won.

The UK can have another referendum on EU membership - after the verdict of the second referendum has been implemented. Oh! and after a similar time as it took between the first EEC referendum in 1975 and the EU referendum in 2016 . i.e about 40 years.

The time between referendums wouldn't have been as long, if the second EU referendum had been held when the UK government signed the Maastricht Treaty (without a referendum) or the Lisbon Treaty (without a referendum). UK law now requires the UK government of the day to hold a referendum whenever the EU brings a new Treaty forward. So, if the remainers have their way and we remain in the EU, we might have to get used to EU referendums.


You mean like the fixed term parliament act from 2011 means that we can only have general elections every 5 years ie 2015, 2017 ???
As you say the European Union Act 2011 requires a referendum every time there is a treaty change and that, assuming we hadn't left the EU, would likely be in rather less than 40 years time - though such a referendum would likely be on the treaty change rather than on whether or not to leave the EU.
As to only holding it after the previous referendum result has been implemented we don't only have a general election after the government elected in the previous GE has completely implemented all its manifesto so why should that criteria apply to a referendum. Also the brexit which leave promised has been shown to be a cake and eat it fantasy which cannot be implemented.

Lootman
Lemon Half
Posts: 5660
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 32 times
Been thanked: 925 times

Re: BREXIT

#192722

Postby Lootman » January 11th, 2019, 1:23 pm

djbenedict wrote:
Lootman wrote:
djbenedict wrote:Correct, it would be Leavers making this argument in this hypothetical case. That is my point. The 2016 referendum has settled nothing, as is clear from a very cursory glance at any news outlet.

The difference is that a second vote would never have been granted to the Leave campaign. It would be considered "one and done".

2016 was a second vote. I make it 1-1 now. Which all just underlines the fact that nothing has been decided yet, as much as you refuse to accept that.

There were 41 years between the first and second vote. So if your point is that we leave now and then vote again in 2057, then that seems reasonable to me.

My point was more that we don't keep asking this question every couple of years. That would lead to perpetual paralysis. Which is why the leadership of the two main parties oppose another vote and wish to proceed with Brexit.

To your other point, people change their views as they get older and wiser, so those kids who support Remain now might surprise you in a few years time.

Charlottesquare
Lemon Slice
Posts: 992
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:22 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 102 times

Re: BREXIT

#192724

Postby Charlottesquare » January 11th, 2019, 1:26 pm

SteMiS wrote:
djbenedict wrote:
Lootman wrote:OK, so since people change their minds all the time, you want constant votes on this, going on in perpetuity?

With us presumably bouncing in and out of the EU, seemingly on a whim? That's your vision for our future?

There is a demographically-driven shift towards remain that makes bouncing out very unlikely. In rough numbers there are 0.5M new voters added each year and 0.5M old people die. Generally young people prefer remain, so the minority for leaving (17.4M out of a voting-age population of about 46M) will get smaller and smaller over time. I don't know why people have trouble accepting this.

The explanation generally given is that people become more Eurosceptic as they grow holder. So your effect is supposedly offset by a conversion of people from Remain to Leave as they pass the age of 50. Why that should be the case is never really justified other than drawing a comparison with the drift rightward of people's views as they get older. On the other hand, computer use is lower amongst the old but we don't expect the younger generation to start giving up their computers as they get older. In many ways that's actually a better analogy...


It may be that as one becomes older one tends (well some) to be more financially stable, so the impact of say poor UK economic performance would individually possibly be less.

Whilst I think Brexit is a poor decision at the end of the day at age 58, having been earning money and saving since 16, I am really not at risk of say unemployment resulting from the say postulated possible 8% GDP reduction meaning I will be at risk of losing my house due to say mortgage affordability issues. Whilst a poor economy may mean we have less to spend on treats etc in retirement, car replacement may be less frequent, fewer meals out and foreign holidays restricted, the impact will not be a disaster for those who have had a working life to accumulate assets,wealth, pension funds etc.

This may be part of the reason older people are as a group more sanguine about economic downsides, it is a risk equation.

From a younger perspective, say my son, right now he is waiting to see what happens before long term committing to project UK, his savings that could have him buying a flat this year are very much parked- of course he is one of the lucky ones, age 27, software developer billing out circa £90,000 p.a., so re his age cohort a very high earner, a lot of others, like my daughter still studying, have a far less rosy future, the only meaningful advice we can give her is stick with her Msc, obtain Chartered status to give international opportunities re where she subsequently works/lives, a qualification that has hopefully world appeal and cross border recognition, and go with the flow.

This is in effect in part a "haves" and "have nots" equation and whilst a lot of over 50s are also "have nots" a fair few have, on paper, in their own eyes, through home ownership and pension rights, become "haves". What we have, in part, is a further inter generational war.

SteMiS
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1680
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:41 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 118 times

Re: BREXIT

#192725

Postby SteMiS » January 11th, 2019, 1:31 pm

richfool wrote:Steve & Geoff, I thought the point was simple and clear, - although he didn't agree with the outcome of the general election (the decision of the electorate), he abided by it, and didn't demand a rerun of the election.

I doubt he 'abided' by it at all. I'm sure he continued to argue against Labour's policies (even though they'd been voted for by the electorate) and no doubt he voted against them in the House of Commons.

richfool wrote:We had the Brexit referendum in June 2016, stated to be a once and only vote/decision

Sorry, but that means nothing. People can say what they like but under the British constitution, it's nothing more than their opinion.

richfool wrote:I think it is outrageous that people like Anna Soubry are now seeking to thwart that decision (of the people), essentially because she disagrees with it, by calling for a second referendum.

Well if we have a second referendum and the people vote to remain then it would be their wish to do so. Are you suggesting that that wish should have been thwarted by never holding the referendum?

ursaminortaur
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3527
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 125 times
Been thanked: 102 times

Re: BREXIT

#192726

Postby ursaminortaur » January 11th, 2019, 1:37 pm

Lootman wrote:
djbenedict wrote:
Lootman wrote:The difference is that a second vote would never have been granted to the Leave campaign. It would be considered "one and done".

2016 was a second vote. I make it 1-1 now. Which all just underlines the fact that nothing has been decided yet, as much as you refuse to accept that.

There were 41 years between the first and second vote. So if your point is that we leave now and then vote again in 2057, then that seems reasonable to me.

My point was more that we don't keep asking this question every couple of years. That would lead to perpetual paralysis. Which is why the leadership of the two main parties oppose another vote and wish to proceed with Brexit.

To your other point, people change their views as they get older and wiser, so those kids who support Remain now might surprise you in a few years time.


The poster child for direct democracy and referendums is Switzerland and they certainly vote again and again on the same issue.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/brexit-latest-swiss-model-theresa-may-switzerland-second-referendum-eu-a8633416.html

As a result, it is not uncommon to vote again and again on the same issue. The most dramatic example is maternity leave. It took six votes and 60 years for the country to agree on its position.
The principle itself was enshrined in the constitution in 1945 by a majority of men (women’s suffrage was only granted in 1971). A law was to be negotiated in parliament in order to create a new insurance system. However, it was extremely difficult to come up with a draft that a majority could support. When at last a compromise was submitted to the people in 1974, they refused it. Then again, in 1984, 1987 and 1999, new attempts were rejected. It was only in 2004 that 55.4 per cent of voters accepted a 14-week maternity leave.


As can be seen by the referendums on maternity leave in 1984 and 1987 a gap of two or three years between referendums is perfectly compatible with the Swiss direct democracy system.

Charlottesquare
Lemon Slice
Posts: 992
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:22 pm
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 102 times

Re: BREXIT

#192728

Postby Charlottesquare » January 11th, 2019, 1:42 pm

richfool wrote:I was watching some of "Today in Parliament", on TV yesterday afternoon. A conservative MP made the point that he didn't like the result of the General Election back when Tony Blair became PM., but he didn't demand a second General Election. He accepted the result and got on with the implications. And indeed when later when Conservatives won a subsequent General Election, labour didn't then insist on a second General Election, because they didn't like or agree with the outcome..

With the referendum about Brexit, Parliament gave the decision to the people by way of a referendum. The people voted, and it was now the job of parliament to deliver that. End of.....


I was watching Question Time last night when a member of the audience pointed out that when he voted in 2015 he expected the effect of his vote to last until 2020, as Mrs May decided in 2017 this was not to be it seemed to him she had set the precedent that a further referendum was just as legitimate as her calling a second general election.

djbenedict
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 180
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 11:44 am
Has thanked: 57 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: BREXIT

#192738

Postby djbenedict » January 11th, 2019, 2:01 pm

Lootman wrote:
djbenedict wrote:
Lootman wrote:The difference is that a second vote would never have been granted to the Leave campaign. It would be considered "one and done".

2016 was a second vote. I make it 1-1 now. Which all just underlines the fact that nothing has been decided yet, as much as you refuse to accept that.

There were 41 years between the first and second vote. So if your point is that we leave now and then vote again in 2057, then that seems reasonable to me.


Yes, TBH that would be okay with me too. But, we will then (on current terms), if we decide to accede, have ultimately to join the Euro etc.

It's the talk of "once and forever decided" that I find rather asinine. Especially when you look at the level of disagreement that still exists, 2.5 years later. Nothing has been decided, nothing has been agreed. I expect, if we do actually leave, the folly to be obvious well before 41 years are up, so perhaps there will be a mood to bring forward this re-accession vote.

Lootman wrote:My point was more that we don't keep asking this question every couple of years. That would lead to perpetual paralysis. Which is why the leadership of the two main parties oppose another vote and wish to proceed with Brexit.

To your other point, people change their views as they get older and wiser, so those kids who support Remain now might surprise you in a few years time.


I don't think they will, in fact, but the only way we'll find out is by asking them.

djbenedict
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 180
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 11:44 am
Has thanked: 57 times
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: BREXIT

#192739

Postby djbenedict » January 11th, 2019, 2:05 pm

SteMiS wrote:
djbenedict wrote:
Lootman wrote:OK, so since people change their minds all the time, you want constant votes on this, going on in perpetuity?

With us presumably bouncing in and out of the EU, seemingly on a whim? That's your vision for our future?

There is a demographically-driven shift towards remain that makes bouncing out very unlikely. In rough numbers there are 0.5M new voters added each year and 0.5M old people die. Generally young people prefer remain, so the minority for leaving (17.4M out of a voting-age population of about 46M) will get smaller and smaller over time. I don't know why people have trouble accepting this.

The explanation generally given is that people become more Eurosceptic as they grow holder...


That is a hypothesis, not an explanation. Just because, at moment T, older people are seen to be more Eurosceptic than younger people, does not imply that people do, in fact, become more Eurosceptic as they grow older. It may simply be that older people have a set of views that will die with their generation, and not be inherited by younger generations. As per your computer analogy.

SteMiS
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1680
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:41 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 118 times

Re: BREXIT

#192744

Postby SteMiS » January 11th, 2019, 2:23 pm

djbenedict wrote:
SteMiS wrote:
djbenedict wrote:There is a demographically-driven shift towards remain that makes bouncing out very unlikely. In rough numbers there are 0.5M new voters added each year and 0.5M old people die. Generally young people prefer remain, so the minority for leaving (17.4M out of a voting-age population of about 46M) will get smaller and smaller over time. I don't know why people have trouble accepting this.

The explanation generally given is that people become more Eurosceptic as they grow holder...


That is a hypothesis, not an explanation. Just because, at moment T, older people are seen to be more Eurosceptic than younger people, does not imply that people do, in fact, become more Eurosceptic as they grow older. It may simply be that older people have a set of views that will die with their generation, and not be inherited by younger generations. As per your computer analogy.

Yes, that was the point I was making.

People over the age of 60 grew up in a much different environment than the 20 somethings. Their parents had just 'won' the war, the empire was not long gone and Britain was still an international power (well, until Suez showed our limitations). International travel was pretty uncommon and experience of foreign cultures was lower. I'm not 60 and even I remember the first Chinese takeaway opening in our town. Before that the closest we had to such food was those Vesta dried meals. I think I only went abroad 3 times before I was 18 and two of those were camping. There wasn't the ease of communication and news sources that we have now.

Many of the 20 somethings are much more international in outlook. They travel more, especially to Europe and have more experience of the world through online news and social media. Their lives are influenced more by European culture and they are more likely to grow up with European friends. They don't have the same view of Britain as a great power and WW2 is mostly just history to them. That's not going to change as they grow older.


Return to “Polite Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests