Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit Card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to johnstevens77,BusyBumbleBee,88V8,Anonymous,6Tricia, for Donating to support the site

It's Still 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.
SentimentRules
Lemon Slice
Posts: 308
Joined: July 6th, 2019, 11:28 am
Has thanked: 34 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: It's Still Brexit

#236005

Postby SentimentRules » July 11th, 2019, 8:24 pm

Here is an even stranger one for you. I get ridiculed for this mostly lol.

I think Trump is the best thing that has happened to the free world. The globe without American policing is a scary concept . Or even a soft administration.

Only need to look at China going full steam on disputed islands. Russia in to Ukraine . Isis land grabbing wherever they felt they wanted. And so on

America cause as many issues as they fix, But a world without strength at the helm would soon turn into utter chaos

I feel trump ways have brought back some sort of stability. Some will argue about Iran and such. But I think he was right.

Affectively trust a terrorist leadership with uranium production and true verifications always seemed a daft deal. Even if its purpose was just to try control it without war.

SteMiS
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1750
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:41 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 118 times

Re: It's Still Brexit

#236016

Postby SteMiS » July 11th, 2019, 8:43 pm

Wizard wrote:However, I do have more of an issue with Parliament. An overwhelming number of MPs were elected standing on a manifesto which clearly stated the 2016 referendum woold be respected and the decision to leave enacted. Putting a number of both remain and leave Tories who voted against the three meaningful votes, the vast majority of Labour MPs have also blocked Brexit. I believe May's approach to Parliament during the negotiations put Parliament in a difficult position, but I think MPs who stood on a 'leave ticket' are deserving of considerable scorn and I rather hope a large number of them find this their last term as an MP in one way or another. I am not sure if that can be considered to be undermining Parliament, but I think they have damaged the respect in which politicians are viewed in this country. If we end up with a disasterous populist PM then many current MPs must take a significant share of the blame.

As ever MPs will have to answer to the electorate at the next election.

My point is that, we exercise democracy in this country through a constitutional monarchy and elected MPs. It's a system that has evolved over centuries and has served us pretty well so far. It's certainly not perfect, but through it we've avoided dictatorship (unlike Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece and Germany), revolution (like France) and foreign domination (like pretty much the rest of Europe, albeit as much through geographical luck as anything else). It's survived 3 pan European wars, the loss of empire, fascism, communism, the rise of organised labour, collapse of absolute monarchies and a whole host of challenges they have flattened other governments.

The problem with direct democracy, and handing over the decision making directly to the people, is that they are in no position to undertake negotiation or to give detailed feedback on the result of that negotiation (unless we are going to have referenda every month). They often hold contradictory positions (wanting more government spending and lower taxes) and are not directly accountable for the results of their decisions (in the sense that they then have to come with solutions to the messes they might create). They frankly don't have the capacity to scrutinize detailed legislation. So we don't do that.

The Conservatives did decide to ask the electorate's opinion directly about the EU in 2016 and got an answer which wasn't overwhelming and (inevitably) without fine detail. It was nevertheless (and this is legally incontrovertibly and unarguably the case) advice they asked for, not instruction. Our system still places the power and responsibility for taking the decisions in the hands of the MPs. If the electorate don't like those decisions, then they can express their opinion through the ballot box.

What is happening however is that certain politicians are claiming a direct (and frankly dubious) mandate directly from the people to undertake a course of action in contradiction to the will of parliament. There is no precedent for this, it is unconstitutional and frankly a road that leads to dictatorship (although I'm not saying that's where we will end up).

Scorn MPs if you want, badger and petition them and ultimately place your vote accordingly. But if you support circumventing them, then one day you might wake up and find that they have become an irrelevance. I hope you like what mechanism for exercising power has taken their place...

XFool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4017
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 238 times

Re: It's Still Brexit

#236018

Postby XFool » July 11th, 2019, 8:45 pm

SentimentRules wrote:Here is an even stranger one for you. I get ridiculed for this mostly lol.

I think Trump is the best thing that has happened to the free world. The globe without American policing is a scary concept . Or even a soft administration.

Only need to look at China going full steam on disputed islands. Russia in to Ukraine . Isis land grabbing wherever they felt they wanted. And so on

America cause as many issues as they fix, But a world without strength at the helm would soon turn into utter chaos

I feel trump ways have brought back some sort of stability. Some will argue about Iran and such. But I think he was right.

Uh? You feel Trump is bringing back some kind of stability? You really will need to explain that...

Trump is a wrecking ball. He seems intent on breaking all the institutions of the rules based world order that came out of the Second World War. He wants to return us to every country for itself. The ones with the biggest armed forces win, the rest do as they are told or lose. How the hell is this going to bring back "some kind of stability"?

SentimentRules wrote:Affectively trust a terrorist leadership with uranium production and true verifications always seemed a daft deal. Even if its purpose was just to try control it without war.

"Trust but verify" was a Russian proverb, quoted by Ronald Reagan.

XFool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4017
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 238 times

Re: It's Still Brexit

#236020

Postby XFool » July 11th, 2019, 8:49 pm

SteMiS wrote:As ever MPs will have to answer to the electorate at the next election.

My point is that, we exercise democracy in this country through a constitutional monarchy and elected MPs. It's a system that has evolved over centuries and has served us pretty well so far. It's certainly not perfect, but through it we've avoided dictatorship (unlike Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece and Germany), revolution (like France) and foreign domination (like pretty much the rest of Europe, albeit as much through geographical luck as anything else). It's survived 3 pan European wars, the loss of empire, fascism, communism, the rise of organised labour, collapse of absolute monarchies and a whole host of challenges they have flattened other governments.

The problem with direct democracy, and handing over the decision making directly to the people, is that they are in no position to undertake negotiation or to give detailed feedback on the result of that negotiation (unless we are going to have referenda every month). They often hold contradictory positions (wanting more government spending and lower taxes) and are not directly accountable for the results of their decisions (in the sense that they then have to come with solutions to the messes they might create). They frankly don't have the capacity to scrutinize detailed legislation. So we don't do that.

The Conservatives did decide to ask the electorate's opinion directly about the EU in 2016 and got an answer which wasn't overwhelming and (inevitably) without fine detail. It was nevertheless (and this is legally incontrovertibly and unarguably the case) advice they asked for, not instruction. Our system still places the power and responsibility for taking the decisions in the hands of the MPs. If the electorate don't like those decisions, then they can express their opinion through the ballot box.

What is happening however is that certain politicians are claiming a direct (and frankly dubious) mandate directly from the people to undertake a course of action in contradiction to the will of parliament. There is no precedent for this, it is unconstitutional and frankly a road that leads to dictatorship (although I'm not saying that's where we will end up).

Scorn MPs if you want, badger and petition them and ultimately place your vote accordingly. But if you support circumventing them, then one day you might wake up and find that they have become an irrelevance. I hope you like what mechanism for exercising power has taken their place...

Very well said.

SentimentRules
Lemon Slice
Posts: 308
Joined: July 6th, 2019, 11:28 am
Has thanked: 34 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: It's Still Brexit

#236025

Postby SentimentRules » July 11th, 2019, 9:03 pm

Xfool

I think his ways are already bringing back stability. An America that will act on his whim (military orders ).

He is a bull dealing with bulls. We see what it was like with a teddy bear (obama) . He has been in more battles than Trump could ever hope to be.... not that it was ever hyped up and advertised daily. But he was soft with the other superpowers. And America did suffer for it.

Nimrod103
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2250
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:10 pm
Has thanked: 43 times
Been thanked: 140 times

Re: It's Still Brexit

#236074

Postby Nimrod103 » July 12th, 2019, 3:56 am

SteMiS wrote:
Wizard wrote:However, I do have more of an issue with Parliament. An overwhelming number of MPs were elected standing on a manifesto which clearly stated the 2016 referendum woold be respected and the decision to leave enacted. Putting a number of both remain and leave Tories who voted against the three meaningful votes, the vast majority of Labour MPs have also blocked Brexit. I believe May's approach to Parliament during the negotiations put Parliament in a difficult position, but I think MPs who stood on a 'leave ticket' are deserving of considerable scorn and I rather hope a large number of them find this their last term as an MP in one way or another. I am not sure if that can be considered to be undermining Parliament, but I think they have damaged the respect in which politicians are viewed in this country. If we end up with a disasterous populist PM then many current MPs must take a significant share of the blame.

As ever MPs will have to answer to the electorate at the next election.

My point is that, we exercise democracy in this country through a constitutional monarchy and elected MPs. It's a system that has evolved over centuries and has served us pretty well so far. It's certainly not perfect, but through it we've avoided dictatorship (unlike Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece and Germany), revolution (like France) and foreign domination (like pretty much the rest of Europe, albeit as much through geographical luck as anything else). It's survived 3 pan European wars, the loss of empire, fascism, communism, the rise of organised labour, collapse of absolute monarchies and a whole host of challenges they have flattened other governments.

The problem with direct democracy, and handing over the decision making directly to the people, is that they are in no position to undertake negotiation or to give detailed feedback on the result of that negotiation (unless we are going to have referenda every month). They often hold contradictory positions (wanting more government spending and lower taxes) and are not directly accountable for the results of their decisions (in the sense that they then have to come with solutions to the messes they might create). They frankly don't have the capacity to scrutinize detailed legislation. So we don't do that.

The Conservatives did decide to ask the electorate's opinion directly about the EU in 2016 and got an answer which wasn't overwhelming and (inevitably) without fine detail. It was nevertheless (and this is legally incontrovertibly and unarguably the case) advice they asked for, not instruction. Our system still places the power and responsibility for taking the decisions in the hands of the MPs. If the electorate don't like those decisions, then they can express their opinion through the ballot box.

What is happening however is that certain politicians are claiming a direct (and frankly dubious) mandate directly from the people to undertake a course of action in contradiction to the will of parliament. There is no precedent for this, it is unconstitutional and frankly a road that leads to dictatorship (although I'm not saying that's where we will end up).

Scorn MPs if you want, badger and petition them and ultimately place your vote accordingly. But if you support circumventing them, then one day you might wake up and find that they have become an irrelevance. I hope you like what mechanism for exercising power has taken their place...

But under the EU, our MPs were already becoming an irrelevance, and in a Federal EU superstate would be no more powerful than a town council.

Wizard
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2686
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 8:22 am
Been thanked: 439 times

Re: It's Still Brexit

#236121

Postby Wizard » July 12th, 2019, 10:44 am

SteMiS wrote:As ever MPs will have to answer to the electorate at the next election.

My point is that, we exercise democracy in this country through a constitutional monarchy and elected MPs. It's a system that has evolved over centuries and has served us pretty well so far. It's certainly not perfect, but through it we've avoided dictatorship (unlike Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece and Germany), revolution (like France) and foreign domination (like pretty much the rest of Europe, albeit as much through geographical luck as anything else). It's survived 3 pan European wars, the loss of empire, fascism, communism, the rise of organised labour, collapse of absolute monarchies and a whole host of challenges they have flattened other governments.

The problem with direct democracy, and handing over the decision making directly to the people, is that they are in no position to undertake negotiation or to give detailed feedback on the result of that negotiation (unless we are going to have referenda every month). They often hold contradictory positions (wanting more government spending and lower taxes) and are not directly accountable for the results of their decisions (in the sense that they then have to come with solutions to the messes they might create). They frankly don't have the capacity to scrutinize detailed legislation. So we don't do that.

The Conservatives did decide to ask the electorate's opinion directly about the EU in 2016 and got an answer which wasn't overwhelming and (inevitably) without fine detail. It was nevertheless (and this is legally incontrovertibly and unarguably the case) advice they asked for, not instruction. Our system still places the power and responsibility for taking the decisions in the hands of the MPs. If the electorate don't like those decisions, then they can express their opinion through the ballot box.

What is happening however is that certain politicians are claiming a direct (and frankly dubious) mandate directly from the people to undertake a course of action in contradiction to the will of parliament. There is no precedent for this, it is unconstitutional and frankly a road that leads to dictatorship (although I'm not saying that's where we will end up).

Scorn MPs if you want, badger and petition them and ultimately place your vote accordingly. But if you support circumventing them, then one day you might wake up and find that they have become an irrelevance. I hope you like what mechanism for exercising power has taken their place...

Thank you for taking the time to make such a well considered post, a class above much of the knee-jerk silliness and one-liners that are often found here.

In the interests of transparency I would caveat everything I say here with the fact that I do not consider democracy the best of all possible systems of rule, but due to the lack of incorruptible benevolent oligarchs I think it the least worst of those available.

I would certainly not in any way advocate or support the proroguing of Parliament as a means to deliver Brexit. Further, as I have said previously, if presented with a choice of the May deal, no deal or revocation, I would with great regret support revocation. If that is ultimately a decision that Parliament has to make I for one would not castigate them for it and nor would I claim they do not have the right to make that decision. I am sure that I am ploughing a fairly lonely furrow on this board as a Leaver who does not want a no deal Brexit with the current inadequate preparation.

I would however, respond to two of the points you make.

I do not dispute that the referendum was legally advisory, it could not be anything else given the need for the Government to translate the result into a more detailed approach. However, many of the statements made during the campaign gave a clear impression from the government and Prime Minister of the time that the vote would be respected and the result enacted. I have little doubt that the reason for these statements was part of a campaigning strategy to try and persuade people to vote to remain in the EU, but nonetheless these statements (promises?) were made in speeches and if I recall correctly in the government leaflet sent to every home in the UK. The referendum of 2016 was followed by a General Election in 2017, where both Labour and the Conservatives stood on a policy of implementing the referendum result. A significant majority of those that voted chose to vote for one of these two parties - I know this is an inconvenient fact that many on here try to dismiss, but a fact it remains. I have therefore always believed that while there was no legal obligation to enact the result of the 2016 referendum, there was a clear moral obligation to do so.

I am not a fan of direct democracy, my theoretically preferred system of government would not even give people the ability to vote for their government. However, the way you characterise much of the electorate is how I see many MPs, i.e. lacking in the capability to fully understand the complexities of much of what they vote on. Many of the constituencies in the UK would elected my pet dog if it were standing for the right party. Now, I happen to think my dog (a border collie) is one of the more intelligent dog breeds, but it does not have the necessary experience to understand complex legislation. In the same way, many of those that are elected as MPs are chosen by their party not because they are the best person to be an MP but because they have the best 'position' within the party, locally or nationally. I am therefore not convinced that parliament, as a collection of MPs, is really capable of dealing with much of what is put in front of them. That is where our first past the post system has historically helped us, by giving one party an overall majority in most elections. From the MPs elected in the majority party the most able and best prepared tend to rise to the top and then form the government. It is the government that generally decides on policy and puts forward bills to Parliament and then the mostly 'sheep-like' behaviour of MPs gets the legislation passed. Given this, in the whole Brexit saga while MPs have frustrated me my real scorn is reserved for the government, led by a person who I consider possibly the worst Prime Minister of the last one hundred years. It is Theresa May who should bear responsibility for the mess we are in.

XFool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4017
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 238 times

Re: It's Still Brexit

#236137

Postby XFool » July 12th, 2019, 11:21 am

Wizard wrote:While I think skme of the claims have gone over the top (such as by the awful Marcus Ball) it seems clear there are questions that need to be answered with regard to aspects of the Leave campaign. I have seen nothing come out of the judiciary on Brexit that suggests that overall indicates an issue (although the judgement in the initial Marcus Ball hearing was clearly deeply flawed, let's assume incompetence rathet than conspiracy. I strongly suspect a significant majority of senior civil servants support remaining in the EU, but whilst in position I have not seen them do anything wrong (with the excption of Mark Carney, if he falls in to this category, wwhk I do think has taken a pokitical stance). So, with a few exceptions, I completely agree with you on those three counts.

Why do you consider Carney an exception?

I see him being attacked all the time in popular media comments - often on the basis that he is a 'foreigner' - this does not convince me. I know that, in his job, he is in the frontline dealing with the possible practical negative financial impacts from a currently unknown form of Brexit. To my mind the associated unwelcome news makes him an 'enemy' to some of the more extreme Brexiteers.

Wizard wrote:However, I do have more of an issue with Parliament. An overwhelming number of MPs were elected standing on a manifesto which clearly stated the 2016 referendum woold be respected and the decision to leave enacted. Putting a number of both remain and leave Tories who voted against the three meaningful votes, the vast majority of Labour MPs have also blocked Brexit. I believe May's approach to Parliament during the negotiations put Parliament in a difficult position, but I think MPs who stood on a 'leave ticket' are deserving of considerable scorn and I rather hope a large number of them find this their last term as an MP in one way or another.

Recent comments by May, that she found it harder negotiating with her own hard Leaver wing than the EU, are interesting from this point of view.

Wizard wrote: I am not sure if that can be considered to be undermining Parliament, but I think they have damaged the respect in which politicians are viewed in this country. If we end up with a disasterous populist PM then many current MPs must take a significant share of the blame.

Many of them would seem to include the very MPs that Theresa May referred to.

richfool
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1450
Joined: November 19th, 2016, 2:02 pm
Has thanked: 241 times
Been thanked: 244 times

Re: It's Still Brexit

#236142

Postby richfool » July 12th, 2019, 11:32 am

Wizard wrote:However, I do have more of an issue with Parliament. An overwhelming number of MPs were elected standing on a manifesto which clearly stated the 2016 referendum woold be respected and the decision to leave enacted. Putting a number of both remain and leave Tories who voted against the three meaningful votes, the vast majority of Labour MPs have also blocked Brexit. I believe May's approach to Parliament during the negotiations put Parliament in a difficult position, but I think MPs who stood on a 'leave ticket' are deserving of considerable scorn and I rather hope a large number of them find this their last term as an MP in one way or another.

I couldn't agree more.

SteMiS
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1750
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 9:41 pm
Has thanked: 7 times
Been thanked: 118 times

Re: It's Still Brexit

#236144

Postby SteMiS » July 12th, 2019, 11:34 am

Wizard wrote:I would certainly not in any way advocate or support the proroguing of Parliament as a means to deliver Brexit.

Well it's good that we are in agreement because that's essentially what my post was about.

Wizard wrote:I do not dispute that the referendum was legally advisory, it could not be anything else given the need for the Government to translate the result into a more detailed approach. However, many of the statements made during the campaign gave a clear impression from the government and Prime Minister of the time that the vote would be respected and the result enacted.

I don't doubt that that was what was intended. However it was, and could only ever be, the intention of the person who made that statement.

Wizard wrote:The referendum of 2016 was followed by a General Election in 2017, where both Labour and the Conservatives stood on a policy of implementing the referendum result. A significant majority of those that voted chose to vote for one of these two parties - I know this is an inconvenient fact that many on here try to dismiss, but a fact it remains. I have therefore always believed that while there was no legal obligation to enact the result of the 2016 referendum, there was a clear moral obligation to do so.

I was one of those people. I'm not a leaver and my vote should not be taken as assent to leaving. Not everybody who votes for a party agrees with everything in their manifesto. However I guess I assumed leaving was a fait accompli. I was certainly more concerned (at the time) about the possibility of a Corbyn led government. Again, the reason we have representative government though is so that they can use their judgement as facts and situations change and not be inflexibly locked to a policy decided years before.

Wizard wrote:However, the way you characterise much of the electorate is how I see many MPs, i.e. lacking in the capability to fully understand the complexities of much of what they vote on.

To some extent I agree with you, however my point about the electorate not being able to scrutinize detailed legislation wasn't simply about their understanding but about the lack of a mechanism to actually do that. Nonetheless one of the things that has come out of this to me is that quite a few of our MPs are just not up to the job. I'm sure we all have our favourites in this regards but Mark Francois....seriously?

Wizard wrote:It is the government that generally decides on policy and puts forward bills to Parliament and then the mostly 'sheep-like' behaviour of MPs gets the legislation passed. Given this, in the whole Brexit saga while MPs have frustrated me my real scorn is reserved for the government, led by a person who I consider possibly the worst Prime Minister of the last one hundred years. It is Theresa May who should bear responsibility for the mess we are in.

To be fair to Theresa May (and I'm certainly no fan) she has attempted to deliver the Conservative manifesto but has been unable to do so (because it depends also and inevitably on the agreement of the EU). Both Conservative and Labour manifestos set out a description of the type of Brexit they would pursue. They were not the same and have both, in their own ways, turned out to be unachievable. May's lack of a big majority means she is no longer able to drive what she has been able to obtain through the HoC. What is also true is that the vision of Brexit, pursued by the hard Brexiteers and 'promised' by Johnson, is contrary to the Conservative manifesto.

It's a stalemate. My solution is to go back to the people, where it all began, and ask for further instructions. The solution of some hard Brexiteers is to by pass (prorogue) parliament and impose their own particular vision directly on the country.

Wizard
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2686
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 8:22 am
Been thanked: 439 times

Re: It's Still Brexit

#236147

Postby Wizard » July 12th, 2019, 11:39 am

XFool wrote:
Wizard wrote:While I think skme of the claims have gone over the top (such as by the awful Marcus Ball) it seems clear there are questions that need to be answered with regard to aspects of the Leave campaign. I have seen nothing come out of the judiciary on Brexit that suggests that overall indicates an issue (although the judgement in the initial Marcus Ball hearing was clearly deeply flawed, let's assume incompetence rathet than conspiracy. I strongly suspect a significant majority of senior civil servants support remaining in the EU, but whilst in position I have not seen them do anything wrong (with the excption of Mark Carney, if he falls in to this category, wwhk I do think has taken a pokitical stance). So, with a few exceptions, I completely agree with you on those three counts.

Why do you consider Carney an exception?


Because I think some of his pronouncements strayed beyond objective analysis and were influenced by his personal views on Brexit.

XFool wrote:
Wizard wrote:However, I do have more of an issue with Parliament. An overwhelming number of MPs were elected standing on a manifesto which clearly stated the 2016 referendum woold be respected and the decision to leave enacted. Putting a number of both remain and leave Tories who voted against the three meaningful votes, the vast majority of Labour MPs have also blocked Brexit. I believe May's approach to Parliament during the negotiations put Parliament in a difficult position, but I think MPs who stood on a 'leave ticket' are deserving of considerable scorn and I rather hope a large number of them find this their last term as an MP in one way or another.

Recent comments by May, that she found it harder negotiating with her own hard Leaver wing than the EU, are interesting from this point of view.

As I have said many times, if every leave supporting MP in the Conservative party had voted for MV1, 2 or 3, none of them would have passed. May has clearly seen this as a Conservative Party matter, one of the many reasons she has been an unmitigated disaster. It is not just a Tory issue.

XFool wrote:
Wizard wrote: I am not sure if that can be considered to be undermining Parliament, but I think they have damaged the respect in which politicians are viewed in this country. If we end up with a disasterous populist PM then many current MPs must take a significant share of the blame.

Many of them would seem to include the very MPs that Theresa May referred to.

And many more were not.

SentimentRules
Lemon Slice
Posts: 308
Joined: July 6th, 2019, 11:28 am
Has thanked: 34 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: It's Still Brexit

#236150

Postby SentimentRules » July 12th, 2019, 11:42 am

SteMiS wrote:
Wizard wrote:I would certainly not in any way advocate or support the proroguing of Parliament as a means to deliver Brexit.

Well it's good that we are in agreement because that's essentially what my post was about.

Wizard wrote:I do not dispute that the referendum was legally advisory, it could not be anything else given the need for the Government to translate the result into a more detailed approach. However, many of the statements made during the campaign gave a clear impression from the government and Prime Minister of the time that the vote would be respected and the result enacted.

I don't doubt that that was what was intended. However it was, and could only ever be, the intention of the person who made that statement.

Wizard wrote:The referendum of 2016 was followed by a General Election in 2017, where both Labour and the Conservatives stood on a policy of implementing the referendum result. A significant majority of those that voted chose to vote for one of these two parties - I know this is an inconvenient fact that many on here try to dismiss, but a fact it remains. I have therefore always believed that while there was no legal obligation to enact the result of the 2016 referendum, there was a clear moral obligation to do so.

I was one of those people. I'm not a leaver and my vote should not be taken as assent to leaving. Not everybody who votes for a party agrees with everything in their manifesto. However I guess I assumed leaving was a fait accompli. I was certainly more concerned (at the time) about the possibility of a Corbyn led government. Again, the reason we have representative government though is so that they can use their judgement as facts and situations change and not be inflexibly locked to a policy decided years before.

Wizard wrote:However, the way you characterise much of the electorate is how I see many MPs, i.e. lacking in the capability to fully understand the complexities of much of what they vote on.

To some extent I agree with you, however my point about the electorate not being able to scrutinize detailed legislation wasn't simply about their understanding but about the lack of a mechanism to actually do that. Nonetheless one of the things that has come out of this to me is that quite a few of our MPs are just not up to the job. I'm sure we all have our favourites in this regards but Mark Francois....seriously?

Wizard wrote:It is the government that generally decides on policy and puts forward bills to Parliament and then the mostly 'sheep-like' behaviour of MPs gets the legislation passed. Given this, in the whole Brexit saga while MPs have frustrated me my real scorn is reserved for the government, led by a person who I consider possibly the worst Prime Minister of the last one hundred years. It is Theresa May who should bear responsibility for the mess we are in.

To be fair to Theresa May (and I'm certainly no fan) she has attempted to deliver the Conservative manifesto but has been unable to do so (because it depends also and inevitably on the agreement of the EU). Both Conservative and Labour manifestos set out a description of the type of Brexit they would pursue. They were not the same and have both, in their own ways, turned out to be unachievable. May's lack of a big majority means she is no longer able to drive what she has been able to obtain through the HoC. What is also true is that the vision of Brexit, pursued by the hard Brexiteers and 'promised' by Johnson, is contrary to the Conservative manifesto.

It's a stalemate. My solution is to go back to the people, where it all began, and ask for further instructions. The solution of some hard Brexiteers is to by pass (prorogue) parliament and impose their own particular vision directly on the country.


To prorougue parliament would be to enact the will of the people .

Parliament is blocking the public will.

djbenedict
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 186
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 11:44 am
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 18 times

Re: It's Still Brexit

#236153

Postby djbenedict » July 12th, 2019, 11:53 am

SentimentRules wrote:Parliament is blocking the public will.


The entire point is that "the public will" is not in charge in this country (thank goodness). Parliament is.

SentimentRules
Lemon Slice
Posts: 308
Joined: July 6th, 2019, 11:28 am
Has thanked: 34 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: It's Still Brexit

#236158

Postby SentimentRules » July 12th, 2019, 12:02 pm

Why have referendums Then?

Wizard
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2686
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 8:22 am
Been thanked: 439 times

Re: It's Still Brexit

#236159

Postby Wizard » July 12th, 2019, 12:02 pm

SteMiS wrote:
Wizard wrote:However, the way you characterise much of the electorate is how I see many MPs, i.e. lacking in the capability to fully understand the complexities of much of what they vote on.

To some extent I agree with you, however my point about the electorate not being able to scrutinize detailed legislation wasn't simply about their understanding but about the lack of a mechanism to actually do that...

...It's a stalemate. My solution is to go back to the people, where it all began, and ask for further instructions. The solution of some hard Brexiteers is to by pass (prorogue) parliament and impose their own particular vision directly on the country.

I struggle to reconcile this completely. You seem to agree at least in part that the electorate don't have the skills to make judgements on such a complex topic and add there is not a mechanism for them to do so, but then say put the decision back to them. Do you think that the vast majority of those will take the time to read and digest all the material necessary to make even a partially informed decision? Notwithstanding the limitations of many MPs given their own experience, if a decision to revoke is to be made I would much prefer Parliament to do it than there to be another referendum. Another case of no good option, only a search for the least worst.

I also oppose a second referendum because I believe there is a moral obligation to enact the 2016 referendum, it may have been just the government of the time that said it, but I still believe it should carry some weight when the person that said it was a Prime Minister. You may now regret your voting decision in the 2017 general election, but as you say, you were fully aware you were voting for a party committed to implement Brexit but on balance you thought other matters were of more importance. If there is an election in the next weeks or months and at the time we have not left the EU I suspect Brexit may weigh more heavily on your decision, but it is still a fact that you, and many others, voted for parties that supported Brexit in 2017.

I am also pretty sure that a second referendum will be positioned by some as being 'the establishment' saying "come along voters, you got the wrong answer, try again please". That cannot be good for UK politics. I fear that if there were a second referendum with anything but an overwhelming vote for remain (which the polls do not predict at present) it would fuel the rise and rise of the likes of Farage and Johnson.

I have given my preferred solution before, but I know it is a very, very fringe view. If it were up to me I would revoke A50 and resubmit it the next day, restart the clock and wipe out the last three years of May incompetence. But I know neither side on the debate agrees with me on that.
Last edited by Wizard on July 12th, 2019, 12:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Wizard
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2686
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 8:22 am
Been thanked: 439 times

Re: It's Still Brexit

#236160

Postby Wizard » July 12th, 2019, 12:05 pm

SentimentRules wrote:Why have referendums Then?

David Cameron never actually wanted one. Putting it in the manifesto was a way to deal with an internal party issue. He expected to trade it away within minutes of starting coalition discussions after the election. He never expected an overall majority.

SentimentRules
Lemon Slice
Posts: 308
Joined: July 6th, 2019, 11:28 am
Has thanked: 34 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: It's Still Brexit

#236162

Postby SentimentRules » July 12th, 2019, 12:11 pm

Wizard wrote:
SentimentRules wrote:Why have referendums Then?

David Cameron never actually wanted one. Putting it in the manifesto was a way to deal with an internal party issue. He expected to trade it away within minutes of starting coalition discussions after the election. He never expected an overall majority.


Ok but i mean any. Example the referendum to join the EU in 1973

Surely it's either accept all referendums or do away with them all ?

Wizard
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2686
Joined: November 7th, 2016, 8:22 am
Been thanked: 439 times

Re: It's Still Brexit

#236164

Postby Wizard » July 12th, 2019, 12:23 pm

SentimentRules wrote:
Wizard wrote:
SentimentRules wrote:Why have referendums Then?

David Cameron never actually wanted one. Putting it in the manifesto was a way to deal with an internal party issue. He expected to trade it away within minutes of starting coalition discussions after the election. He never expected an overall majority.


Ok but i mean any. Example the referendum to join the EU in 1973

Surely it's either accept all referendums or do away with them all ?

Personally I am not supportive of any form of direct democracy.

SentimentRules
Lemon Slice
Posts: 308
Joined: July 6th, 2019, 11:28 am
Has thanked: 34 times
Been thanked: 21 times

Re: It's Still Brexit

#236166

Postby SentimentRules » July 12th, 2019, 12:31 pm

That include voting? It's as direct as it can get. General elections

ursaminortaur
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3663
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:26 pm
Has thanked: 125 times
Been thanked: 108 times

Re: It's Still Brexit

#236167

Postby ursaminortaur » July 12th, 2019, 12:33 pm

Wizard wrote:
SteMiS wrote:
Wizard wrote:However, the way you characterise much of the electorate is how I see many MPs, i.e. lacking in the capability to fully understand the complexities of much of what they vote on.

To some extent I agree with you, however my point about the electorate not being able to scrutinize detailed legislation wasn't simply about their understanding but about the lack of a mechanism to actually do that...

...It's a stalemate. My solution is to go back to the people, where it all began, and ask for further instructions. The solution of some hard Brexiteers is to by pass (prorogue) parliament and impose their own particular vision directly on the country.

I struggle to reconcile this completely. You seem to agree at least in part that the electorate don't have the skills to make judgements on such a complex topic and add there is not a mechanism for them to do so, but then say put the decision back to them. Do you think that the vast majority of those will take the time to read and digest all the material necessary to make even a partially informed decision? Notwithstanding the limitations of many MPs given their own experience, if a decision to revoke is to be made I would much prefer Parliament to do it than there to be another referendum. Another case of no good option, only a search for the least worst.

I also oppose a second referendum because I believe there is a moral obligation to enact the 2016 referendum, it may have been just the government of the time that said it, but I still believe it should carry some weight when the person that said it was a Prime Minister. You may now regret your voting decision in the 2017 general election, but as you say, you were fully aware you were voting for a party committed to implement Brexit but on balance you thought other matters were of more importance. If there is an election in the next weeks or months and at the time we have not left the EU I suspect Brexit may weigh more heavily on your decision, but it is still a fact that you, and many others, voted for parties that supported Brexit in 2017.

I am also pretty sure that a second referendum will be positioned by some as being 'the establishment' saying "come along voters, you got the wrong answer, try again please". That cannot be good for UK politics. I fear that if there were a second referendum with anything but an overwhelming vote for remain (which the polls do not predict at present) would fuel the rise and rise of the likes of Farage and Johnson.

I have given my preferred solution before, but I know it is a very, very fringe view. If it were up to me I would revoke A50 and resubmit it the next day, restart the clock and wipe out the last three years of May incompetence. But I know neither side on the debate agrees with me on that.


The problem is that no-one can agree what form of brexit to implement. Revoking Article 50 and then immediately resubmitting it wouldn't solve that problem. That leaves two* solutions

1) Revoke article 50 and then setup some body to investigate all the options in detail and come up with a workable brexit which parliament could accept. For instance a cross party working group either investigating directly - or with a feed from either citizen's assemblies or a royal commission. The cross party working group would though be needed to ensure that the final recommendation would have parliamentary support since citizen's assemblies or a royal commision's proposals on their own could hit the same parliamentary blocks. Such a process would obviously take some time.

2) Putting the options back to the people. This isn't ideal since as you note the people would likely be making the decision on a fairly superficial understanding of the issues. However with all the coverage they should be slightly better informed than in 2016. So long as the options are implementable though this would at least break the parliamentary deadlock - whether the result was to revoke Article 50 or to leave with a particular leave option the result could be implemented.

Whatever happens the divisions over brexit will not be healed overnight. If we remain there will be people continuing to campaign to leave the EU, if we leave there will be people campaigning to rejoin. Assuming though that the choice doesn't cause major economic problems though I'd think that most people will accept it and get on with their lives.


*There is potentially a third solution of a general election which changes the parliamentary arithmetic but that is a real shot in the dark as you may well end up with a parliament which is just as split as now.


Return to “Polite Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests