Brexit Negotiations

[Bentley Bullet]

Farage would have continued to fight against the status quo, had he lost the vote. That is different to the demands for a new vote before the original vote has even been implemented!

"Once in a generation, once in a lifetime" decision, the UK has "referendums not Neverendums".

[Bentley Bullet]

BB
But that is entirely avoiding the point I made up the page.

The Referendum WAS a two-choice question on a subject that wasn't a two-choice question.

I'm bemused by how many people are clinging to this as some sort of totem of democracy that must never be questioned.

BST, you're totally avoiding my points.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BB

I'll answer your point.

Democracy revolves around being able to change decisions.

Referendums should be held when the electorate are in the best possible position to make a judgment. They should be held when people can view all the arguments for and against and when those arguments have been rigorously tested. In short, referendums should be held when people know exactly what they are getting.

We should not ask people to vote on a blank sheet of paper and tell them to trust MPs to fill in the details afterwards.

For referendums to be fair and compatible with our parliamentary process, we need the electors to be as well informed as possible and to know exactly what they are voting for. Referendums need to be treated as an addition to the parliamentary process, not as a substitute for it.

And a democracy that cannot change its mind ceases to be a democracy.

[RedJ]

Farage would have continued to fight against the status quo, had he lost the vote. That is different to the demands for a new vote before the original vote has even been implemented!

"Once in a generation, once in a lifetime" decision, the UK has "referendums not Neverendums".

Ah, so it's fine to agitate for a vote on the losing side as long as it's the right losing side then?

[Bentley Bullet]

BB

I'll answer your point.

Democracy revolves around being able to change decisions.

Referendums should be held when the electorate are in the best possible position to make a judgment. They should be held when people can view all the arguments for and against and when those arguments have been rigorously tested. In short, referendums should be held when people know exactly what they are getting.

We should not ask people to vote on a blank sheet of paper and tell them to trust MPs to fill in the details afterwards.

For referendums to be fair and compatible with our parliamentary process, we need the electors to be as well informed as possible and to know exactly what they are voting for. Referendums need to be treated as an addition to the parliamentary process, not as a substitute for it.

And a democracy that cannot change its mind ceases to be a democracy.

Who says we can't change the decision in future?

All referendums include voters who haven't got a clue what they are voting for in any real depth of reason. That's a huge failing of democracy.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BB

I'm struggling here.

You accept that 2016 was democratically imperfect because people didn't know what they were voting for. But now that we have much more clarity, you don't think we should re-visit the vote?

So you prefer an entirely imperfect democratic decision to a much less imperfect one?

[Herbert Anchovy]

A second referendum may be a way of getting us out of this current mess...or it could be the latest opportunity to overturn a democratic vote that’s been under attack since the result was announced

Are you trying to tell us a vote by the electorate that has a different result to a previous vote by the electorate is undemocratic...just because it's different?

Glyn,

The Referendum vote was billed as a one off, a once in a generation referendum. If I recall rightly the remain side were particularly keen to get this point across. Lo and behold, the vote goes the other way and suddenly we need another one, a ‘people’s vote’!

[Bentley Bullet]

BST, You've got it!

I accept that ALL elections/referendums are democratically imperfect because people don't really know what they're voting for. Not everyone can be right, unless everyone unanimously votes for one side, and providing everyone has chosen the right side!

The problem with the EU vote is it couldn't have been implemented immediately because the leave result meant a long process of leaving was necessary. This created a gap which has caused widespread whinging not unlike a pleading football team being allowed half an hour to spit the dummy out before their opponents can take a dubious penalty awarded to them.

Had we voted to remain things would have continued as they were and Nigel Farage & co, quite within their democratic right, would have continued with their objective to leave.

In my opinion, the only way to keep any semblance of democracy regarding another vote would be to have another vote on whether we should have another vote.

[Herbert Anchovy]

A second referendum may be a way of getting us out of this current mess...or it could be the latest opportunity to overturn a democratic vote that’s been under attack since the result was announced

I refuse to vote at the next General Election because I voted Conservative before and we must stay forever as a Conservative government or its undemocratic!

The referendum was supposed to be a one off, remember?

[Herbert Anchovy]

I suppose we're STILL ignoring the fact that Russia was meddling with the referendum, and that illegally harvested data was used to try and swing the vote.

But no, you're right, having a second vote is definitely undemocratic in the face of all that.

RedJ,

You’re right of course, but don’t kid yourself that it was all one way. Check out some of the ‘bots’ and fake accounts on Facebook and Twitter that advocated and continue to advocate the remain side.

[Boomstick]

It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest another referendum, it wont happen.
1. it would destroy the public's trust in any future refferendum

2. This silly claim that we didn't know what we would be voting for can be applied to ALL votes, with hindsight.

3. It would make a mockery even more of the uk, 'oh no, this brexit business is hard, let's have another vote and hope for the best'.

4. It basically says the the public, we don't care what you voted for.

5. The remain side vehemently said this was a one off vote, (but only when they believed they would win)

[MachoMadness]

A second referendum may be a way of getting us out of this current mess...or it could be the latest opportunity to overturn a democratic vote that’s been under attack since the result was announced

I refuse to vote at the next General Election because I voted Conservative before and we must stay forever as a Conservative government or its undemocratic!

The referendum was supposed to be a one off, remember?

The referendum was also supposed to be run legally, with no money pouring in from foreign powers, and no illegally harvested data being used to target susceptible Facebook users with lies and propaganda, but hey ho. Here we are.

Amazing how Brexiters flatly refuse to engage with this point.

[Herbert Anchovy]

A second referendum may be a way of getting us out of this current mess...or it could be the latest opportunity to overturn a democratic vote that’s been under attack since the result was announced

I refuse to vote at the next General Election because I voted Conservative before and we must stay forever as a Conservative government or its undemocratic!

The referendum was supposed to be a one off, remember?

The referendum was also supposed to be run legally, with no money pouring in from foreign powers, and no illegally harvested data being used to target susceptible Facebook users with lies and propaganda, but hey ho. Here we are.

Amazing how Brexiters flatly refuse to engage with this point.

Macho,

Yes, you’re right, and if those things are proven and if they did influence the result then a second vote should be considered, however remainers were beating the drum for a second vote long before any illegalities reared their head.

[RedJ]

A second referendum may be a way of getting us out of this current mess...or it could be the latest opportunity to overturn a democratic vote that’s been under attack since the result was announced

I refuse to vote at the next General Election because I voted Conservative before and we must stay forever as a Conservative government or its undemocratic!

The referendum was supposed to be a one off, remember?

The referendum was also supposed to be run legally, with no money pouring in from foreign powers, and no illegally harvested data being used to target susceptible Facebook users with lies and propaganda, but hey ho. Here we are.

Amazing how Brexiters flatly refuse to engage with this point.

Macho,

Yes, you’re right, and if those things are proven and if they did influence the result then a second vote should be considered, however remainers were beating the drum for a second vote long before any illegalities reared their head.

Farage was banging the drum before the count even took place!

[drfchound]

It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest another referendum, it wont happen.
1. it would destroy the public's trust in any future refferendum

2. This silly claim that we didn't know what we would be voting for can be applied to ALL votes, with hindsight.

3. It would make a mockery even more of the uk, 'oh no, this brexit business is hard, let's have another vote and hope for the best'.

4. It basically says the the public, we don't care what you voted for.

5. The remain side vehemently said this was a one off vote, (but only when they believed they would win)

Not all true BS.
I voted to remain, partly because I didn’t know how much of a Pandoras’ Box we would be opening if we left.
I know other people who thought the same at the time, not with hindsight.

[Herbert Anchovy]

HA

Please explain why the vote I suggest would be unfair or undemocratic.

It seems undeniable to me that in the 2016 vote, no-one knew what Brexit meant. I say that, because now, 29 months later, we STILL don't know what Brexiters means. It could be a No Deal Brexit. Or it could be the May Deal Brexit.

But thats the point. The binary vote in 2016 was a false premise. People voted Leave for all sorts of different reasons and wanted all sorts of different outcomes. But, if there's no further opportunity to vote, then each and every one of those Leave votes will have been interpreted as supporting the Leave that we finally get.

How on earth is that some democratic ideal?

NOW, we have far more clarity. We know what the real options are. So it seems to me that NOT having the vote I suggest would be the real undemocratic outrage.

Am I missing something obvious? Is there a reason why this proposed vote would be undemocratic and the 2016 vote is as good as it's ever going to get?

Billy,

I’m not sure if you’re misunderstanding or misrepresenting my point.

Allow me to reiterate some points

Firstly, I’d not even mentioned your proposal so it wasn’t a reflection on that.

Secondly, the remainers were advocating a second vote from the moment the result was announced. Before the negotiations with the EU began. A significant proportion have never accepted the result. That’s my point regarding democracy

Thirdly, remainers seem to claim that anyone who voted for Brexit was either too stupid or ignorant to understand what they were voting for. I voted to leave and I knew exactly what I was voting for.

Fourthly, if we do have a second vote I’d vote to remain. Not because I suddenly believe the EU is right for the UK (it isn’t) but because our government are incapable of delivering a Brexit that puts the UK in a better position than it’s in now.

[BillyStubbsTears]

HA

Your final point sums up the whole point.

The Leave case in 2016 was based on the twin claims that we could "take back control" and we'd be at the very least, no worse off.

That claim was very difficult to counter at the time. But it's now clear that nothing is on offer or can be on offer which delivers both of those outcomes.

That, to me, is one o erwhelming argument for why a second referendum is essential. (The other one being the overwhelming evidence of the Leave campaign systematically engaging in illegal activity, funded by foreign sources.)

The thoughts I wrote at 10:23 sum up precisely the error in having a referendum on a fundamentally unclear question, which it is now clear that we did in 2016. The point is that if the question wasn't clear, it was inevitable that the result would be hijacked by politicians to push their interpretation of what Brexit actually meant.

And that's what has happened.

Rees-Mogg says Brexit means a hard Leave.

May says it means a soft deal.

Gove says it means a less soft deal than May.

Corbyn says it means a Brexit that allows us to usher in the socialist utopia.

How can ANYONE claim the result was decisive when the outcome, 29 months later, is fundamental disagreements on what Brexit means?


But I was a bit naughty posting that 10:23 post by the way. It wasn't my thoughts. It was a verbatim quote from David Davis. A politician who now tells us that the 2016 vote represented the Will of the People, and to re-visit the question would be profoundly democratic.

[Glyn_Wigley]

A second referendum may be a way of getting us out of this current mess...or it could be the latest opportunity to overturn a democratic vote that’s been under attack since the result was announced

Are you trying to tell us a vote by the electorate that has a different result to a previous vote by the electorate is undemocratic...just because it's different?

Glyn,

The Referendum vote was billed as a one off, a once in a generation referendum. If I recall rightly the remain side were particularly keen to get this point across. Lo and behold, the vote goes the other way and suddenly we need another one, a ‘people’s vote’!

I never saw that. Nor, as someone who knows British Politics, would I have believed it. We can have a referendum any time we like.

If you think it was a lie...well, apparently Leave lies can be ignored, do you believe that a Remain lie can be just as easily?

[GazLaz]

BST, as someone who is considerably older and considerably wiser than myself I have a question for you, do you think that this crop of politicians (on all sides) are the worst in modern history? So many of them across all parties come across as just inept. It’s understandable though I think, anyone with real ability and knowledge would surely end up doing something where the rewards are far greater.

[Glyn_Wigley]

BST, as someone who is considerably older and considerably wiser than myself I have a question for you, do you think that this crop of politicians (on all sides) are the worst in modern history? So many of them across all parties come across as just inept. It’s understandable though I think, anyone with real ability and knowledge would surely end up doing something where the rewards are far greater.

I think  what is more common now is that many more politicians just don't want to give a straight answer.

Now, that always happened to a certain extent, but back in the 70s and 80s it seemed that a lot more politicians had their own convictions and weren't scared of expressing them even if they knew a lot of people wouldn't like them. Just think of Thatcher, Tebbit, Foot and Benn. You might not have liked what they stood for, but by God you did actually know what they stood for. Nowadays, nobody seems to be standing on a solid platform anymore and that all they really stand for is for election.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Gaz

Yeah, I think the current ones are of very poor quality across the board.

But to some extent, that's a product of society.

We want our politicians to be entertainers rather than sober judges. We want them to be morally perfect. We want them to be honest but then we crucify them if they say things we don't want to hear. We have spent decades buying newspapers that run the national debate but then we slag off politicians who spin stories. We want perfection but we pay the PM less in a year than Kevin deBruyne gets in a long weekend.

I've always said that society gets the politicians it deserves.

[Donny Dub]

Gazlaz,  it’s the civil service that run the country.  They certainly run this country (Ireland) and our politicians therefore in falling in with bureaucracy from Brussels.

[Bentley Bullet]

Politicians try to gain support by referring to the lack of integrity in the opposition instead of asserting their own. They do this because it is easier to condemn the lack of integrity of others than it is to actually have any themselves.

Sadly, the general public act in the same way. It's at such an epidemic that we no longer condemn lies, but claim smarty points because the opposition have lied most!

[BillyStubbsTears]

Or, alternatively, failing to condemn REALLY egregious lies and just saying that both sides are as bad as each other means there's absolutely no incentive for politicians to even try to be honest.

[Bentley Bullet]

What sort of lies were these, Billy.......
https://brexitcentral.com/audacious-lie-referendum-campaign-remainers-claim-immigration/

[Donnywolf]

BST, as someone who is considerably older and considerably wiser than myself I have a question for you, do you think that this crop of politicians (on all sides) are the worst in modern history? So many of them across all parties come across as just inept. It’s understandable though I think, anyone with real ability and knowledge would surely end up doing something where the rewards are far greater.

I only probably fit one of your BST criteria (older)

IMO the Politicians are worse today than they have ever been unless of course I am more suspicious or cynical than before

I had little interest in Politics up to being 18 and then was naive to say the least but as I became more aware I began to take more interest.

The first thing I really remember was the Referendum in 75 to see if we wanted to Stay in the Common Market after a Trial Membership. Ironically I voted to leave one of only 32% that did. 66 % voted Remain and for years (honestly) I could not find anyone who had Voted Remain !

Then I watched Politicians more and found they were duplicitous and never answered Questions (well mostly they did not) - and of course they manipulated things to a) get re-elected and b) to suit themselves - mostly a).

Coming up for an Election we then had the "cut the Bank Rate" game again and again to create a feelgood factor which lots of people took at face value - although probably knowing once they were re-elected the rates would go back up and probably go even higher

And of course they blame each other even Years after they got back in. Inflation high - well we did inherit this mighty mess from the previous Govt (works either way). I got fed up of it but could do little but cast my Vote knowing it was not worth the same as someone in say Godalming because of the Electoral System we use.

John Cleese used to come on TV pleading with people that we needed Proportional Representation and I used to think (of the Liberals) well you are only saying that because you just cant win .... BUT .... I now know why they were campaigning for it and why we should strive to get it

It will not give us smarter MPs I dont think - I do think though that they would be less extremist (either way) and we would have a fairer Parliament and Society as most things (especially BIG things) would be reached by a concensus which broadly would be more in line with with we the People

Sorry Gaz - dont know how I got there (happens with my 250 Word Reports as well) but I think that the current MPs in general are probably "smarter" intelligence wise that those in recent modern History but are certainly slyer and more devious which in my book makes them the "worst" as per your Question

The current lot have presided over the biggest mess I have ever known in my almost 50 years of voting the EU Question. What a complete joke it has been from start to finish and a Credit to NO-ONE- and once again I was on the losing side in the latest Referendum though this time round I can find loads who supported the winning side !

[BillyStubbsTears]

What sort of lies were these, Billy.......
https://brexitcentral.com/audacious-lie-referendum-campaign-remainers-claim-immigration/

Bit hard to address that one BB.

Your man gives 4 examples of relatively obscure people making that claim on 4 obscure websites. 3 of those links don't work. The other one does make that claim and gives a link supporting that claim to an independent, Oxford University website. But that link doesn't work.


If they willfully and deliberately misled people then of course that is wrong. But as ever, it's a matter of scale and effect.

How does that compare to Boris and Nigel being on the TV night after night telling us Turkey was about to join the EU and that we'd be £350m per week better off?

[Bentley Bullet]

They weren't that obscure. The stories were exposed enough to convince me to vote remain. Well, those along with the threat to my pension along with the punishment budget. They must surely rank not far behind an advert on a bus that suggested money could go to the NHS instead of the EU. When did Nigel Farage claim that by the way?

AS far as Turkey joining the EU, let's wait and see about that and reflect on it in at a later date.

[BillyStubbsTears]

BB

How long do you want to wait on Turkey?

I'd happily bet any sum you want that they won't be members while I'm alive.

One of the key successes of the EU has been to make dictatorships unacceptable in Europe, and to support human rights. There is not a chance in a million that a Turkey under the rule of Erdogan and his followers would ever be allowed into the EU. And it would take them a generation to rebuild the democracy that he has destroyed.

As for the punishment Budget, I've lost count of how many times we've been over this now. Brexit HAS utterly f**ked the public finances. That is established. That means that there will be ongoing reductions in real-terms public spending and/or tax increases until way off into the 2020s.

Finally, I'm in awe of you if you really were reading Richard Corbett's web page before the 2016 vote and basing your decision on that. That's some committment to democracy.

[SydneyRover]

BB

How long do you want to wait on Turkey?

I'd happily bet any sum you want that they won't be members while I'm alive.

One of the key successes of the EU has been to make dictatorships unacceptable in Europe, and to support human rights. There is not a chance in a million that a Turkey under the rule of Erdogan and his followers would ever be allowed into the EU. And it would take them a generation to rebuild the democracy that he has destroyed.

The suppression of journalism in Turkey is palpable and it is a common denominator when comparing dictatorships:

https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/campaigns/2017/02/free-turkey-media/