Brexit - or Article 50: the Phoenix!

[woody69]

So if we have a second one and Remain win, they will of course request another Referendum on a best of 3 basis to ensure fair play, won’t they...

Yeah, right. 🙄

I just can't get my head around this. In a second legally binding referendum, with a vastly more informed electorate, the MPs are arguing for a second referendum, due to the closeness of a vote that most would agree was disinformative, and in the belief that public opinion has changed over three and a half years of political chicanery. But far more important, is that no endgame was ever included in the first referendum and therefore no mandate created for what any leave result would look like. Since that time, the public has been granted greater access to impact reports and better facts and information as to the possible direct impacts of Brexit. Although little actual proof of the direct positive outcomes of any form of Brexit has ever been offered in the last three and a half years, by any on this forum or by any leave proponent.

If, equipped with these new facts and information, you still vote to leave and join a majority of like minded citizens then fair enough. Farage says that Leave would win a second referendum with an increased majority. What's not to like about that?

 

[robinthehood]

Are you thinking of teaming up with Silh and become the new Morecombe and Wise?

I understand brexit at all costs is your number 1 priority in life. But sadly there really are far more pressing matters to deal with.

 

[woody69]

Another referendum?
If so, the options must be twofold.
A) Leave with Boris' deal or B) Leave with no deal.

I’ve never understood this position, as I wouldn’t adopt this approach in any area of my life. I’d always review a decision in the light of additional information, and frequently do. Would you not do the same?

Another aspect of that discussion that bears revisiting is that referendums are built into the Swiss political structure. As with the various "propositions" that one sees on Californian ballots in every election, but in a more organised and less populist way, the Swiss incorporated an element of direct democracy - the referendum - into their constitution and made it clear how guidance provided by direct democracy should affect their representative democracy.

We have no such system, no guidance, no clarity and no public history or understanding of the function of the referendum in British politics. Thus, it's no wonder that the referendum result has ended up on a collision course with our representative democracy. Just blaming Parliament for being "undemocratic" shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how our representative democracy is set up. Parliament has no clear guidelines for dealing with referendums. Specifically, they have no guidelines for dealing with an advisory referendum that the previous government promised would be treated as if it were binding. It was set up to be a mess, so it's no wonder it has turned out to be a mess.

 

[ScienceBoy]

I would guess if the nation voted now:
No Deal vs Deal - No Deal Wins
No Deal vs Revoke - Revoke Wins
Deal vs Revoke - Deal Wins

You can only please some of the people some of the time, but not all the people all the time.

 

[chrisd]

It really isn't about "winning" and "losing".

The UK can cancel Brexit and ignore the referendum result (not overturn it - it's not even been actioned yet) and society, government and our laws will not be affected. It's ignorance that keep the notion going that we have to "abide by the result". The result is flawed (I won't go into why all over again) and there's no legal reason why it can't be ignored.

As for "potential consequences", short of future voter apathy and general disillusionment with politics and people feeling that they've been ignored (they haven't) I don't see any real consequences to this that won't be positive.

If people understood what was actually happening, if they understood why parliament works how it does, if they understood what parliament's job was - and the media have the ability and power to do this - to educate, then there shouldn't and wouldn't be any "consequences." This undefined threatening notion that if the "result" isn't "respected" society will crumble. It's nonsense - Anyone who says things like "let's get on with it" "we voted already" "leave means leave", "democracy is dead" are too void of the basic understandings of how their society operates to effectively do anything for their "cause". It's bluster. Electoral reform is needed - that's what leave voters should want from this - but nobody is telling them that. It's not in the politicians interests to have an informed electorate - an informed electorate is difficult to lie to.

Still, we're obviously not going to reach agreement on this one, so I'll just make one more point and leave it.

If it was the other way round - that Remain won by 52-48 - and during the next couple of years the UK had announced that Remaining meant adopting the euro and joining the Schengen system, would you think that was okay because they had voted to Remain?

I suspect you would think that because that had not been made clear, the Remain vote was no longer safe. Or would you say "Let's give the euro and Schengen a go and see how it works out" ?

I won't argue with any reply you want to make, or complain if you don't, but I'd ask you to consider that hypothetical situation, because that's how the current situation looks to the likes of me.

I think that you're wrong in saying they can ignore the referendum and cancel Brexit - much legislation has passed through Parliament and I'm sure this is now not an option without passing further legislation

 

[Blue in Munich]

Yes but three years ago, many people didn't know in reality what Brexit would look like. No one did. We can go on about the myths of people googling the EU after the vote, regretting it instantly, thinking it was just a poll (in some ways more right than they thought) and so on but many people (myself included in some respects) would have admittedly not understood what the impact would have been in reality on things like:

1. The customs union (or what in reality it was)

2. The single market (as above)

3. Foreign nationals living in the UK.

4. UK nationals living in the EU.

5. Northern Ireland/ GFA.

6. The effect on the pound.

7. The effect on pretty much every industry and sector from fisheries to telecommunications.

And there's every reason why people wouldn't have considered or understood the above, because we all have jobs, families, relationships, golf clubs, holidays, financial worries to keep us busy. The above considerations are for MPs to concern themselves with.

Now there has been information out there on what effect Brexit may have on the above, we can make an informed choice/decision. This petty line reasoning of "ooh best out of three" or "17.4 million people voted" or "vote until you get the right decision" is nonsense. Virtually no remainer says that or most likely thinks it.

I would prefer us to revoke Article 50 and get back to addressing the issues that need addressing in this country (of which the EU has never been top of the list). But that is not a political possibility. As such, as deeply flawed as referenda are- it is the only way to square the circle.

I don't know whether remain would win. I would hope so, but if it doesn't and leave wins again then so be it. I am not sure what leavers are worried about if there is another vote- that they don't "win". If by win, they mean win a vote for the sake of doing so when the effects of winning would be to merely brag and the economic benefits of leaving seem at the very best to be uncertain, then that is pretty petty and childish.

For all her failings May offered security of residence for EU citizens early in proceedings if the EU reciprocated for Brits abroad; the EU turned her down flat.

 

[woody69]

I think that you're wrong in saying they can ignore the referendum and cancel Brexit - much legislation has passed through Parliament and I'm sure this is now not an option without passing further legislation

They simply revoke A50

 

[Dando]

Are you thinking of teaming up with Silh and become the new Morecombe and Wise?

There’s no “wise” between them

 

[woody69]

If you want a bit of honesty then turn your head in the direction of Letwin, Benn, Grieves, Corbyn, McDonnell and their shabby bunch of cronies and question their motives.

You are correct that many people don't want the previous vote overturned, why the hell should they, it hasn't been enacted yet. Your view reeks of 'entitlement' one that says 'I didnt get my way so I'll scream and scream untill im sick'

They are doing their job as elected members of our representative democracy.

The other sentence was a facetious one mirroring the statement made by drdel.

 

[SocketRocket]

It really isn't about "winning" and "losing".

The UK can cancel Brexit and ignore the referendum result (not overturn it - it's not even been actioned yet) and society, government and our laws will not be affected. It's ignorance that keep the notion going that we have to "abide by the result". The result is flawed (I won't go into why all over again) and there's no legal reason why it can't be ignored.

As for "potential consequences", short of future voter apathy and general disillusionment with politics and people feeling that they've been ignored (they haven't) I don't see any real consequences to this that won't be positive.

If people understood what was actually happening, if they understood why parliament works how it does, if they understood what parliament's job was - and the media have the ability and power to do this - to educate, then there shouldn't and wouldn't be any "consequences." This undefined threatening notion that if the "result" isn't "respected" society will crumble. It's nonsense - Anyone who says things like "let's get on with it" "we voted already" "leave means leave", "democracy is dead" are too void of the basic understandings of how their society operates to effectively do anything for their "cause". It's bluster. Electoral reform is needed - that's what leave voters should want from this - but nobody is telling them that. It's not in the politicians interests to have an informed electorate - an informed electorate is difficult to lie to.

Still, we're obviously not going to reach agreement on this one, so I'll just make one more point and leave it.

If it was the other way round - that Remain won by 52-48 - and during the next couple of years the UK had announced that Remaining meant adopting the euro and joining the Schengen system, would you think that was okay because they had voted to Remain?

I suspect you would think that because that had not been made clear, the Remain vote was no longer safe. Or would you say "Let's give the euro and Schengen a go and see how it works out" ?

I won't argue with any reply you want to make, or complain if you don't, but I'd ask you to consider that hypothetical situation, because that's how the current situation looks to the likes of me.

Your point for consideration is not a parallel to the current leave position. If the vote had been remain it would have been put into effect imeadiatly, the follow on propositions would be considered after the result and subject to further scrutiny.

 

[woody69]

There’s no “wise” between them

Good one

 

[SocketRocket]

They are doing their job as elected members of our representative democracy.

The other sentence was a facetious one mirroring the statement made by drdel.

None of their jobs are to be devious.

 

[chrisd]

They simply revoke A50

I'm sure they cant just do it without legislation to approve it

 

[woody69]

None of their jobs is to be devious.

Why are they being "devious"?

 

[woody69]

I'm sure they cant just do it without legislation to approve it

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47668466

 

[chrisd]

There’s no “wise” between them

Silly me, of course, maybe Little and Large

 

[SocketRocket]

Why are they being "devious"?

Ive already explained that. They are suggesting their intentions are to only stop no deal when its really to stop Brexit.

 

[Slime]

Course he is. The one that insists he does everything in his power to frustrate the Brexit process under the guise of being impartial.

Whilst basking in the glory of hearing his own voice!

 

[ScienceBoy]

Ive already explained that. They are suggesting their intentions are to only stop no deal when its really to stop Brexit.

Either of those sound like a better option than the deals.

Should have picked one of those two years ago, right after the referendum even and just got on with it...

I don’t think anyone is for this period of uncertainty, it’s killing the country.

 

[Slime]

Silly me, of course, maybe Little and Large

I'd suggest Dumb and Dumber, but that'd be rude.
I have no wish to offend either of them .............................. some others, however!