Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result
Discussion
turbobloke said:
Back on topic, this article discusses what the bases for not leaving the EU are, including via a second referendum, then sets out why the UK will leave the EU without a second referendum.
The consultative nature of the first referendum is addressed. So is so-called "buyers' remorse" and the issue of age-related voting. A particularly interesting section discusses the EU perspective - including a compare and contrast exercise with other recent referenda in EU nations - and how it would be damaging and ultimately self-defeating for the EU if the UK were to remain.
Unlike the theoretical possibility, the practical impossibility of reversing the British referendum result is well-understood across the majority of the EU, apparently.
It is an interesting article, but it probably won't surprise you that I don't entirely agree with the author's conclusions. The consultative nature of the first referendum is addressed. So is so-called "buyers' remorse" and the issue of age-related voting. A particularly interesting section discusses the EU perspective - including a compare and contrast exercise with other recent referenda in EU nations - and how it would be damaging and ultimately self-defeating for the EU if the UK were to remain.
Unlike the theoretical possibility, the practical impossibility of reversing the British referendum result is well-understood across the majority of the EU, apparently.
I think the first point relates to the numbers. His view is that the vote was not close. I am not sure it is that simple. The population is split almost down the middle (16.1m remain vs 17.4m leave) which absolutely changes the political landscape. Significantly voting is not particularly aligned with traditional differences between labour and conservative voters.
60% of conservative supporters voted leave and around 60% of labour supporters voted remain. So the parties have some direction, but that direction may well be rejected by a huge core of their vote. Based on my personal experience I also see a core of the leave vote for whom this is a matter of principle, whereas I think the core of the remain vote is more pragmatic rather than a deeply held belief.
It is very hard for the political establishment to work out how to respond to this situation and the safest option is to back the vote in the interests of democracy.
The idea that there is a ruling elite that wish to subvert the vote is flawed. The reality is that they simply do not know how to deliver on it. Similarly, the concept that the vote is not ambiguous does not consider the fact that there are many many ways in which we could leave the EU. Ranging from full departure with no trade to something that differs from the status quo in name, but is essentially the same. All would be a legitimate response to the vote.
The only thing that provides a degree of clarity at this point is the fixed term parliament act as it gives Govt time to come up with a plan.
As it stands, I don't think we will see a second referendum unless parliament rebels against Theresa May's ultimate definition of Brexit. Politicians will seek to avoid this as the likelihood will be that they will end up like Cameron.
I have a feeling that Germany and France will strike a deal. That deal has to give leave control over movement, keep passporting and protect our access to the single market. If we can get there, then we will leave. But if that deal cannot be brokered I genuinely don't know where parliament will go.
What I am sure of is that MP's will be more worried about the voters perception of the deal than the need to 'honour' the vote.
The prime example of political expedience vs enacting a democratic referendum is the french vote on the European constitution. Following an emphatic NON! (54.67%) parliament agreed to the treaty of lisbon without any further referendum. They didn't agree to the constitution, so could argue the vote had been honoured. However, the thing they agreed to looked quite similar.
I expect to see a compromise of that nature. Not as part of some grand strategy to deny democracy, but because it is the only practical option.
jjlynn27 said:
The author @ theDuran link; Alexander Mercouris
Is that the same Alexander Mercouris that leftie telegraph is trying to smear?
Smearing is just another way of playing the man (or woman) not the ball, so not particularly interesting as smearing adds nothing to the actual topic under debate. However, shooting the messenger is always an easy alternative when there's nothing substantive to say instead.Is that the same Alexander Mercouris that leftie telegraph is trying to smear?
Elysium said:
It is an interesting article, but it probably won't surprise you that I don't entirely agree with the author's conclusions.
No not a surprise, then again I agree with several points you make subsequently - but not all, including this one: Elysium said:
The prime example of political expedience vs enacting a democratic referendum is the french vote on the European constitution. Following an emphatic NON! (54.67%) parliament agreed to the treaty of lisbon without any further referendum. They didn't agree to the constitution, so could argue the vote had been honoured. However, the thing they agreed to looked quite similar.
I expect to see a compromise of that nature. Not as part of some grand strategy to deny democracy, but because it is the only practical option.
That was one of the aspects which the article covered well in terms of the lack of equivalence, making for a false analogy.I expect to see a compromise of that nature. Not as part of some grand strategy to deny democracy, but because it is the only practical option.
Article precis said:
-previous referendums that were set aside were about giving or withholding consent for further EU integration
-it was relatively easy to massage (objections) away by making what turned out to be fake concessions
-the pretence of abiding by a democratic outcome could be preserved
-the French Constitutional Referendum of 2005 rejected by a clear majority the EU constitution
-the EU got round that rejection while abiding by it by pretending to drop the constitution
-which was promptly repackaged as the Lisbon Treaty, which France then accepted without holding another vote
-it is simply not possible to do things like that in the case of Britain’s Brexit vote
-the vote was a straightforward vote to leave the EU
- this rejection of EU membership is too unambiguous to be massaged away
-any attempt to do so would cause fatal damage to the core of the EU’s ideology and self-image of itself as a community of democracies and free peoples
-doing anything like that would completely vindicate the EU’s critics by proving conclusively that it is not the democratic structure which it claims to be but is rather one which depends purely on force
-given the crisis of legitimacy that would cause it is unlikely the EU would survive such an exposure of itself for very long.
This 'no u-turn' thesis chimes with on-the-record -it was relatively easy to massage (objections) away by making what turned out to be fake concessions
-the pretence of abiding by a democratic outcome could be preserved
-the French Constitutional Referendum of 2005 rejected by a clear majority the EU constitution
-the EU got round that rejection while abiding by it by pretending to drop the constitution
-which was promptly repackaged as the Lisbon Treaty, which France then accepted without holding another vote
-it is simply not possible to do things like that in the case of Britain’s Brexit vote
-the vote was a straightforward vote to leave the EU
- this rejection of EU membership is too unambiguous to be massaged away
-any attempt to do so would cause fatal damage to the core of the EU’s ideology and self-image of itself as a community of democracies and free peoples
-doing anything like that would completely vindicate the EU’s critics by proving conclusively that it is not the democratic structure which it claims to be but is rather one which depends purely on force
-given the crisis of legitimacy that would cause it is unlikely the EU would survive such an exposure of itself for very long.
comments on not going back on the referendum made by the Attorney General and featured in . . . The Daily Record.Jeremy Wright said:
The people of the United Kingdom have spoken and their sovereignty must be respected.
The decision as to whether to leave the EU is a decision that the people of the UK have made and we will respect their decision.
(All of the UK's devolved administrations should take part in the process of developing the UK's approach to the Brexit negotiations) But that does not mean that any of the parts of the United Kingdom have a veto over this process and so consultation most certainly, but veto I'm afraid not.
According to the Attorney General, not only does Holyrood not have a veto over Brexit, but Scotland will indeed be taken out of the EU, along with the rest of the UK.The decision as to whether to leave the EU is a decision that the people of the UK have made and we will respect their decision.
(All of the UK's devolved administrations should take part in the process of developing the UK's approach to the Brexit negotiations) But that does not mean that any of the parts of the United Kingdom have a veto over this process and so consultation most certainly, but veto I'm afraid not.
turbobloke said:
According to the Attorney General, not only does Holyrood not have a veto over Brexit, but Scotland will indeed be taken out of the EU, along with the rest of the UK.
Yep, May will perhaps listen to options (read whining) - doesn't mean to say she'll actually do anything about them though. bmw535i said:
turbobloke said:
According to the Attorney General, not only does Holyrood not have a veto over Brexit, but Scotland will indeed be taken out of the EU, along with the rest of the UK.
Yep, May will perhaps listen to options (read whining) - doesn't mean to say she'll actually do anything about them though. Daily Record article said:
Prime Minister Theresa May has pledged to listen to First Minister Nicola Sturgeon 's options to keep Scotland in the EU but she described some of the ideas being put forward to date as "fanciful".
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/attorney-general-insists-uk-leave-8464200Yes, I posted a similar quote and article already (I managed it without insults too - yay me 
)
She was a little less friendly to the SNP during PMQs though
And here's another for the other lot to sneer at:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com...
)She was a little less friendly to the SNP during PMQs though
And here's another for the other lot to sneer at:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com...
turbobloke said:
Smearing is just another way of playing the man (or woman) not the ball, so not particularly interesting as smearing adds nothing to the actual topic under debate. However, shooting the messenger is always an easy alternative when there's nothing substantive to say instead.
There was no smearing. Guy was convicted and disbarred for being utter bell-end and a proven liar. I'm sure that his opinion on anything is well worth considering.
Funniest part is that 'don't play the man' comes from the guy constantly whining about BBC being untrustworthy source.
As you were.
turbobloke said:
That was one of the aspects which the article covered well in terms of the lack of equivalence, making for a false analogy.
Yes, I saw that, but I can't understand why he does not believe the situations to be comparable. The french voted against the EU constitution. Their vote was upheld, but then their parliament agreed to a new arrangement that was in fact very similar.
The UK voted to leave the EU. The Govt is trying to uphold the vote and in all likelihood we will 'leave the EU' in name. But what if the new arrangement includes the single market, passporting, paying £350m a week and freedom of movement obligations?
We will have left the EU, but like the French we may end up with something very similar. Some leave voters will undoubtedly see that as a u-turn.
So how 'hard' does Brexit have to be to avoid that perception? No-one knows as any leave voter can only answer for himself. The referendum provides no direction on that point.
turbobloke said:
jjlynn27 said:
The author @ theDuran link; Alexander Mercouris
Is that the same Alexander Mercouris that leftie telegraph is trying to smear?
Smearing is just another way of playing the man (or woman) not the ball, so not particularly interesting as smearing adds nothing to the actual topic under debate. However, shooting the messenger is always an easy alternative when there's nothing substantive to say instead.Is that the same Alexander Mercouris that leftie telegraph is trying to smear?
jjlynn27 said:
turbobloke said:
Smearing is just another way of playing the man (or woman) not the ball, so not particularly interesting as smearing adds nothing to the actual topic under debate. However, shooting the messenger is always an easy alternative when there's nothing substantive to say instead.
There was no smearing. Guy was convicted and disbarred for being utter bell-end and a proven liar. I'm sure that his opinion on anything is well worth considering.
Funniest part is that 'don't play the man' comes from the guy constantly whining about BBC being untrustworthy source.
As you were.
Elysium said:
Yes, I saw that, but I can't understand why he does not believe the situations to be comparable.
The french voted against the EU constitution. Their vote was upheld, but then their parliament agreed to a new arrangement that was in fact very similar.
The UK voted to leave the EU. The Govt is trying to uphold the vote and in all likelihood we will 'leave the EU' in name. But what if the new arrangement includes the single market, passporting, paying £350m a week and freedom of movement obligations?
We will have left the EU, but like the French we may end up with something very similar. Some leave voters will undoubtedly see that as a u-turn.
So how 'hard' does Brexit have to be to avoid that perception? No-one knows as any leave voter can only answer for himself. The referendum provides no direction on that point.
Some new and interesting points made here. Well done The french voted against the EU constitution. Their vote was upheld, but then their parliament agreed to a new arrangement that was in fact very similar.
The UK voted to leave the EU. The Govt is trying to uphold the vote and in all likelihood we will 'leave the EU' in name. But what if the new arrangement includes the single market, passporting, paying £350m a week and freedom of movement obligations?
We will have left the EU, but like the French we may end up with something very similar. Some leave voters will undoubtedly see that as a u-turn.
So how 'hard' does Brexit have to be to avoid that perception? No-one knows as any leave voter can only answer for himself. The referendum provides no direction on that point.
Greg66 said:
turbobloke said:
jjlynn27 said:
The author @ theDuran link; Alexander Mercouris
Is that the same Alexander Mercouris that leftie telegraph is trying to smear?
Smearing is just another way of playing the man (or woman) not the ball, so not particularly interesting as smearing adds nothing to the actual topic under debate. However, shooting the messenger is always an easy alternative when there's nothing substantive to say instead.Is that the same Alexander Mercouris that leftie telegraph is trying to smear?
Mrr T said:
Greg66 said:
turbobloke said:
jjlynn27 said:
The author @ theDuran link; Alexander Mercouris
Is that the same Alexander Mercouris that leftie telegraph is trying to smear?
Smearing is just another way of playing the man (or woman) not the ball, so not particularly interesting as smearing adds nothing to the actual topic under debate. However, shooting the messenger is always an easy alternative when there's nothing substantive to say instead.Is that the same Alexander Mercouris that leftie telegraph is trying to smear?
It's plainly a smear, and now a repeated one. For further discussion try jjlynn27: "Is that the same Alexander Mercouris that leftie telegraph is trying to smear?" which is what I replied to.
Those involved clearly disagree with the author, that's about it, since as yet there's been nothing substantive and credible in response to the content of the article, which is in directional agreement with what the Attorney General has to say on the matter.
When there is then we can discuss the topic not the smear. How long it will take is anybody's guess.
The view of the Attorney General has been gaining traction, not surprisingly; a recent Ipsos Mori poll for BBC Newsnight found that only 16% thought Britain would remain an EU member state despite the vote to leave.
Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 24th July 07:52
bmw535i said:
Yes, I posted a similar quote and article already (I managed it without insults too - yay me )
She was a little less friendly to the SNP during PMQs though
And here's another for the other lot to sneer at:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com...
The first letter basically says two things : )She was a little less friendly to the SNP during PMQs though
And here's another for the other lot to sneer at:
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com...
1- we'll be ok in negotiations as we'll effectively still give most of the £350/week to the EU as part of a deal - prob Norway like.
2- the US will still be best buddy. Now I actually think this is only partly true. The US will increasingly be looking for a best buddy in the EU; probably germany. And he wants rid of johnson who is a liability.
Is these are reasons to cheer our sights really ae very low.
turbobloke said:
Nice try = Nice soundbite.
It's plainly a smear, and now a repeated one. For further discussion try jjlynn27: "Is that the same Alexander Mercouris that leftie telegraph is trying to smear?" which is what I replied to.
Those involved clearly disagree with the author, that's about it, since as yet there's been nothing substantive and credible in response to the content of the article, which is in directional agreement with what the Attorney General has to say on the matter.
When there is then we can discuss the topic not the smear. How long it will take is anybody's guess.
The view of the Attorney General has been gaining traction, not surprisingly; a recent Ipsos Mori poll for BBC Newsnight found that only 16% thought Britain would remain an EU member state despite the vote to leave.
It's an opinion piece by a disbared barrister. So I do not take the views seriously. It's plainly a smear, and now a repeated one. For further discussion try jjlynn27: "Is that the same Alexander Mercouris that leftie telegraph is trying to smear?" which is what I replied to.
Those involved clearly disagree with the author, that's about it, since as yet there's been nothing substantive and credible in response to the content of the article, which is in directional agreement with what the Attorney General has to say on the matter.
When there is then we can discuss the topic not the smear. How long it will take is anybody's guess.
The view of the Attorney General has been gaining traction, not surprisingly; a recent Ipsos Mori poll for BBC Newsnight found that only 16% thought Britain would remain an EU member state despite the vote to leave.
Edited by turbobloke on Sunday 24th July 07:52
Nor do I think a poll on the outcome of the vote matters at the moment.
What matters is what the leave team offer as a leave option. I have posted a couple of pages ago my prediction but all we can do is wait and see.
I really would hold back on doing a deal with the EU, get out and do the trade deals with the rest of the world first,
the EU don't want to be seen to or give us a good deal because of the affect it would have on its power base,
let the pressure come from within, german car manufactures etc won't want some EU pen pushers risking one of their biggest export markets, I think its good our government is letting them sweat a bit ....
the EU don't want to be seen to or give us a good deal because of the affect it would have on its power base,
let the pressure come from within, german car manufactures etc won't want some EU pen pushers risking one of their biggest export markets, I think its good our government is letting them sweat a bit ....
powerstroke said:
I really would hold back on doing a deal with the EU, get out and do the trade deals with the rest of the world first,
the EU don't want to be seen to or give us a good deal because of the affect it would have on its power base,
let the pressure come from within, german car manufactures etc won't want some EU pen pushers risking one of their biggest export markets, I think its good our government is letting them sweat a bit ....
OK so you do understand the financial services industry depends on EU financial services passporting. It also pays about 11% of total UK tax directly.the EU don't want to be seen to or give us a good deal because of the affect it would have on its power base,
let the pressure come from within, german car manufactures etc won't want some EU pen pushers risking one of their biggest export markets, I think its good our government is letting them sweat a bit ....
So where will you make the cuts in government spending if more than 5% of taxes disappear. The NHS? Pension? In work benefits?
Mrr T said:
powerstroke said:
I really would hold back on doing a deal with the EU, get out and do the trade deals with the rest of the world first,
the EU don't want to be seen to or give us a good deal because of the affect it would have on its power base,
let the pressure come from within, german car manufactures etc won't want some EU pen pushers risking one of their biggest export markets, I think its good our government is letting them sweat a bit ....
OK so you do understand the financial services industry depends on EU financial services passporting. It also pays about 11% of total UK tax directly.the EU don't want to be seen to or give us a good deal because of the affect it would have on its power base,
let the pressure come from within, german car manufactures etc won't want some EU pen pushers risking one of their biggest export markets, I think its good our government is letting them sweat a bit ....
So where will you make the cuts in government spending if more than 5% of taxes disappear. The NHS? Pension? In work benefits?
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff