BLAIR, his latest intervention. Should he shut up ?

[FiF]

I've been thinking a bit about why Blair has stuck his head up over this one.

Firstly as earlier it could be that someone is behind it and it's simply him looking after his own interests. Nothing new there.

Another one is that he has recognised that there is a vacuum in the centrist area, a lot of disaffected public for all manner of different reasons and there is a significant none of the above faction. So he's looking to get back, maybe he's realised that any dreams, EU president, UN Sec General, whatever are simply only ever going to be that, dreams, and is attempting to start again a new movement and has latched onto Brexit as he thinks that's one topic to immediately gather supporters across a spectrum of the parties.

Problem is he just doesn't get how toxic he is and how widely he is despised, him and his awful wife. Best thing for Blair is to sod off to Necker Island with Beardy et al. Don't come back.

[Blib]

Narcissism.

[MarshPhantom]

Because Labour are currently such a poor opposition?

[Digga]

MarshPhantom said:

Because Labour are currently such a poor opposition?

I would, begrudgingly, allow that. Although making them look even more ineffective than they already do - like they needed help - does not really solve that problem, so much as highlight it.

[thegreenhell]

davepoth said:

Talksteer said:

2: That having seen the terms of the deal the population should have the right to decide whether or not to go through with BREXIT, either by direct vote or via it's elected representatives.

Article 50 is irrevocable. It's either the deal we get or we leave with no deal. A vote on that is pointless.

Not only that, but it would severely weaken our negotiating position. If the EU knew we were going to vote on the the terms of the deal they would do their utmost to give us the worst possible deal in the sure knowledge that we would have to reject it.

[WinstonWolf]

Talksteer said:

WinstonWolf said:

Talksteer said:

Rovinghawk said:

Vocal Minority said:

I don't think it was the right decision......... it's happened......... we need to get on with it.

I respect that attitude.

I presume because you voted out.

The current situation where we appear to be gearing up for the most devisive possible BREXIT after a referendum which was slimly won by one side is pretty anti democratic.

It is happening because of the lack of an opposition means that the greatest political threat to the government is from its own hardliners and their press.

As an example we are heading towards an economically damaging hard BREXIT to enable the UK to "take back control" on immigration.

If we look at polls on that most of the population minimally support that, however if you look at further polls of "how much are you willing to pay for control of immigration" the answer is nothing or very very little. Hence we should probably be heading for a Norway/Switzerland type agreement.

Given the lack of broad support for leaving the EU and the lack of an opposition to hold the government to account during the negotiations I think the terms of BREXIT should be subject to a public vote and in this area I support Blair.

So you want to keep holding referendums until you get a result that supports your viewpoint?

That's not how democracy works. Sorry.

Democracy doesn't work in any specific way. Other than that the country is governed by the consent of it's people.

Irrevocable policy should only be made by broad based support. This is why most countries with constitutions require super majorities to change them.

Anyone want to contest that.

1: The views of the 48% who voted remain should be considered in the final settlement in proportion to their numbers.

2: That having seen the terms of the deal the population should have the right to decide whether or not to go through with BREXIT, either by direct vote or via it's elected representatives.

3: There currently isn't a coordinated political entity representing the 48%.

Ah, so now you lost the democratic vote you'd like to move the goalposts? That's not how it works.

You seem to misunderstand how referenda work. A question is put to the public. The public vote, depending on the outcome of that vote politicians carry out the will of the people.

A majority want to leave, we're leaving.

[alfie2244]

So if the vote went the other way would there have been consultations with Brexiters as to the terms of staying in the EU and / or another referendum? No I thought not.

[Graemsay]

davepoth said:

Talksteer said:

1: The views of the 48% who voted remain should be considered in the final settlement in proportion to their numbers.

Not possible. A soft Brexit has not really been on the cards since the 24th of June, the EU has made that clear. Hard Brexit is the only viable option, and Theresa May has to make it look like she means it. Dilly-dallying or pandering won't help with getting a good deal.

Leave won by a narrow margin in the referendum. In fact, there's recent polling evidence suggesting that Remain might be more popular now, and that demographics will be in its favour.

What happens if the disgruntled 48% become a clear majority over a prolonged period?

I agree with Talksteer that there needs to be more of a consensus built. Sure, that might mean a less radical separation than Farage, the Tory Right, and the Powerfully Built Company Directors of Pistonheads want, but it's more likely to survive any crisis that the UK runs into in the next few years.

davepoth said:

Talksteer said:

2: That having seen the terms of the deal the population should have the right to decide whether or not to go through with BREXIT, either by direct vote or via it's elected representatives.

Article 50 is irrevocable. It's either the deal we get or we leave with no deal. A vote on that is pointless

I don't believe that.

Regardless of the legal arguments, if the UK had a change of heart, and wished to return to the EU fold before the two years is up, I suspect that an accommodation would be made. European politics tends to run on compromises and fudges, and stopping Brexit would given the Union more stability at a time of multiple crises.

davepoth said:

Talksteer said:

3: There currently isn't a coordinated political entity representing the 48%.

That's the fault of the 48%. You can always set up a political party if you aren't happy with the ones we already have.

Or it could be a way of Blair to put pressure on Corbyn. Labour don't really have a coordinated policy beyond "don't upset the electorate in the North".

[PurpleAki]

thegreenhell said:

davepoth said:

Talksteer said:

2: That having seen the terms of the deal the population should have the right to decide whether or not to go through with BREXIT, either by direct vote or via it's elected representatives.

Article 50 is irrevocable. It's either the deal we get or we leave with no deal. A vote on that is pointless.

Not only that, but it would severely weaken our negotiating position. If the EU knew we were going to vote on the the terms of the deal they would do their utmost to give us the worst possible deal in the sure knowledge that we would have to reject it.

Good post.

[Murph7355]

Graemsay said:

...
there's recent polling evidence suggesting that Remain might be more popular now, and that demographics will be in its favour.
....

Whilst we all know how accurate polls have been in the last 18mths, do you have links to this evidence?

I'm genuinely interested to see it, as the few bits of commentary I've seen on this topic suggest the opposite (even on outlets like the BBC).

[Derek Smith]

WinstonWolf said:

Ah, so now you lost the democratic vote you'd like to move the goalposts? That's not how it works.

You seem to misunderstand how referenda work. A question is put to the public. The public vote, depending on the outcome of that vote politicians carry out the will of the people.

A majority want to leave, we're leaving.

It is you who is moving the goalposts.

Parliament has primacy. This is a vital point in our democracy. Parliament must make the final decision. That is how it works.

[Mrr T]

Derek Smith said:

WinstonWolf said:

Ah, so now you lost the democratic vote you'd like to move the goalposts? That's not how it works.

You seem to misunderstand how referenda work. A question is put to the public. The public vote, depending on the outcome of that vote politicians carry out the will of the people.

A majority want to leave, we're leaving.

It is you who is moving the goalposts.

Parliament has primacy. This is a vital point in our democracy. Parliament must make the final decision. That is how it works.

An excellent article.

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/02/tony-blair-right-brexit/

[WinstonWolf]

Derek Smith said:

WinstonWolf said:

Ah, so now you lost the democratic vote you'd like to move the goalposts? That's not how it works.

You seem to misunderstand how referenda work. A question is put to the public. The public vote, depending on the outcome of that vote politicians carry out the will of the people.

A majority want to leave, we're leaving.

It is you who is moving the goalposts.

Parliament has primacy. This is a vital point in our democracy. Parliament must make the final decision. That is how it works.

They asked us to make the decision, we're leaving.

[Sway]

WinstonWolf said:

Derek Smith said:

WinstonWolf said:

Ah, so now you lost the democratic vote you'd like to move the goalposts? That's not how it works.

You seem to misunderstand how referenda work. A question is put to the public. The public vote, depending on the outcome of that vote politicians carry out the will of the people.

A majority want to leave, we're leaving.

It is you who is moving the goalposts.

Parliament has primacy. This is a vital point in our democracy. Parliament must make the final decision. That is how it works.

They asked us to make the decision, we're leaving.

It's beyond that.

Parliament does have primacy. Within that, the Commons is deemed the primary House of Parliament.

They've approved the Bill, with no amendments. Whilst it still has to do the rounds of the Lords, it's very unlikely that having already being passed with no amendments by the Commons, that the Commons will accept any amendments being applied by the Lords.

So that's that.

All this talk of the referendum not binding Parliament is fine, as Parliament has chosen overwhelmingly to bind itself.

[Rovinghawk]

Talksteer said:

Rovinghawk said:

Vocal Minority said:

I don't think it was the right decision......... it's happened......... we need to get on with it.

I respect that attitude.

I presume because you voted out.

Because he's accepted the democratic process despite his views to the contrary and now wishes to make the best of the situation we're in.

You appear to want to whinge that it's what you want and have a little tantrum until you get your own way regardless of the choice of the majority. I do not respect that attitude.

[barryrs]

Graemsay said:

I don't believe that.

Regardless of the legal arguments, if the UK had a change of heart, and wished to return to the EU fold before the two years is up, I suspect that an accommodation would be made. European politics tends to run on compromises and fudges, and stopping Brexit would given the Union more stability at a time of multiple crises.

Sounds like a guaranteed way of staying in the EU and loosing the UK's rebate to me.

[mybrainhurts]

Graemsay said:

In fact, there's recent polling evidence suggesting that Remain might be more popular now, and that demographics will be in its favour.

And another poll suggesting the EU will collapse and die.

Which is nice...

[Derek Smith]

WinstonWolf said:

They asked us to make the decision, we're leaving.

Yu don't understand the form of democracy we have. 'They' make the decisions. 'Us' were asked a question that was not binding. Whether we leave or not does not alter the fact that it is parliament's decision.

Our current democratic process has been in use in the UK since 1928, perhaps 1918 under some arguments. It has served us fairly well.

Politically there is little option as it stands at the moment for parliament to ignore the result of the referendum. However, there are lots of options that they might go for, some of which would, under anyone's definition, not amount to 'leaving'. Accept it 'cause that's the way it is.

[Derek Smith]

alfie2244 said:

So if the vote went the other way would there have been consultations with Brexiters as to the terms of staying in the EU and / or another referendum? No I thought not.

I am certain that had the vote gone the other way the pressure group of those who wanted to leave would not leave it there. Indeed, some suggested that they would continue with their campaign if the vote was to remain.

Had the mote been, for instance 52% remain then there would be massive political pressure to renegotiate to an extent.

[Murph7355]

Derek Smith said:

Yu don't understand the form of democracy we have. 'They' make the decisions. 'Us' were asked a question that was not binding. Whether we leave or not does not alter the fact that it is parliament's decision.

Our current democratic process has been in use in the UK since 1928, perhaps 1918 under some arguments. It has served us fairly well.

Politically there is little option as it stands at the moment for parliament to ignore the result of the referendum. However, there are lots of options that they might go for, some of which would, under anyone's definition, not amount to 'leaving'. Accept it 'cause that's the way it is.

You know that the vast majority of that is semantics though Derek.

Nothing good would happen to a government that called a referendum and then ignored its results. They know that, we know that. So whilst a box may need to have been ticked....

Had they not been prepared to follow through, they shouldn't have held one. Like Tony Blair/Gordon Brown didn't.

The same, incidentally, will happen if there's even an inkling that they've gamed the position. I don't see that happening now though. The only thing that I could think of as a justifiable position to reverse proceedings is a volte face by rEU on their 4 freedoms. Depending on how general elections go this year that might not be entirely implausible. But even then I'm not sure it would all be resolvable in the time left (at that point around a year).