Could UK U-turn on Referendum Result (Vol 2)

[Elysium]

Pan Pan Pan said:

Elysium said:

blindswelledrat said:

Gibberish.
All this 'dicking around' is actually an attempt by people who are worried to leave in the least damaging way.

I love the way you all genuinely believe that because leave won, it gives the government carte blanche to do whatever they want, whenever they want. It is a nonsensical thought process.
Turn it the other way. Imagine remain won for a moment and Cameron instantly agreed to pay an extra 7 billion to Europe and encourage immigration to double overnight. Are you honestly telling me that you would say "Well, fair enough. We lost so we should be quiet".
Of course not, so stop being silly.

Spot on. Somehow people have convinced themselves that Brexit is the first thing ever where everyone has to agree 100% and that any legitimate voices of opposition are unpatriotic.

No. Brexit is the first time where a referendum has returned a clear majority, which in the past was accepted, even by those who did not get the result they wanted, but where on this occasion, some of those who did not get the result they wanted have tried to delay, block or overturn the wishes of the majority vote in the UK.
I am pleased the Blindaswellasarat thinks this is gibberish. as this means as far as he is concerned I have got to the truth of the matter, and he does not like what the truth is telling him.

UKIP and Farage would have continued to campaign to leave the EU if the vote had been remain.

There would not have been a dramatic shift toward European integration. MPs would have seen a significant minority leave vote as a signal that we must protect our position and that minority vote would have been respected.

That is exactly why an extreme Brexit is not acceptable. It must be measured and the concerns of the remain voters must be considered.

Leave supporters need to get on board. You won and you will get your way. Stop trying to alienate the people that disagreed with you and start trying to unite the nation.

[Zod]

Sylvaforever said:

This court farce is a worry for the future where a precedent is set to oppose a democratic result through the use of the judiciary who have proven to be out of date and out if touch.

Utter rubbish. The court case S about constitutional law and the sovereignty of Parliament. It has nothing whatsoever to do with opposing the result of the referendum.

Try reading instead of indulging your prejudices. The High court judgment is only 30 or so pages.

[IroningMan]

Sylvaforever said:

This court farce is a worry for the future where a precedent is set to oppose a democratic result through the use of the judiciary who have proven to be out of date and out if touch.

The court case is nothing of the sort - the worry is that people like yourself are being led to believe that it is and that the judiciary undermined as a result.

[Pan Pan Pan]

Elysium said:

Pan Pan Pan said:

Elysium said:

blindswelledrat said:

Gibberish.
All this 'dicking around' is actually an attempt by people who are worried to leave in the least damaging way.

I love the way you all genuinely believe that because leave won, it gives the government carte blanche to do whatever they want, whenever they want. It is a nonsensical thought process.
Turn it the other way. Imagine remain won for a moment and Cameron instantly agreed to pay an extra 7 billion to Europe and encourage immigration to double overnight. Are you honestly telling me that you would say "Well, fair enough. We lost so we should be quiet".
Of course not, so stop being silly.

Spot on. Somehow people have convinced themselves that Brexit is the first thing ever where everyone has to agree 100% and that any legitimate voices of opposition are unpatriotic.

No. Brexit is the first time where a referendum has returned a clear majority, which in the past was accepted, even by those who did not get the result they wanted, but where on this occasion, some of those who did not get the result they wanted have tried to delay, block or overturn the wishes of the majority vote in the UK.
I am pleased the Blindaswellasarat thinks this is gibberish. as this means as far as he is concerned I have got to the truth of the matter, and he does not like what the truth is telling him.

UKIP and Farage would have continued to campaign to leave the EU if the vote had been remain.

There would not have been a dramatic shift toward European integration. MPs would have seen a significant minority leave vote as a signal that we must protect our position and that minority vote would have been respected.

That is exactly why an extreme Brexit is not acceptable. It must be measured and the concerns of the remain voters must be considered.

Leave supporters need to get on board. You won and you will get your way. Stop trying to alienate the people that disagreed with you and start trying to unite the nation.

No it is absolutely the remain voters who are not getting on board with the majority of the UK voting public`s wish to leave the EU, and are doing their best to divide the nation. They are the ones trying to suggest that the leave voters did not know what they were voting for, or that they are bigoted and racist, or that they can apply a split, watered down, remainers version of what those who voted to leave wanted.
The question was binary, do we remain in, or leave the EU, and the result was clearly that the UK leaves the EU. The UK must now do what is necessary to leave the EU, and if that means get out of the single market, or any other condition the EU feels it wants to apply, then so be it. If the EU fail to take a pragmatic view of the UK`s wish to leave the EU, and try to make it as unpleasant, and difficult as possible for the UK. it just reinforces the need for the UK to get out of the corrupt EU.
If common sense, and reality kick in, many in the UK and the EU will take the common sense route to resolving this, because any punitive measures applied by one side, can just as easily be applied by the other. The EU will not want the UK to slap punitive measures on its trade with the UK, any more than the UK will accept such measures applied by the EU to its goods and services sold into the EU.

[don4l]

For those who are pretending that there was ever any doubt about leaving the Single Market:-



There was never any doubt. We all knew what we were voting for.

Has the government started advertising for trade negotiators? I hope that they don't run the ads in the Guardian.

[don4l]

Elysium said:

Spot on. Somehow people have convinced themselves that Brexit is the first thing ever where everyone has to agree 100% and that any legitimate voices of opposition are unpatriotic.

I don't think that anybody is suggesting that opposition is unpatriotic. Your parents and grandparents fought for your freedom to express your opinion in a sovereign democracy.

The thing that irks is the constant talking down of your country.

For example, yesterday somebody thought that we would all be interested to learn that Sky news thought that manufacturing output had fallen. A quick visit to the ONS website showed that GDP was up by 0.5% in the last quarter.

Why would anyone worry about "manufacturing output" when GDP and employment rates are both up?

[Elysium]

Pan Pan Pan said:

No it is absolutely the remain voters who are not getting on board with the majority of the UK voting public`s wish to leave the EU, and are doing their best to divide the nation. They are the ones trying to suggest that the leave voters did not know what they were voting for, or that they are bigoted and racist, or that they can apply a split, watered down, remainers version of what those who voted to leave wanted.
The question was binary, do we remain in, or leave the EU, and the result was clearly that the UK leaves the EU. The UK must now do what is necessary to leave the EU, and if that means get out of the single market, or any other condition the EU feels it wants to apply, then so be it. If the EU fail to take a pragmatic view of the UK`s wish to leave the EU, and try to make it as unpleasant, and difficult as possible for the UK. it just reinforces the need for the UK to get out of the corrupt EU.
If common sense, and reality kick in, many in the UK and the EU will take the common sense route to resolving this, because any punitive measures applied by one side, can just as easily be applied by the other. The EU will not want the UK to slap punitive measures on its trade with the UK, any more than the UK will accept such measures applied by the EU to its goods and services sold into the EU.

You are missing the point.

If the vote had gone the other way 16m leave voters would not have shrugged and said fair enough, let's stay in the EU for ever and never talk about this again. Most would have continued to support leaving the EU and people like Farage would continued to campaign.

If the Govt had looked at the vote and said we must honour the will of the people "remain means remain" then signed up to cede sovereignty to Brussels, join schengen and support the European army the leave voters would have gone berserk.

Yet somehow you think that remain voters should ignore the fact that they think this is a bad decision and support it wholeheartedly and without question. Despite the fact that the Govt does not seem to have a plan and is desperately trying to avoid involving the people who we have voted to represent us.

It is completely unreasonable and unrealistic to expect that.

The vote was to leave and we are making preparations to do that. There are millions who think it is a bad idea and are worried that it will damage our prospects. They are not going to change their minds or be bullied into thinking differently. The only way to get them onside is to listen too, respect and act on their concerns. May has entirely failed to do that, which has made matters worse. However there are signs that Labour get it. The motion yesterday is a massively positive step. Not only has it put the Govt under pressure to share the plan, but it has also shown that MPs are not poised to thwart the referendum. Instead they have voted roughly in the same proportion to support the Brexit timeline as they did to hold the referendum.

Edited by Elysium on Thursday 8th December 20:33

[Elysium]

don4l said:

For those who are pretending that there was ever any doubt about leaving the Single Market:-



There was never any doubt. We all knew what we were voting for.

Has the government started advertising for trade negotiators? I hope that they don't run the ads in the Guardian.

Muddied thinking. You are quoting two groups:

1. The extreme end of the leave campaign who wanted Brexit to include leaving the single market.
2. Remain campaigners who used the risk that we would be out of the single market as a warning. An example of a bad outcome.

They each had their own reasons for arguing that leaving the EU would mean leaving the single market. In reality many things were said that suggested a Norway model. For example Gove appears to say we will become an EFTA state in this article:

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/am...

It's terminology, on the strictest level, we must leave single market membership. What people are talking about are our continued terms of engagement with the single market.

[TonyToniTone]

don4l said:

For those who are pretending that there was ever any doubt about leaving the Single Market:-

I voted No to the question that was put to me:

The referendum said:

(1)A referendum is to be held on whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union.

(2)The Secretary of State must, by regulations, appoint the day on which the referendum is to be held.

(3)The day appointed under subsection (2)—

(a)must be no later than 31 December 2017,

(b)must not be 5 May 2016, and

(c)must not be 4 May 2017.

(4)The question that is to appear on the ballot papers is—

“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”

(5)The alternative answers to that question that are to appear on the ballot papers are—
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/sectio...

I didn't vote to leave the single market.

[FN2TypeR]

TonyToniTone said:

I didn't vote to leave the single market.

You don't know that yet though do you?

[TonyToniTone]

No I don't.

[FN2TypeR]

What a quandary!

[Einion Yrth]

I voted to invoke article 50 and thus begin the process of leaving the EU. I accepted then, and now, that that may or may not involve ceasing to have tariff free access to the single european market. As it is a customs union, I would prefer to be outside the single market, remaining within it would shackle my country to the dead hand of a failing bureaucracy in regards of the negotiation of trade deals with the more successful world economies.

[anonymous-user]

Sylvaforever said:

This court farce is a worry for the future where a precedent is set to oppose a democratic result through the use of the judiciary who have proven to be out of date and out if touch.

Look, we all know you're a dimwit. There's no need to labour the point.

[BlackLabel]

Well that escalated quickly.


Appeals to the popular will threaten parliamentary sovereignty. Use of referendums to bypass constraints on executive power has an illiberal history

FT.com said:

In a recent column, the former Conservative leader, Iain Duncan Smith, an influential and passionate Brexiter, asks why “unelected judges have the right to supersede the wishes of the elected members of parliament, and through them the government”. Yet that is not at all what the court did. It ruled that the government has no right to ignore parliament when triggering the Article 50 leaving process. Mr Duncan Smith’s argument is that parliamentary sovereignty allows the executive to ignore members of parliament altogether. That is to enthrone the principle while emptying it of most of its content.

How could Mr Duncan Smith reach such a surprising conclusion? The answer lies in the referendum. His view is that, since 17.4m voters chose Leave last June, “the people” have spoken. All that is now needed is for the executive to implement that choice, untrammelled by parliament. Use of referendums to bypass any and all institutional constraints on the exercise of executive power has a long and deeply illiberal, indeed anti-democratic, history. Louis Napoleon established a dictatorship by means of referendums in the 19th century. Mussolini and Hitler did the same thing in the 20th century. In all these cases, charismatic rulers legitimised the overthrow of restraints on their power by appealing to the people in this way.

Until recently, I thought this was inconceivable in the UK. I am rather less confident now.

[///ajd]

BlackLabel said:

Well that escalated quickly.


Appeals to the popular will threaten parliamentary sovereignty. Use of referendums to bypass constraints on executive power has an illiberal history

FT.com said:

In a recent column, the former Conservative leader, Iain Duncan Smith, an influential and passionate Brexiter, asks why “unelected judges have the right to supersede the wishes of the elected members of parliament, and through them the government”. Yet that is not at all what the court did. It ruled that the government has no right to ignore parliament when triggering the Article 50 leaving process. Mr Duncan Smith’s argument is that parliamentary sovereignty allows the executive to ignore members of parliament altogether. That is to enthrone the principle while emptying it of most of its content.

How could Mr Duncan Smith reach such a surprising conclusion? The answer lies in the referendum. His view is that, since 17.4m voters chose Leave last June, “the people” have spoken. All that is now needed is for the executive to implement that choice, untrammelled by parliament. Use of referendums to bypass any and all institutional constraints on the exercise of executive power has a long and deeply illiberal, indeed anti-democratic, history. Louis Napoleon established a dictatorship by means of referendums in the 19th century. Mussolini and Hitler did the same thing in the 20th century. In all these cases, charismatic rulers legitimised the overthrow of restraints on their power by appealing to the people in this way.

Until recently, I thought this was inconceivable in the UK. I am rather less confident now.

Its a good point.

More from Hitchens.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knd81qhbRiQ

[loafer123]

Be careful what you wish for AJD.

If parliament tries to avoid Brexit, it will lead to a General Election where only the Conservatives will be properly pro-Brexit, and will gain a landslide and mandate to go Uber-Brexit.

[alfie2244]

loafer123 said:

Be careful what you wish for AJD.

If parliament tries to avoid Brexit, it will lead to a General Election where only the Conservatives will be properly pro-Brexit, and will gain a landslide and mandate to go Uber-Brexit.

Don't forget Nuttall's UKIPs when they crush Labour in the North

[don4l]

TonyToniTone said:

don4l said:

For those who are pretending that there was ever any doubt about leaving the Single Market:-

I voted No to the question that was put to me:

The referendum said:

(1)A referendum is to be held on whether the United Kingdom should remain a member of the European Union.

(2)The Secretary of State must, by regulations, appoint the day on which the referendum is to be held.

(3)The day appointed under subsection (2)—

(a)must be no later than 31 December 2017,

(b)must not be 5 May 2016, and

(c)must not be 4 May 2017.

(4)The question that is to appear on the ballot papers is—

“Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?”

(5)The alternative answers to that question that are to appear on the ballot papers are—
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/36/sectio...

I didn't vote to leave the single market.

Oooops!

[TonyToniTone]

I realise there is a possibility it could well happen and so be it but you need to stop assuming everyone that voted No has the same expectations as you.

I also hope you are not going to cause a fuss if we do stay in the single market.