How do we think EU negotiations will go? (Vol 3)
Discussion
PurpleMoonlight said:
It's a bit like crying over spilt milk though. For good or bad it's done now and we can't turn back the clock.
The 'will of the people' prioritised some aspects of bexit (sovereignty) over others (economy).
The main problem is that the Government have made a complete dogs breakfast of delivering it. May appears to have put the NI/Ireland border issue before all else, and as a consequence compromised our whole negotiating position. I don't understand why she did this as, as far as I am aware, the voting public didn't.
Eh? I was explained my view on referendums in response to a snide remark. The 'will of the people' prioritised some aspects of bexit (sovereignty) over others (economy).
The main problem is that the Government have made a complete dogs breakfast of delivering it. May appears to have put the NI/Ireland border issue before all else, and as a consequence compromised our whole negotiating position. I don't understand why she did this as, as far as I am aware, the voting public didn't.
May cannot cut off NI, part of the UK, just to make the negotiation easier. Simples.
ORD said:
Nope. Because:
(1) Direct democracy is generally a bad idea.
(2) The public had nothing like the knowledge or understanding to give a meaningful view.
(3) ‘Leave’ vs ‘Remain’ was a comically stupid simplification of something that is not capable of reduction to two scenarios.
It was a stupid gamble made by the Tories in the hope of addressing internal dissent. It back-fired horribly and will be used as an example of why direct democracy is so ill-suited to complex issues.
So who are these people who are informed and represent the British people? (1) Direct democracy is generally a bad idea.
(2) The public had nothing like the knowledge or understanding to give a meaningful view.
(3) ‘Leave’ vs ‘Remain’ was a comically stupid simplification of something that is not capable of reduction to two scenarios.
It was a stupid gamble made by the Tories in the hope of addressing internal dissent. It back-fired horribly and will be used as an example of why direct democracy is so ill-suited to complex issues.
Is it the likes of Jacob Rees mogg, Boris and such who are informed enough to make decisions for us all? Or is it I suspect only people you personally agree with that are informed and enlightened enough to do such a job?
Coolbanana said:
don'tbesilly said:
Alternatively we could go on hypothesising whilst ignoring the repeated statements that there will be no second referendum.
You actually believe what a Politician tells you? There was to be no early Election - emphatically! Career Politicians will stitch you up at soon as it threatens their personal goals. You know that.
Coolbanana said:
ORD said:
We have learnt from the last referendum that trying to simplify things that aren’t simple is stupid. There will be 3 possible outcomes. Keeping one of them off the table and would be idiotic.
I do see the problem with splitting the Leave, but the answer to that is probably preference voting.
The ‘You lost that one!’ gang are showing again how democracy is only sacred when it suits them. They hate it when it doesn’t.
I think the first referendum was an appallingly stupid idea and that direct democracy is a terrible way to govern, but our politicians will fail and so are bound to call another stupid vote.
I don't disagree with much of what you say but the Government has to be extremely careful to ensure that everyone feels included and not marginalised to the point that they might claim 'con'. I do see the problem with splitting the Leave, but the answer to that is probably preference voting.
The ‘You lost that one!’ gang are showing again how democracy is only sacred when it suits them. They hate it when it doesn’t.
I think the first referendum was an appallingly stupid idea and that direct democracy is a terrible way to govern, but our politicians will fail and so are bound to call another stupid vote.
Indeed, I concur that it was a stupid idea calling the Referendum; it should have always been a Parliamentary vote given how serious the issues are and how little most people understand the consequences of both staying in or leaving given that they cannot be expected to know all that there is to know as casual observers at best.
Regardless of whether you voted to remain or leave, I believe, we can all agree that the government has been abysmal in their "negotiations" with the EU.
Negotiations were always going to be difficult as we know that the EU has nothing to gain with our leaving and giving us a "good Brexit" might encourage other members to threaten to leave.
However our position has been made much more difficult with the Tory party not acting in unison and embracing Brexit as a fact and not a possibility.
The government's prevarication has allowed the EU to exploit these divisions and May's Chequers proposal is the worst of all Worlds, frankly we may have been better off staying in.
As it is the EU appears not to favour the Chequers proposal so all is not quite lost.
I cannot see any real prospect of our coming to an equitable agreement with the EU.
I find it rather galling to see the EU ( Germany and France ) falling over themselves to offer trade agreements to other countries whilst not being able to come to an arrangement with the UK.
Negotiations were always going to be difficult as we know that the EU has nothing to gain with our leaving and giving us a "good Brexit" might encourage other members to threaten to leave.
However our position has been made much more difficult with the Tory party not acting in unison and embracing Brexit as a fact and not a possibility.
The government's prevarication has allowed the EU to exploit these divisions and May's Chequers proposal is the worst of all Worlds, frankly we may have been better off staying in.
As it is the EU appears not to favour the Chequers proposal so all is not quite lost.
I cannot see any real prospect of our coming to an equitable agreement with the EU.
I find it rather galling to see the EU ( Germany and France ) falling over themselves to offer trade agreements to other countries whilst not being able to come to an arrangement with the UK.
ORD said:
Nope. Because:
(1) Direct democracy is generally a bad idea.
(2) The public had nothing like the knowledge or understanding to give a meaningful view.
(3) ‘Leave’ vs ‘Remain’ was a comically stupid simplification of something that is not capable of reduction to two scenarios.
It was a stupid gamble made by the Tories in the hope of addressing internal dissent. It back-fired horribly and will be used as an example of why direct democracy is so ill-suited to complex issues.
There are some bold assumptions in your post that perhaps deserve some critique.(1) Direct democracy is generally a bad idea.
(2) The public had nothing like the knowledge or understanding to give a meaningful view.
(3) ‘Leave’ vs ‘Remain’ was a comically stupid simplification of something that is not capable of reduction to two scenarios.
It was a stupid gamble made by the Tories in the hope of addressing internal dissent. It back-fired horribly and will be used as an example of why direct democracy is so ill-suited to complex issues.
The question of our EU membership has been rumbling on for a number of years. The rise of UKIP as effectively a single issue party and, importantly, their inroads against BOTH sides of The House, illustrated that it was becoming an issue at the forefront of the electorate's mind.
If no referendum were held, it was more likely than not the next GE would be fought with EU membership at the heart of it. Neither Labour nor Tory parties are internally aligned enough to have had a clear mandate to run on a promise of in or out. This would have left the electorate having to vote UKIP to demonstrate their desire to leave the EU. A GE is not the correct forum for that decision, as the vote for UKIP would have involved consideration of many other elements- predominantly, are they fit to govern on ALL issues, rather than just one?
In short, it would have meant that a large proportion of people who would choose to leave the EU, would not vote for the only party offering it overtly, as they would not want UKIP to govern on a daily basis. Single issue parties don't tend to win elections, they influence by partaking in the debate.
Which takes us to a referendum. 'Direct Democracy' may not be desirable, however this is a decision with great ramifications. As we've already pointed out, a GE was not able to be used to ask that same question and achieve a decisive result. A government in power who had not won an election on a specific mandate to remain or leave could not assume sufficient authority to answer on the country's behalf. The closeness of the referendum result when it did happen, illustrates this point. A referendum wasn't only a valid choice, it was the ONLY valid choice in the circumstances.
Your second and third points are interconnected and I think are illustrative of a lack of understanding. The choice was not a detailed one to ask about shades of grey within an already agreed outcome. It was a principled one; do we want to be in or out of the EU?
It is a purposefully simple choice, that does not require the public to understand the infinite variaties of middle ground. A referendum should give a clear result and mandate to the winning side. The only way to achieve that is for the voters to be given the opposite sides of the spectrum.
As the 'leave' choice did not pose any further question on the severity, those ticking that box logically had to accept any method of leaving, up to the hardest brexit possible. Equally, those voting to stay would have to accept, at the very least, the status quo would continue and at its highest, we may integrate more heavily with the EU.
In other words, those ticking one option or the other would have to be sure and committed to wanting to leave absolutely or stay and continue within the EU. People who voted one way or the other would have little confusion over the choice or room to introduce conditional ifs or buts.
Whilst the result was close, the answerer given by the electorate was clear and unambiguous; the country wants to leave the EU. This gives the government a strong mandate and, further, an explicit instruction, to leave the EU.
This leaves us with your point 2. Your choice of language is interesting. By claiming the electorate lacked the knowledge AND understanding, the inference to be drawn is that, the topic is too sophisticated for the electorate to give an educated answer. There are a myriad of equally if not more complex issues at stake every time we have an election. Individuals typically have very limited understanding of economic and foreign policy mechanisms, the NHS, Policing and justice and so on, yet we do not question the electorates right to choose a government on the above policies via a general election. Why should the public have a choice of government in a GE, a far more complex decision than in/out of the EU, with much further reaching consequences, yet it is ill equipped to give an opinion on our membership of the EU?
In any case, it's a moot point, as we've already discussed above, the question was a principled, rather than detailed one. People can form an opnion on a principle without having to have a detailed construct of every permutation and possible result stemming from that it.
For me, the biggest failing in this sorry affair has been a government as equally split on the matter as the electorate, with a weak leader, who have dallied as a result. This has left us without a clear plan of action or confidence.
It is not the electorate who are short of knowledge or capacity to understand that has caused this problem, it is a government without direction or strength of convictions.
don'tbesilly said:
May has lost enough Tory voters already, agree a 2nd Referendum and you won't see another Tory Govt for decades.
Nope, Labour is still the only 'viable' alternative and look at them. You surely cannot see them holding on to power if they won thanks to a protest against the Tories. The Tories would simply regroup and oust a failed Labour run under Corbyn at the very next election. They would lose one term at most. You would have to hope for a new Party to emerge to provide a true alternative - not impossible, but given how the British Public tend to vote come Election time, I don't see anything outside of Labour vs Conservative for decades to come.
loafer123 said:
ORD said:
We have learnt from the last referendum that trying to simplify things that aren’t simple is stupid. There will be 3 possible outcomes. Keeping one of them off the table and would be idiotic.
I do see the problem with splitting the Leave, but the answer to that is probably preference voting.
The ‘You lost that one!’ gang are showing again how democracy is only sacred when it suits them. They hate it when it doesn’t.
I think the first referendum was an appallingly stupid idea and that direct democracy is a terrible way to govern, but our politicians will fail and so are bound to call another stupid vote.
You just want to keep asking until you get the answer you want, in just the same way as the EU has done in the past.I do see the problem with splitting the Leave, but the answer to that is probably preference voting.
The ‘You lost that one!’ gang are showing again how democracy is only sacred when it suits them. They hate it when it doesn’t.
I think the first referendum was an appallingly stupid idea and that direct democracy is a terrible way to govern, but our politicians will fail and so are bound to call another stupid vote.
I have said often on here that I am as relaxed about EEA/EFTA as No Deal, because I recognise that I can’t necessarily get exactly what I want.
By contrast, you are unwilling to compromise one iota.
Sad. So sad.
Carry on like that and it may get to the point that the generally silent people in the middle will show just how weak they are not. I'm quietly hoping that in time the sad excuses we have for politicians, commentariat and media are shown just how dissatisfied many people have become.
janesmith1950 said:
There are some bold assumptions in your post that perhaps deserve some critique.
The question of our EU membership has been rumbling on for a number of years. The rise of UKIP as effectively a single issue party and, importantly, their inroads against BOTH sides of The House, illustrated that it was becoming an issue at the forefront of the electorate's mind.
If no referendum were held, it was more likely than not the next GE would be fought with EU membership at the heart of it. Neither Labour nor Tory parties are internally aligned enough to have had a clear mandate to run on a promise of in or out. This would have left the electorate having to vote UKIP to demonstrate their desire to leave the EU. A GE is not the correct forum for that decision, as the vote for UKIP would have involved consideration of many other elements- predominantly, are they fit to govern on ALL issues, rather than just one?
In short, it would have meant that a large proportion of people who would choose to leave the EU, would not vote for the only party offering it overtly, as they would not want UKIP to govern on a daily basis. Single issue parties don't tend to win elections, they influence by partaking in the debate.
Which takes us to a referendum. 'Direct Democracy' may not be desirable, however this is a decision with great ramifications. As we've already pointed out, a GE was not able to be used to ask that same question and achieve a decisive result. A government in power who had not won an election on a specific mandate to remain or leave could not assume sufficient authority to answer on the country's behalf. The closeness of the referendum result when it did happen, illustrates this point. A referendum wasn't only a valid choice, it was the ONLY valid choice in the circumstances.
Your second and third points are interconnected and I think are illustrative of a lack of understanding. The choice was not a detailed one to ask about shades of grey within an already agreed outcome. It was a principled one; do we want to be in or out of the EU?
It is a purposefully simple choice, that does not require the public to understand the infinite variaties of middle ground. A referendum should give a clear result and mandate to the winning side. The only way to achieve that is for the voters to be given the opposite sides of the spectrum.
As the 'leave' choice did not pose any further question on the severity, those ticking that box logically had to accept any method of leaving, up to the hardest brexit possible. Equally, those voting to stay would have to accept, at the very least, the status quo would continue and at its highest, we may integrate more heavily with the EU.
In other words, those ticking one option or the other would have to be sure and committed to wanting to leave absolutely or stay and continue within the EU. People who voted one way or the other would have little confusion over the choice or room to introduce conditional ifs or buts.
Whilst the result was close, the answerer given by the electorate was clear and unambiguous; the country wants to leave the EU. This gives the government a strong mandate and, further, an explicit instruction, to leave the EU.
This leaves us with your point 2. Your choice of language is interesting. By claiming the electorate lacked the knowledge AND understanding, the inference to be drawn is that, the topic is too sophisticated for the electorate to give an educated answer. There are a myriad of equally if not more complex issues at stake every time we have an election. Individuals typically have very limited understanding of economic and foreign policy mechanisms, the NHS, Policing and justice and so on, yet we do not question the electorates right to choose a government on the above policies via a general election. Why should the public have a choice of government in a GE, a far more complex decision than in/out of the EU, with much further reaching consequences, yet it is ill equipped to give an opinion on our membership of the EU?
In any case, it's a moot point, as we've already discussed above, the question was a principled, rather than detailed one. People can form an opnion on a principle without having to have a detailed construct of every permutation and possible result stemming from that it.
For me, the biggest failing in this sorry affair has been a government as equally split on the matter as the electorate, with a weak leader, who have dallied as a result. This has left us without a clear plan of action or confidence.
It is not the electorate who are short of knowledge or capacity to understand that has caused this problem, it is a government without direction or strength of convictions.
A very thoughtful post. Thanks.The question of our EU membership has been rumbling on for a number of years. The rise of UKIP as effectively a single issue party and, importantly, their inroads against BOTH sides of The House, illustrated that it was becoming an issue at the forefront of the electorate's mind.
If no referendum were held, it was more likely than not the next GE would be fought with EU membership at the heart of it. Neither Labour nor Tory parties are internally aligned enough to have had a clear mandate to run on a promise of in or out. This would have left the electorate having to vote UKIP to demonstrate their desire to leave the EU. A GE is not the correct forum for that decision, as the vote for UKIP would have involved consideration of many other elements- predominantly, are they fit to govern on ALL issues, rather than just one?
In short, it would have meant that a large proportion of people who would choose to leave the EU, would not vote for the only party offering it overtly, as they would not want UKIP to govern on a daily basis. Single issue parties don't tend to win elections, they influence by partaking in the debate.
Which takes us to a referendum. 'Direct Democracy' may not be desirable, however this is a decision with great ramifications. As we've already pointed out, a GE was not able to be used to ask that same question and achieve a decisive result. A government in power who had not won an election on a specific mandate to remain or leave could not assume sufficient authority to answer on the country's behalf. The closeness of the referendum result when it did happen, illustrates this point. A referendum wasn't only a valid choice, it was the ONLY valid choice in the circumstances.
Your second and third points are interconnected and I think are illustrative of a lack of understanding. The choice was not a detailed one to ask about shades of grey within an already agreed outcome. It was a principled one; do we want to be in or out of the EU?
It is a purposefully simple choice, that does not require the public to understand the infinite variaties of middle ground. A referendum should give a clear result and mandate to the winning side. The only way to achieve that is for the voters to be given the opposite sides of the spectrum.
As the 'leave' choice did not pose any further question on the severity, those ticking that box logically had to accept any method of leaving, up to the hardest brexit possible. Equally, those voting to stay would have to accept, at the very least, the status quo would continue and at its highest, we may integrate more heavily with the EU.
In other words, those ticking one option or the other would have to be sure and committed to wanting to leave absolutely or stay and continue within the EU. People who voted one way or the other would have little confusion over the choice or room to introduce conditional ifs or buts.
Whilst the result was close, the answerer given by the electorate was clear and unambiguous; the country wants to leave the EU. This gives the government a strong mandate and, further, an explicit instruction, to leave the EU.
This leaves us with your point 2. Your choice of language is interesting. By claiming the electorate lacked the knowledge AND understanding, the inference to be drawn is that, the topic is too sophisticated for the electorate to give an educated answer. There are a myriad of equally if not more complex issues at stake every time we have an election. Individuals typically have very limited understanding of economic and foreign policy mechanisms, the NHS, Policing and justice and so on, yet we do not question the electorates right to choose a government on the above policies via a general election. Why should the public have a choice of government in a GE, a far more complex decision than in/out of the EU, with much further reaching consequences, yet it is ill equipped to give an opinion on our membership of the EU?
In any case, it's a moot point, as we've already discussed above, the question was a principled, rather than detailed one. People can form an opnion on a principle without having to have a detailed construct of every permutation and possible result stemming from that it.
For me, the biggest failing in this sorry affair has been a government as equally split on the matter as the electorate, with a weak leader, who have dallied as a result. This has left us without a clear plan of action or confidence.
It is not the electorate who are short of knowledge or capacity to understand that has caused this problem, it is a government without direction or strength of convictions.
CrutyRammers said:
Except that, those people we elect to make decisions, decided to ask us. Then they decided to do what we said. If you are keen on outsourcing decisions to others, you can hardly complain when they make decisions you disagree with.
Yes, indeed they did. A mistake in my view. However, I have never complained about the decision in terms of being held free and fair. I would have preferred that it wasn't delegated to the Public, I understand the Politics that led to it happening and accept that it was despite my personal reservations. What I have repeatedly maintained about the vote is that it is not necessary to see it implemented if the Will of the Electorate is such that a majority feel they may want to voice a changed decision, either way. That is true Democracy. However, the point of my recent posts on the subject is to highlight that making a decision to hold a 2nd vote is very contentious, fraught with difficulty and far from straight-forward to ensure that everyone sees it as free and fair given the outcome of the original vote.
Whilst Democratically possible, the reason 2nd votes are rarely offered, if ever, is because it would require an immense change of view (provable) in a very short timeframe.
To be clear, like many, I despise some Politicians, admire others and have only a passing regard for the rest. I do, however, believe that we Democratically elect them - and, yes, trust - such that collectively they will make the right decisions when it comes to leading and managing the Country and its services. I would rather they educate themselves on complex subjects and use Parliamentary votes to decide such rather than the cop-out of asking the general Public where it is even worse in terms of knowledge and bias ahead of Country.
Anyway, it is you who have to live there and I am merely stating my preference; you vote for what you think is best. I'll just watch.
janesmith1950 said:
ORD said:
Nope. Because:
(1) Direct democracy is generally a bad idea.
(2) The public had nothing like the knowledge or understanding to give a meaningful view.
(3) ‘Leave’ vs ‘Remain’ was a comically stupid simplification of something that is not capable of reduction to two scenarios.
It was a stupid gamble made by the Tories in the hope of addressing internal dissent. It back-fired horribly and will be used as an example of why direct democracy is so ill-suited to complex issues.
There are some bold assumptions in your post that perhaps deserve some critique.(1) Direct democracy is generally a bad idea.
(2) The public had nothing like the knowledge or understanding to give a meaningful view.
(3) ‘Leave’ vs ‘Remain’ was a comically stupid simplification of something that is not capable of reduction to two scenarios.
It was a stupid gamble made by the Tories in the hope of addressing internal dissent. It back-fired horribly and will be used as an example of why direct democracy is so ill-suited to complex issues.
The question of our EU membership has been rumbling on for a number of years. The rise of UKIP as effectively a single issue party and, importantly, their inroads against BOTH sides of The House, illustrated that it was becoming an issue at the forefront of the electorate's mind.
If no referendum were held, it was more likely than not the next GE would be fought with EU membership at the heart of it. Neither Labour nor Tory parties are internally aligned enough to have had a clear mandate to run on a promise of in or out. This would have left the electorate having to vote UKIP to demonstrate their desire to leave the EU. A GE is not the correct forum for that decision, as the vote for UKIP would have involved consideration of many other elements- predominantly, are they fit to govern on ALL issues, rather than just one?
In short, it would have meant that a large proportion of people who would choose to leave the EU, would not vote for the only party offering it overtly, as they would not want UKIP to govern on a daily basis. Single issue parties don't tend to win elections, they influence by partaking in the debate.
Which takes us to a referendum. 'Direct Democracy' may not be desirable, however this is a decision with great ramifications. As we've already pointed out, a GE was not able to be used to ask that same question and achieve a decisive result. A government in power who had not won an election on a specific mandate to remain or leave could not assume sufficient authority to answer on the country's behalf. The closeness of the referendum result when it did happen, illustrates this point. A referendum wasn't only a valid choice, it was the ONLY valid choice in the circumstances.
Your second and third points are interconnected and I think are illustrative of a lack of understanding. The choice was not a detailed one to ask about shades of grey within an already agreed outcome. It was a principled one; do we want to be in or out of the EU?
It is a purposefully simple choice, that does not require the public to understand the infinite variaties of middle ground. A referendum should give a clear result and mandate to the winning side. The only way to achieve that is for the voters to be given the opposite sides of the spectrum.
As the 'leave' choice did not pose any further question on the severity, those ticking that box logically had to accept any method of leaving, up to the hardest brexit possible. Equally, those voting to stay would have to accept, at the very least, the status quo would continue and at its highest, we may integrate more heavily with the EU.
In other words, those ticking one option or the other would have to be sure and committed to wanting to leave absolutely or stay and continue within the EU. People who voted one way or the other would have little confusion over the choice or room to introduce conditional ifs or buts.
Whilst the result was close, the answerer given by the electorate was clear and unambiguous; the country wants to leave the EU. This gives the government a strong mandate and, further, an explicit instruction, to leave the EU.
This leaves us with your point 2. Your choice of language is interesting. By claiming the electorate lacked the knowledge AND understanding, the inference to be drawn is that, the topic is too sophisticated for the electorate to give an educated answer. There are a myriad of equally if not more complex issues at stake every time we have an election. Individuals typically have very limited understanding of economic and foreign policy mechanisms, the NHS, Policing and justice and so on, yet we do not question the electorates right to choose a government on the above policies via a general election. Why should the public have a choice of government in a GE, a far more complex decision than in/out of the EU, with much further reaching consequences, yet it is ill equipped to give an opinion on our membership of the EU?
In any case, it's a moot point, as we've already discussed above, the question was a principled, rather than detailed one. People can form an opnion on a principle without having to have a detailed construct of every permutation and possible result stemming from that it.
For me, the biggest failing in this sorry affair has been a government as equally split on the matter as the electorate, with a weak leader, who have dallied as a result. This has left us without a clear plan of action or confidence.
It is not the electorate who are short of knowledge or capacity to understand that has caused this problem, it is a government without direction or strength of convictions.
janesmith1950 said:
There are some bold assumptions in your post that perhaps deserve some critique.
The question of our EU membership has been rumbling on for a number of years. The rise of UKIP as effectively a single issue party and, importantly, their inroads against BOTH sides of The House, illustrated that it was becoming an issue at the forefront of the electorate's mind.
If no referendum were held, it was more likely than not the next GE would be fought with EU membership at the heart of it. Neither Labour nor Tory parties are internally aligned enough to have had a clear mandate to run on a promise of in or out. This would have left the electorate having to vote UKIP to demonstrate their desire to leave the EU. A GE is not the correct forum for that decision, as the vote for UKIP would have involved consideration of many other elements- predominantly, are they fit to govern on ALL issues, rather than just one?
In short, it would have meant that a large proportion of people who would choose to leave the EU, would not vote for the only party offering it overtly, as they would not want UKIP to govern on a daily basis. Single issue parties don't tend to win elections, they influence by partaking in the debate.
Which takes us to a referendum. 'Direct Democracy' may not be desirable, however this is a decision with great ramifications. As we've already pointed out, a GE was not able to be used to ask that same question and achieve a decisive result. A government in power who had not won an election on a specific mandate to remain or leave could not assume sufficient authority to answer on the country's behalf. The closeness of the referendum result when it did happen, illustrates this point. A referendum wasn't only a valid choice, it was the ONLY valid choice in the circumstances.
Your second and third points are interconnected and I think are illustrative of a lack of understanding. The choice was not a detailed one to ask about shades of grey within an already agreed outcome. It was a principled one; do we want to be in or out of the EU?
It is a purposefully simple choice, that does not require the public to understand the infinite variaties of middle ground. A referendum should give a clear result and mandate to the winning side. The only way to achieve that is for the voters to be given the opposite sides of the spectrum.
As the 'leave' choice did not pose any further question on the severity, those ticking that box logically had to accept any method of leaving, up to the hardest brexit possible. Equally, those voting to stay would have to accept, at the very least, the status quo would continue and at its highest, we may integrate more heavily with the EU.
In other words, those ticking one option or the other would have to be sure and committed to wanting to leave absolutely or stay and continue within the EU. People who voted one way or the other would have little confusion over the choice or room to introduce conditional ifs or buts.
Whilst the result was close, the answerer given by the electorate was clear and unambiguous; the country wants to leave the EU. This gives the government a strong mandate and, further, an explicit instruction, to leave the EU.
This leaves us with your point 2. Your choice of language is interesting. By claiming the electorate lacked the knowledge AND understanding, the inference to be drawn is that, the topic is too sophisticated for the electorate to give an educated answer. There are a myriad of equally if not more complex issues at stake every time we have an election. Individuals typically have very limited understanding of economic and foreign policy mechanisms, the NHS, Policing and justice and so on, yet we do not question the electorates right to choose a government on the above policies via a general election. Why should the public have a choice of government in a GE, a far more complex decision than in/out of the EU, with much further reaching consequences, yet it is ill equipped to give an opinion on our membership of the EU?
In any case, it's a moot point, as we've already discussed above, the question was a principled, rather than detailed one. People can form an opnion on a principle without having to have a detailed construct of every permutation and possible result stemming from that it.
For me, the biggest failing in this sorry affair has been a government as equally split on the matter as the electorate, with a weak leader, who have dallied as a result. This has left us without a clear plan of action or confidence.
It is not the electorate who are short of knowledge or capacity to understand that has caused this problem, it is a government without direction or strength of convictions.
Excellent post.The question of our EU membership has been rumbling on for a number of years. The rise of UKIP as effectively a single issue party and, importantly, their inroads against BOTH sides of The House, illustrated that it was becoming an issue at the forefront of the electorate's mind.
If no referendum were held, it was more likely than not the next GE would be fought with EU membership at the heart of it. Neither Labour nor Tory parties are internally aligned enough to have had a clear mandate to run on a promise of in or out. This would have left the electorate having to vote UKIP to demonstrate their desire to leave the EU. A GE is not the correct forum for that decision, as the vote for UKIP would have involved consideration of many other elements- predominantly, are they fit to govern on ALL issues, rather than just one?
In short, it would have meant that a large proportion of people who would choose to leave the EU, would not vote for the only party offering it overtly, as they would not want UKIP to govern on a daily basis. Single issue parties don't tend to win elections, they influence by partaking in the debate.
Which takes us to a referendum. 'Direct Democracy' may not be desirable, however this is a decision with great ramifications. As we've already pointed out, a GE was not able to be used to ask that same question and achieve a decisive result. A government in power who had not won an election on a specific mandate to remain or leave could not assume sufficient authority to answer on the country's behalf. The closeness of the referendum result when it did happen, illustrates this point. A referendum wasn't only a valid choice, it was the ONLY valid choice in the circumstances.
Your second and third points are interconnected and I think are illustrative of a lack of understanding. The choice was not a detailed one to ask about shades of grey within an already agreed outcome. It was a principled one; do we want to be in or out of the EU?
It is a purposefully simple choice, that does not require the public to understand the infinite variaties of middle ground. A referendum should give a clear result and mandate to the winning side. The only way to achieve that is for the voters to be given the opposite sides of the spectrum.
As the 'leave' choice did not pose any further question on the severity, those ticking that box logically had to accept any method of leaving, up to the hardest brexit possible. Equally, those voting to stay would have to accept, at the very least, the status quo would continue and at its highest, we may integrate more heavily with the EU.
In other words, those ticking one option or the other would have to be sure and committed to wanting to leave absolutely or stay and continue within the EU. People who voted one way or the other would have little confusion over the choice or room to introduce conditional ifs or buts.
Whilst the result was close, the answerer given by the electorate was clear and unambiguous; the country wants to leave the EU. This gives the government a strong mandate and, further, an explicit instruction, to leave the EU.
This leaves us with your point 2. Your choice of language is interesting. By claiming the electorate lacked the knowledge AND understanding, the inference to be drawn is that, the topic is too sophisticated for the electorate to give an educated answer. There are a myriad of equally if not more complex issues at stake every time we have an election. Individuals typically have very limited understanding of economic and foreign policy mechanisms, the NHS, Policing and justice and so on, yet we do not question the electorates right to choose a government on the above policies via a general election. Why should the public have a choice of government in a GE, a far more complex decision than in/out of the EU, with much further reaching consequences, yet it is ill equipped to give an opinion on our membership of the EU?
In any case, it's a moot point, as we've already discussed above, the question was a principled, rather than detailed one. People can form an opnion on a principle without having to have a detailed construct of every permutation and possible result stemming from that it.
For me, the biggest failing in this sorry affair has been a government as equally split on the matter as the electorate, with a weak leader, who have dallied as a result. This has left us without a clear plan of action or confidence.
It is not the electorate who are short of knowledge or capacity to understand that has caused this problem, it is a government without direction or strength of convictions.
janesmith1950 said:
ORD said:
Nope. Because:
(1) Direct democracy is generally a bad idea.
(2) The public had nothing like the knowledge or understanding to give a meaningful view.
(3) ‘Leave’ vs ‘Remain’ was a comically stupid simplification of something that is not capable of reduction to two scenarios.
It was a stupid gamble made by the Tories in the hope of addressing internal dissent. It back-fired horribly and will be used as an example of why direct democracy is so ill-suited to complex issues.
There are some bold assumptions in your post that perhaps deserve some critique.(1) Direct democracy is generally a bad idea.
(2) The public had nothing like the knowledge or understanding to give a meaningful view.
(3) ‘Leave’ vs ‘Remain’ was a comically stupid simplification of something that is not capable of reduction to two scenarios.
It was a stupid gamble made by the Tories in the hope of addressing internal dissent. It back-fired horribly and will be used as an example of why direct democracy is so ill-suited to complex issues.
The question of our EU membership has been rumbling on for a number of years. The rise of UKIP as effectively a single issue party and, importantly, their inroads against BOTH sides of The House, illustrated that it was becoming an issue at the forefront of the electorate's mind.
If no referendum were held, it was more likely than not the next GE would be fought with EU membership at the heart of it. Neither Labour nor Tory parties are internally aligned enough to have had a clear mandate to run on a promise of in or out. This would have left the electorate having to vote UKIP to demonstrate their desire to leave the EU. A GE is not the correct forum for that decision, as the vote for UKIP would have involved consideration of many other elements- predominantly, are they fit to govern on ALL issues, rather than just one?
In short, it would have meant that a large proportion of people who would choose to leave the EU, would not vote for the only party offering it overtly, as they would not want UKIP to govern on a daily basis. Single issue parties don't tend to win elections, they influence by partaking in the debate.
Which takes us to a referendum. 'Direct Democracy' may not be desirable, however this is a decision with great ramifications. As we've already pointed out, a GE was not able to be used to ask that same question and achieve a decisive result. A government in power who had not won an election on a specific mandate to remain or leave could not assume sufficient authority to answer on the country's behalf. The closeness of the referendum result when it did happen, illustrates this point. A referendum wasn't only a valid choice, it was the ONLY valid choice in the circumstances.
Your second and third points are interconnected and I think are illustrative of a lack of understanding. The choice was not a detailed one to ask about shades of grey within an already agreed outcome. It was a principled one; do we want to be in or out of the EU?
It is a purposefully simple choice, that does not require the public to understand the infinite variaties of middle ground. A referendum should give a clear result and mandate to the winning side. The only way to achieve that is for the voters to be given the opposite sides of the spectrum.
As the 'leave' choice did not pose any further question on the severity, those ticking that box logically had to accept any method of leaving, up to the hardest brexit possible. Equally, those voting to stay would have to accept, at the very least, the status quo would continue and at its highest, we may integrate more heavily with the EU.
In other words, those ticking one option or the other would have to be sure and committed to wanting to leave absolutely or stay and continue within the EU. People who voted one way or the other would have little confusion over the choice or room to introduce conditional ifs or buts.
Whilst the result was close, the answerer given by the electorate was clear and unambiguous; the country wants to leave the EU. This gives the government a strong mandate and, further, an explicit instruction, to leave the EU.
This leaves us with your point 2. Your choice of language is interesting. By claiming the electorate lacked the knowledge AND understanding, the inference to be drawn is that, the topic is too sophisticated for the electorate to give an educated answer. There are a myriad of equally if not more complex issues at stake every time we have an election. Individuals typically have very limited understanding of economic and foreign policy mechanisms, the NHS, Policing and justice and so on, yet we do not question the electorates right to choose a government on the above policies via a general election. Why should the public have a choice of government in a GE, a far more complex decision than in/out of the EU, with much further reaching consequences, yet it is ill equipped to give an opinion on our membership of the EU?
In any case, it's a moot point, as we've already discussed above, the question was a principled, rather than detailed one. People can form an opnion on a principle without having to have a detailed construct of every permutation and possible result stemming from that it.
For me, the biggest failing in this sorry affair has been a government as equally split on the matter as the electorate, with a weak leader, who have dallied as a result. This has left us without a clear plan of action or confidence.
It is not the electorate who are short of knowledge or capacity to understand that has caused this problem, it is a government without direction or strength of convictions.
This is what amuses me about the "Leave voters didn't understand what they were voting for" argument, since it implies the Remain voters did. In reality 99% of people (myself included) do not have a detailed understanding of the way the EU works, or for that matter the British parliamentary system, political models or economics. People will vote for the party or option that they think will be the best for themselves, either directly or tactically. The public have also been witness to plenty of apparent experts who have been proven wrong, so even having that understanding is no guarantee of someone making that correct decision.
Lord Marylebone said:
ORD said:
I agree. A very thoughtful and valuable post. I disagree with much of it, but that’s a different point
Same here.A good post, but I disagree with a lot of it.
I doubt anybody cares that you disagree. Some will be very interested in why you disagree - I'm one of them.
Coolbanana said:
To be clear, like many, I despise some Politicians, admire others and have only a passing regard for the rest. I do, however, believe that we Democratically elect them - and, yes, trust - such that collectively they will make the right decisions when it comes to leading and managing the Country and its services. I would rather they educate themselves on complex subjects and use Parliamentary votes to decide such rather than the cop-out of asking the general Public where it is even worse in terms of knowledge and bias ahead of Country.
A cynic might think that you feel that way because you know the politicans would side with remain 
Their job is to make the right decisions on behalf of the electorate, in accordance with the wishes of the electorate. They do the best they can within the framework that the electorate provides them.
Therefore, as we now know that the electorate rejects being a member of the EU, you must be arguing that the government should have taken us out of the EU without a referendum?
I prefer the referendum approach myself.
The electorate has also, for most of our lives, wanted the death penalty and has simultaneously wanted much lower taxes and much higher public spending. It is the role of government to take difficult decisions, not to palm them off onto the electorate and hope that one set of misrepresentations is more effective than the other in misleading people into voting one way on something they don’t understand.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff