How About Another EU Referendum?

[bloomen]

loafer123 said:

I think you may be suffering from selection bias.

I don't know any CEOs, just normal people.

'Have you considered any downsides?'

'Nah. There won't be any.'

[loafer123]

bloomen said:

I don't know any CEOs, just normal people.

'Have you considered any downsides?'

'Nah. There won't be any.'

OK, but is that any more thoughtless than “don’t like change”?

[roger.mellie]

PRTVR said:

I'm confused, was there not two referendums, did not the first one get rejected?

Yes, was the second one on the same terms as the first one?

What's more amusing if you want to dig deep is how Irish parties have shifted on their EU opinions before and after then and especially as a result of brexit. SF being a classic example. But referendums make headlines, underlying public sympathy and politicians with flexible principles doesn't.

Partly why I think brexit was a moment in time vote that could have gone another way if called at a different time. It's not a mandate for a new rule book but plenty want to try and take it as such.

[bloomen]

loafer123 said:

OK, but is that any more thoughtless than “don’t like change”?

Not really.

But like I said the thinking had gone as far as wanting to blow things up and see what happens.

I could get behind that on a smaller scale. It seems a tad cavalier not to carefully weigh up the consequences when it's an entire nation's direction. I certainly didn't notice a shred of that.

I'm sure we'll muddle along adequately enough regardless.

[Sheets Tabuer]

dingg said:

Hoofy said:

Al Gorithum said:

Full disclosure: I voted to leave the EU.

However it's pretty clear to me that I was sold a pup by the lying Boris and Reece Mogg etc, but even if it can be done successfully we don't have any talent in Govt to pull it off, therefore if there was another referendum I'd vote to remain.

I wonder how many other other Leavers have changed their mind?

What say you?

Ditto.

Same for me

I'm fascinated by this. It was clear to me when Johnson was making statements on how important it was for us to stay in the EU and we are better off for it suddenly changed when he got a whiff of a leadership contest. He knew he'd never get voted Conservative leader being pro EU so changed his tune.
He knowingly lead the country astray to further his own goals even though he knew how damaging it would be.

That was the moment for me, that was the moment where I thought don't trust this lying tosser.

See here how his views started to change when the top job was in sight.

I used to like him, I used to like the silly clown. Little did we know behind the japes and buffoonery were the eyes of a predator who'd do anything for his prize.

[2xChevrons]

PRTVR said:

I'm confused, was there not two referendums, did not the first one get rejected?

The first referendum in Ireland on the Lisbon Treaty returned a 'No' out of concerns in three main areas: Ireland's diplomatic and military neutrality, Ireland's abortion laws and Ireland's corporate tax regime which had delivered the 'Celtic Tiger' economy. The Treaty had also been poorly understood and badly described, even by the bodied supposedly campaigning in support of it.

After the Irish electorate rejected the Treaty (or, more accurately, the amendment to the Irish constitution required to adopt it), Ireland received assurances from the EU on all three areas of concern and an effort to inform the electorate more clearly and accurately on what the Treaty meant for Ireland and the EU was put forward. The second referendum adopted the amendment.

So it's hardly the 'keep asking the question until you get the right answer' so beloved of Eurosceptics. The Irish government engaged with the EU in good faith as a full and equal member, played by the rules and norms of the organisation of which it was a part and had a generally mature and level-headed discussion...and gained meaningful changes and assurances that were satisfactory to its electorate.

If the UK had maintained a similar relationship (politically and culturally) with the EU during our four decades of membership things probably wouldn't have become so fraught.

[loafer123]

bloomen said:

Not really.

But like I said the thinking had gone as far as wanting to blow things up and see what happens.

I could get behind that on a smaller scale. It seems a tad cavalier not to carefully weigh up the consequences when it's an entire nation's direction. I certainly didn't notice a shred of that.

I'm sure we'll muddle along adequately enough regardless.

I think there is a lot in what you say about just wanting to blow things up.

I have a lot of faith in the gut feel that pushes that view - the public could see a misalignment of interests with the EU.

I think it could have been fixed, both before the referendum was announced through compromise over our issues, or through some form of associate membership post result, but the shenanigans trying to overturn the result put paid to that.

For now, the EU seeks to understandably make us pay visibly both because it is pissed at us and “pour decourager les autres”.

Nevertheless, it is in both parties interests to eventually settle down to an amicable friendship rather than divorcees at loggerheads. The NIP issue shows this has some way to go yet.

I remain () of the view that leave was the right choice for both parties. As I posted in detail at the time, the EU needs to get closer and federalise if it is to have a hope of survival, and that could not have happened with us in there.

If it manages it, I will be delighted for them, as long as it is with the consent of the people. I suspect it won’t be possible, in which case we might be involved in the new iteration of the EEC trade bloc that comes next, but that is away over the horizon.

The next test comes soon, with the stresses building on the Euro. It is in no one’s interests for it to fail, but it has major systemic flaws which are starting to show.

As Confucius didn’t say “we live interesting times”.

[Dr Jekyll]

2xChevrons said:

The first referendum in Ireland on the Lisbon Treaty returned a 'No' out of concerns in three main areas: Ireland's diplomatic and military neutrality, Ireland's abortion laws and Ireland's corporate tax regime which had delivered the 'Celtic Tiger' economy. The Treaty had also been poorly understood and badly described, even by the bodied supposedly campaigning in support of it.

After the Irish electorate rejected the Treaty (or, more accurately, the amendment to the Irish constitution required to adopt it), Ireland received assurances from the EU on all three areas of concern and an effort to inform the electorate more clearly and accurately on what the Treaty meant for Ireland and the EU was put forward. The second referendum adopted the amendment.

So it's hardly the 'keep asking the question until you get the right answer' so beloved of Eurosceptics. The Irish government engaged with the EU in good faith as a full and equal member, played by the rules and norms of the organisation of which it was a part and had a generally mature and level-headed discussion...and gained meaningful changes and assurances that were satisfactory to its electorate.

If the UK had maintained a similar relationship (politically and culturally) with the EU during our four decades of membership things probably wouldn't have become so fraught.

If they'd voted to accept the treaty would there have been another vote to give them a chance to reject it?

[bloomen]

loafer123 said:

I remain () of the view that leave was the right choice for both parties. As I posted in detail at the time, the EU needs to get closer and federalise if it is to have a hope of survival, and that could not have happened with us in there.

A yes vote would've been taken as a green light to become more federal and a reduction in willingness to make the concessions we were agitating for which I will guess not very many Brits of any opinion would want.

So if there had to be a referendum then it may well be the right result in spirit. The main problem has been the loathsome mediocrity of those in charge of the interpretation and execution of it.

[loafer123]

bloomen said:

A yes vote would've been taken as a green light to become more federal and a reduction in willingness to make the concessions we were agitating for which I will guess not very many Brits of any opinion would want.

So if there had to be a referendum then it may well be the right result in spirit. The main problem has been the loathsome mediocrity of those in charge of the interpretation and execution of it.

I completely agree.

It’s a long game, though, so all is not lost.

[roger.mellie]

Dr Jekyll said:

If they'd voted to accept the treaty would there have been another vote to give them a chance to reject it?

No. Stupid question but I know where you're coming from given the thread topic.

But Ireland has a written constitution requiring certain thresholds for ammendment, the UK doesn't, so some comparisons aren't very relevant. It's easily arguable the UK doesn't have the political system to cope with referendum results.

[Abdul Abulbul Amir]

roger.mellie said:

Abdul Abulbul Amir said:

The reason why the WTO threat had been diminished is because May spent three years saying one thing in public and another to the EU in private. She wanted BRINO and the stubborn anti brexit MPs wouldn't give her that...through a combination of the Soubrys impression of a mad old bat and Corbyn spending the entire period sat with his arms crossed with a policy of disagreeing with the government regardless of what was proposed. This, combined with Miller's back-firing intervention of ensuring parliament had a vote and the Benn act, caused parliamentary gridlock...leading it going back to the people, Boris and a more distant relationship with the EU.

If the Remainers wanted a softer Brexit, and more chance of rejoining, they should have accepted the result of the vote on 24 June and supported May in her deal.

No, it was diminished because it was never real. The one and only time it might have held some strength was Boris' little dander with Varadkar. Boris wanted a deal, he didn't want to be Mr No Deal, and when the cards were on the table he had to find one that wasn't May's deal. Believe whatever other ste you want. BRINO is a brexiter term, there was no definition of brexit on the ballot and no amount of revisionism or assuming other's opinions will ever change that. What there is a theoretical mandate for is Boris' deal due to the 2019 GE.

I don't disagree at all that there are likely many remainers wishing they'd backed May now, a few leavers too (DUP for starters), although part of me thinks a milder brexit would not be cathartic enough in proving how stupid an idea it was . If leavers want to support Boris' brexit they should support the NIP and all that came along with it. If they want to claim he could have done better then they're just armchair generals thinking they could do better when there's a massive amount of evidence to the contrary.

My point is that is was never real because May, the parliament of the time and other external influences made it not real. This, including the Benn act, scuppered any negotiation strength the UK may have had. Parliament didnt want to implement the result and also sabotaged May's BRINO.

ETA
..and it was BRINO, the £9m taxpayer funded leaflet was clear we would be leaving the single market.

Edited by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sunday 26th June 20:36

[faa77]

DeltonaS said:

Biggy Stardust said:

I'm sure our money would be most welcome.

O dear, after all these years you still don't get it.

The benefit of the EU is the EU; the biggest free trade area in the world, the largest economy in the world.

With or without English flag wavers.

The UK net contributor part (only about 10bn Euro), means nothing in the grand scheme of things
Another Brexit lie.

Edited by DeltonaS on Saturday 25th June 19:03

How was it "free" if we were paying the EU £15bn a year?

[faa77]

bloomen said:

loafer123 said:

I remain () of the view that leave was the right choice for both parties. As I posted in detail at the time, the EU needs to get closer and federalise if it is to have a hope of survival, and that could not have happened with us in there.

A yes vote would've been taken as a green light to become more federal and a reduction in willingness to make the concessions we were agitating for which I will guess not very many Brits of any opinion would want.

So if there had to be a referendum then it may well be the right result in spirit. The main problem has been the loathsome mediocrity of those in charge of the interpretation and execution of it.

100% on both points

[crankedup5]

Digging over old ground will not change the reality of where we are now. Time to double dig and get on with what’s in front of us.

[roger.mellie]

crankedup5 said:

Digging over old ground will not change the reality of where we are now. Time to double dig and get on with what’s in front of us.

On that we agree.

I may dislike lots about the brexit deal but what I dislike most here and now is revisionism and false flag arguments complaining about what's done is done and thinking they could do better.

I'm sure you realise though, that from my perspective there are many brexiter critics of brexit as it was never going to be perfect and it has done a pretty good job of eating its own over the years. I'm not an impartial observer but I do like watching and happy to comment but think I should leave it there on this one.

[Pitre]

dbdb said:

I think we probably should have another referendum, but not for a few years yet.

Brexit as it is currently unfolding does not appear to be working but we should at least try to make a go of it. Unfortunately as yet there seems to be no plan for this beyond sloganeering. What is particularly depressing is the deep tribalism Brexit seems to have engendered or at least to have focussed and the extermination of any form of nuanced thinking or balance that tribalism brings. A solution is much harder to engineer within an atmosphere of very defensive Brexiteers and often extraordinary snobbishness from the Remain contingent.

I was fully sucked into this tribalism myself for a year or two after 2016 but have now at least reflected on why people voted to leave and how people in particular circumstances are differentially affected. I would hope that in time some other Remainers might also try to 'walk in the shoes' of those who voted to leave to try to figure out why they may have made that choice and acknowledge with open honesty when the EU behaves badly towards the UK, rather than reasoning mechanistically. It is important for those who oppose Brexit to look like they have tried to make leaving work since this will significantly affect the degree of influence they will have over what comes next. That's how life works.

As to whether we could re-join and on what terms, this is simply speculation. There is no reason to believe we could not simply re-join on our original terms - and nothing to suggest we could either. But Russia's actions strengthen our hand.

Edited by dbdb on Friday 24th June 18:10

Excellent post.

[Abdul Abulbul Amir]

faa77 said:

bloomen said:

loafer123 said:

I remain () of the view that leave was the right choice for both parties. As I posted in detail at the time, the EU needs to get closer and federalise if it is to have a hope of survival, and that could not have happened with us in there.

A yes vote would've been taken as a green light to become more federal and a reduction in willingness to make the concessions we were agitating for which I will guess not very many Brits of any opinion would want.

So if there had to be a referendum then it may well be the right result in spirit. The main problem has been the loathsome mediocrity of those in charge of the interpretation and execution of it.

100% on both points

Agreed, and I call out the Remainer led revision of the last few years of parliamentary history when they complain about the current status of the UK-EU relationship when their actions after the referendum results directly led to it.

[TwigtheWonderkid]

glazbagun said:

I voted Remain because it was the only pragmatic choice, but now we've left I can't see us ever being let back in on the same terms. We've ceded power like total fking morons, no one's going to volunteer to give us some back.

Edited by glazbagun on Saturday 25th June 00:33

100% this.

However, following the 1975 vote, European sceptics did not give up because "democracy has spoken, will of the people" etc. From day 1 they chipped away at the Common Market/EEC/EU, constantly undermining it and eroding trust in it until, 41 yeas later, they got another vote. And do you know what, they was absolutely their democratic right. No one has to like the result of an election or referendum, and they are free to moan about it and undermine the winners.

I won't be around in 40 years, but I'm going to spend the rest of my days chipping away at Brexit, moaning about it whenever I can, and undermining Brexit and it's leaders. I've been doing it for 5 years now, and to be honest, I'm quite enjoying it.

[Magnum 475]

Abdul Abulbul Amir said:

Agreed, and I call out the Remainer led revision of the last few years of parliamentary history when they complain about the current status of the UK-EU relationship when their actions after the referendum results directly led to it.

No. Please don't blame those who didn't want Brexit for the consequences of Brexit. You voted for it you, and you got what you voted for. It's not the fault of those who didn't want it, it's not the fault of the EU.

It is the fault of those who campaigned based on lies (Improved fishing industry, Turkey joining the EU and mass immigration etc). It is, to a lesser degree, the fault of those who voted for it.

You voted leave. You got what you voted for.