The UK Politics & Brexit Thread

[markjay]

So why was the referendum a mistake? This is a point that I have repeatedly argued on this thread - and perhaps it's high time for me to put it to rest, simply because those who have disagreed with it thus far, are unlikely to change their minds regardless of how many times I repeat it...

I see two major issues with referendums in general - and this also applies to both ScotRef and BrexitRef:

The first, is that referendums are in fact a form of direct democracy and as such run on a parallel course to our age-old system of representative democracy.

The difference is that in a direct democracy, voters make decisions, while in a representative democracy, voters choose who they want to be governed by.

In an attemp to circumnavigate this potential legal minefield, the referendum was originally defined as 'not legally binding', in fact saying that Parliament has the last word.

And, when the results of the referendum vote nearly ended-up on a collision course (OK, so not a parallel, for any pedantic out there....) with the vote of our elected representatives in Parliament, Remainers insisted - through the courts - that 'the law shall prevail' (see Gina Miller), while Leavers claimed - via public media - that Parliament was 'not fit for purpose' (see Nigel Farage).

Both sides shouted at the top of their voices that their form of democracy was the 'right' one, and the other form of democracy was unacceptable.

This had the potential of becoming the undoing of our democracy - the equivalent of exploding a hand grenade in your own living room and hoping for the best - not a good idea.

The second issue is that we don't have a Constitution in the same way that the US does (and I am aware that this sentence might cause some dissent), where a two-thirds majority is required in order to overturne certain long-established principles.

In this case, I am horrified that the future of our nation can de decided, virtually, by less than 1% of voters. When it comes to significant changes to the status quo that will have a dramatic impact on our lives, I personally believe that the threshold to winning the vote in such cases must be significantly higher than just 'over 50%'.

In the case of the Brexit referendum, as I previously pointed-out, had 700,000 people not voted the way they did, we would have stayed in the EU. In other words, our faith as a nation is down to how 700,000 people felt on the day.

These are irreversible steps... what if a million people changed their minds? We rejoin the EU next year? To my mind, there has to be demonstrable strong will among the population to make a dramatic change, not just a fleeting majority on referendum day.

And to Leavers I say, you've won, you've had your way, but hand-on-heart, do you not see my point?

Incidentally, I feel the same about ScotRef. And, it's not just because I am (or rather, was) a Remainer - I truly belive in certain principles regarding the structure and organisation of our society, and as proof, after the referendum I supported getting-on with getting Brexit done, simply because we've laid down the rules, played the game, and one side won. At that point I believed that we should acknowledge past mistakes and try and make sure we do not repeat them in future, but at the same time we should accept the previous results or we risk pulling the rug under the very fabric of being an nation based on an organised society.

 

[m80]

So why was the referendum a mistake? This is a point that I have repeatedly argued on this thread - and perhaps it's high time for me to put it to rest, simply because those who have disagreed with it thus far, are unlikely to change their minds regardless of how many times I repeat it...

I see two major issues with referendums in general - and this also applies to both ScotRef and BrexitRef:

The first, is that referendums are in fact a form of direct democracy and as such run on a parallel course to our age-old system of representative democracy.

The difference is that in a direct democracy, voters make decisions, while in a representative democracy, voters choose who they want to be governed by.

In an attemp to circumnavigate this potential legal minefield, the referendum was originally defined as 'not legally binding', in fact saying that Parliament has the last word.

And, when the results of the referendum vote nearly ended-up on a collision course (OK, so not a parallel, for any pedantic out there....) with the vote of our elected representatives in Parliament, Remainers insisted - through the courts - that 'the law shall prevail' (see Gina Miller), while Leavers claimed - via public media - that Parliament was 'not fit for purpose' (see Nigel Farage).

Both sides shouted at the top of their voices that their form of democracy was the 'right' one, and the other form of democracy was unacceptable.

This had the potential of becoming the undoing of our democracy - the equivalent of exploding a hand grenade in your own living room and hoping for the best - not a good idea.

The second issue is that we don't have a Constitution in the same way that the US does (and I am aware that this sentence might cause some dissent), where a two-thirds majority is required in order to overturne certain long-established principles.

In this case, I am horrified that the future of our nation can de decided, virtually, by less than 1% of voters. When it comes to significant changes to the status quo that will have a dramatic impact on our lives, I personally believe that the threshold to winning the vote in such cases must be significantly higher than just 'over 50%'.

In the case of the Brexit referendum, as I previously pointed-out, had 700,000 people not voted the way they did, we would have stayed in the EU. In other words, our faith as a nation is down to how 700,000 people felt on the day.

These are irreversible steps... what if a million people changed their minds? We rejoin the EU next year? To my mind, there has to be demonstrable strong will among the population to make a dramatic change, not just a fleeting majority on referendum day.

And to Leavers I say, you've won, you've had your way, but hand-on-heart, do you not see my point?

Incidentally, I feel the same about ScotRef. And, it's not just because I am (or rather, was) a Remainer - I truly belive in certain principles regarding the structure and organisationof our society, and as proof, after the referendum I supported getting-on with getting Brexit done, simply because we've laid down the rules, played the game, and one side won. At that point I believed that we should acknowledge past mistakes and try and make sure we do not repeat them in future, but at the same time we should accept the previous results or we risk pulling the rug under the very fabric of being an nation based on an organised society.

I'm glad you feel you are able to put this to rest, it would be nice on a done is done let's move on 'together' kind of way.
I don't see it though. We are out and I don't expect a reversal but the discontent will play out for a while yet.

What you do demonstrate, well in my view, it that we need a constitution that sets out the criteria for such things, as far as possible to prevent biased interpretations causing so many problems as they did.
'Should' the referendum have been carried as it was then a more united front would have been much harder for the eu to work its magic on.

 

[DSM10000]

So why was the referendum a mistake? This is a point that I have repeatedly argued on this thread - and perhaps it's high time for me to put it to rest, simply because those who have disagreed with it thus far, are unlikely to change their minds regardless of how many times I repeat it...

I see two major issues with referendums in general - and this also applies to both ScotRef and BrexitRef:

The first, is that referendums are in fact a form of direct democracy and as such run on a parallel course to our age-old system of representative democracy.

The difference is that in a direct democracy, voters make decisions, while in a representative democracy, voters choose who they want to be governed by.

In an attemp to circumnavigate this potential legal minefield, the referendum was originally defined as 'not legally binding', in fact saying that Parliament has the last word.

And, when the results of the referendum vote nearly ended-up on a collision course (OK, so not a parallel, for any pedantic out there....) with the vote of our elected representatives in Parliament, Remainers insisted - through the courts - that 'the law shall prevail' (see Gina Miller), while Leavers claimed - via public media - that Parliament was 'not fit for purpose' (see Nigel Farage).

Both sides shouted at the top of their voices that their form of democracy was the 'right' one, and the other form of democracy was unacceptable.

This had the potential of becoming the undoing of our democracy - the equivalent of exploding a hand grenade in your own living room and hoping for the best - not a good idea.

The second issue is that we don't have a Constitution in the same way that the US does (and I am aware that this sentence might cause some dissent), where a two-thirds majority is required in order to overturne certain long-established principles.

In this case, I am horrified that the future of our nation can de decided, virtually, by less than 1% of voters. When it comes to significant changes to the status quo that will have a dramatic impact on our lives, I personally believe that the threshold to winning the vote in such cases must be significantly higher than just 'over 50%'.

In the case of the Brexit referendum, as I previously pointed-out, had 700,000 people not voted the way they did, we would have stayed in the EU. In other words, our faith as a nation is down to how 700,000 people felt on the day.

And to Leavers I say, you've won, you've had your way, but hand-on-heart, do you not see my point?

Incidentally, I feel the same about ScotRef. And, it's not just because I am (or rather, was) a Remainer - I truly belive in certain principles regarding the structure and organisationof our society, and as proof, after the referendum I supported getting-on with getting Brexit done, simply because we've laid down the rules, played the game, and one side won. At that point I believed that we should acknowledge past mistakes and try and make sure we do not repeat them in future, but at the same time we should accept the previous results or we risk pulling the rug under the very fabric of being an nation based on an organised society.

I can appreciate the logic of your argument in some aspects but surely it is self-defeating in others?

In January 2013, Cameron delivered the Bloomberg speech and promised that, should the Conservatives win a parliamentary majority at the 2015 general election, the British government would negotiate more favourable arrangements for continuing British membership of the EU, before holding a referendum on whether the UK would remain a member or leave the EU.

The Conservative Party had then published a draft EU Referendum Bill in May 2013 and outlined its plans for renegotiation followed by an in-out vote

As the Conservatives were elected with this in their manifesto then surely they enacted the referendum as part of representative democracy?

Such a referendum was always going to be a binary choice and that brought with it the possibility of a very close result but it was an election and manifesto promise the voters had prior notice of and, in the majority voted for twice, once at the election and again in 2016

 

[st13phil]

And to Leavers I say, you've won, you've had your way, but hand-on-heart, do you not see my point?

I do see your point, and I have mixed feelings about the use of referendums in a representative democracy. However...

When virtually all the political parties in the country have the same position on a particular matter (not just Brexit), it's impossible to argue that those who disagree with that position have a voice. Under those circumstances, how can those who disagree - who are potentially a majority - get their wishes met? Violent revolution?

So in short, I agree that referendums are divisive and don't sit well in a representative democracy but they are a less worse option than the alternatives when the population and their politicians disagree on a single issue.

 

[Dryce]

+1

Funnily enough, the covid crisis is already exposing the most basic flaws in the EU Federal model in a way everyone can understand and relate to ... the vaccine hijacking and cancellation of Schengen open borders.

.... but you don't know if the UK being part of the EU would have altered the EU's approach - it may well be that the fully participating UK would have impacted the EU strategy.

 

[Swotty]

.... but you don't know if the UK being part of the EU would have altered the EU's approach - it may well be that the fully participating UK would have impacted the EU strategy.

Perhaps, but I suspect not.

The one truism for the moment is that Brexit took away the EU's ability to direct the UK to divert or share its vaccine supplies.

But, of course, we would still be waiting for those supplies as part of the Brussels "co-operative" approach.

 

[m80]

.... but you don't know if the UK being part of the EU would have altered the EU's approach - it may well be that the fully participating UK would have impacted the EU strategy.

Very possible,
but the eu don't like alternative views,
we followed their rules (unlike Hungary),
more likely our over 65's would have done w/o till some time in the future as it was our using the AZ on the elderly that demonstrated it's positive effectiveness.

 

[Swotty]

The EU does not do referendums .... it ignored France, Ireland, the Dutch and the Danes.

There is growing discussion in the French press and online about their 2005 referendum result to reject (by 55% to 45%) the proposed EU Constitution, which was just ignored. Macron is on interview record as saying he would not allow another referendum on the EU as the French would vote to leave.

Macron is becoming increasingly unpopular as he is seen to be favouring the EU ahead of France in his drive (destiny?) to succeed Merkel as de facto Leader of the EU. At the moment, Le Pen would run him close on an immigration and EU referendum ticket .. even the Left are saying they would not vote for Macron in the final run off. There are still 14 months to go, though.

So ... UK referendum and implement the result, or be ignored by the EU?

As Juncker said in 2005 - "If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue' ".

Or back in 1999 - "We decide on something, leave it lying around and wait and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most people don't understand what has been decided, we continue step by step until there is no turning back".

Friends and allies indeed.

 

[Deleted member 65149]

The difference is that in a direct democracy, voters make decisions, while in a representative democracy, voters choose who they want to be governed by.

Do voters “choose who they want to be governed by”, or do they choose who they don’t want to be governed by?

More and more I read of the animosity towards different political parties/representatives and I can’t help wondering what proportion of those who go to the polling booths do so in an attempt to keep those they hate out of government.

For most of my adult life I’ve made a concerted effort not to fall into this trap. However this has made it very difficult for me to put an x in a box next to someone I want when it’s mostly a case of choosing the least bad of an unimpressive bunch.

Every time we approach voting day, whether it be for local elections, national elections, Brexit or whatever, I hear folk shouting out how important it is to vote. I agree that it is important, but how do you make that decision when the available options are so unattractive?

Accordingly, I often find myself not voting at all. It’s not sitting on the fence; it’s not being able to climb onto the fence in the first place.

What I refuse to do however, is rebel against whatever decision has been taken by the majority of voters. I see it as being in my best interests to support those decisions and make them work as well as possible. As someone commented earlier, throwing a hand grenade into your own living room may well vent your feelings, but it doesn’t help you or anyone else to move forward.

 

[GeeJayW]

It’s so important to the EU executive, to see a struggling UK economy emerge following Brexit. If the UK can demonstrate economic success, that is really not the message they want... at all.

On the so-called ‘deal’; that was always going to be stitch-up if at all possible. It didn’t help that the UK’s negotiating position was and continues to be routinely undermined by remoaners throughout the entire process.

It also didn’t help that we were taken into the process by a Prime Minister (call me Dave) who was so desperate to take votes away from UKIP, he promised a Brexit referendum and then promptly buggered off. This compounded further by a weak Prime Minister, that was herself a remainer. By the time Boris got involved as PM it was already a complete and utter mess (no doubt helped by his ‘contributions’ earlier on), with the EU believing that the UK would bottle it and rejoin. They didn’t believe that the UK would go with a hard Brexit on WTO terms, and so it proved. Result is a very tangled set of arrangements that will take decades to sort out, if they ever are.

Like any divorce, Brexit was always going to be messy and so it is. Worse to come IMHO.

 

[C240Sport97]

Brexit, Indyref1, Gina Miller case, Parliament obstructing the will of executive via a helpful Speaker and the Supreme Court ruling Johnson's prorogation unlawful together demonstrate the strength, flexibility, durability and adaptability of UK democracy, institutions and the wonderful common sense of the Great British Public.

Despite all the turmoil of the last 5 years, UK has not crumbled, descended into chaos, suffered from anarchy, experienced mass rioting or collapsed economically.

it is not nearly as bad as the press makes it out to be.

 

[GeeJayW]

it is not nearly as bad as the press makes it out to be.

Thank goodness for that!

 

[davymead]

In the case of the Brexit referendum, as I previously pointed-out, had 700,000 people not voted the way they did, we would have stayed in the EU. In other words, our faith as a nation is down to how 700,000 people felt on the day.

Intriguing perception of the result. I never looked on it that way, for me it was very clearly the silent majority versus the machine. That is virtually all parliamentarians, the entire news media, in fact all of the media, a huge host of personalities, a plethora of so called experts, and obviously to include anybody rich enough to have a vested interest. This undoubtedly meant it was always going to be a titanic one sided battle. Had I had a chance of placing a bet, it would have been for a Remainer victory, although I couldn’t have been a more committed Brexiteer, and couldn’t have smiled any wider at the result.

 

[Swotty]

It’s so important to the EU executive, to see a struggling UK economy emerge following Brexit. If the UK can demonstrate economic success, that is really not the message they want... at all.

On the so-called ‘deal’; that was always going to be stitch-up if at all possible. It didn’t help that the UK’s negotiating position was and continues to be routinely undermined by remoaners throughout the entire process.

It also didn’t help that we were taken into the process by a Prime Minister (call me Dave) who was so desperate to take votes away from UKIP, he promised a Brexit referendum and then promptly buggered off. This compounded further by a weak Prime Minister, that was herself a remainer. By the time Boris got involved as PM it was already a complete and utter mess (no doubt helped by his ‘contributions’ earlier on), with the EU believing that the UK would bottle it and rejoin. They didn’t believe that the UK would go with a hard Brexit on WTO terms, and so it proved. Result is a very tangled set of arrangements that will take decades to sort out, if they ever are.

Like any divorce, Brexit was always going to be messy and so it is. Worse to come IMHO.

Apparently Leadsom was streets ahead in constituency polls by some 70 - 30% and would probably have won easily. She was basically undermined and attacked by the Tory establishment for every slip and trip whereas May was described as a pair of safe hands, despite her disastrous long stint as Home Secretary.

I think history will show that Gove knifing Boris and Leadsom being hounded out of the race, meaning May's no-rival appointment was a coronation and not requiring constituency approval, was deliberate rather than accidental.

 

[Swotty]

Intriguing perception of the result. I never looked on it that way, for me it was very clearly the silent majority versus the machine. That is virtually all parliamentarians, the entire news media, in fact all of the media, a huge host of personalities, a plethora of so called experts, and obviously to include anybody rich enough to have a vested interest. This undoubtedly meant it was always going to be a titanic one sided battle. Had I had a chance of placing a bet, it would have been for a Remainer victory, although I couldn’t have been a more committed Brexiteer, and couldn’t have smiled any wider at the result.

In the 2005 French EU referendum, polls in the MSM were predicting a 71% YES vote. In fact NO won by 55 to 45%.

It was still ignored as though it never happened.

 

[GeeJayW]

Had I had a chance of placing a bet, it would have been for a Remainer victory, although I couldn’t have been a more committed Brexiteer, and couldn’t have smiled any wider at the result.

I pretty sure that ‘call me Dave’ was also confident of a Remain result. I’m also convinced that many ‘leave’ voters only did so in order to wave a couple of fingers at Cameron, without considering that the end result would turn out the way it did.

 

[davymead]

In the 2005 French EU referendum, polls in the MSM were predicting a 71% YES vote. In fact NO won by 55 to 45%.

It was still ignored as though it never happened.

I’ve always thought that the machine’s blatantly obvious and nauseating bias WAS a huge part of the reason why they lost. Classic Brit stoicism IMO.

 

[markjay]

...I, along with the majority of our friends (all well educated professional people including some both living in and some born in Central European countries, so not the normal " demographic as often painted by remainers) had made up our minds years before the referendum was offered so it matters not what was said, claimed, suggested etc

We, as I suspect was the case for the vast majority of those voting leave had simply had enough of an organisation that has far exceeded it's original remit without recourse to agreement from it's electorate, was patently undemocratic when it came to placing people into the very senior positions within the governing structures, was opaque when it came to publishing audited accounts of how our money was spent, has failing economic policies skewed to helping the Northern member states and, one which has a significantly history of ignoring or overriding member states democratically expressed views when they are not in line with those of the Commission...

Fair point. I have no doubt that many Leave voters - a majority of them, even - just wanted out of the EU, regardless of what anything had to say about it.

But this is how all political propaganda campaigns are designed - they ignore the 'base' - i.e. those who will vote for them anyway - and concentrate on sending messages to those undecided few who will, inevitably, decide the outcome.

The fabricated figures and facts (on both sides) were not designed to get Brexiters or Europhiles to change their minds - they were designed to impact on the relatively tiny minority who weren't sure which way to vote.

 

[C240Sport97]

The fabricated figures and facts (on both sides) were not designed to get Brexiters or Europhiles to change their minds - they were designed to impact on the relatively tiny minority who weren't sure which way to vote.

That is the essence of fighting elections.

 

[Big Janner]

Do voters “choose who they want to be governed by”, or do they choose who they don’t want to be governed by?

I would suggest both.
I have, in the past, voted for;
- who I would prefer to be in government (I preferred their position and plans).
- who I definately didn't want to govern (I voted for the least worst option, as I saw it).
- The Monster Raving Loony Party; in protest at the poor (as I saw it) positions of the main parties.

It is my firm belief that there are those that will;
- vote for a single party throughout their entire lives (a dogmatic belief)
- never vote (if you don't vote, you can't complain)
- vote according to the proposals of a party at the election, no matter the colour of the party logo
- always vote, come what may
- vote occasionally, if it is convenient

Who is right?
All of them. We live in a free democracy, where we are allowed to do all the above and more.