The UK Politics & Brexit Thread

[Deleted member 6183]

The point I am making is that (regardless of any of the politicians intent behind it) this had to be a decision taken independently by the voters.

When the proposition to join the EEC was put forward there were many in the country who strongly opposed joining although the Government of the day were strongly in favour, without a referendum many who held those contrary views would not have had a proper chance to show that, the same with the Scottish referendum or do you think that the UK Government knew best and should not have offered Scotland it's chance?

It is the principle that is important not your perceived machinations of politicians behind it but I doubt you are able to see that because as others have said you continue to pick, argue and obfuscate at every post that does not follow your own dogmatic views so I think it is time to re-instate the ignore button for you as you are not adding anything to this thread but are just dragging out the same tired arguments .

Goodbye!

Why is it that when a member decides to ignore another they feel that they have to announce it?

 

[st13phil]

It's a well known fact in certain isolated places that no Remainer has ever expressed the view, nor propagated the message that Leavers are thickos. In fact, it's such a well known fact that no one has bothered to analyse it

"Remainers are following a well-trodden path to polarized group think, dismissing their social “inferiors” who voted for Brexit as stupid, racist and easily misled", according to Dr. Philip Corr, professor of psychology and behavioral economics at the University of London, and Dr. Simon Stuart, a clinical psychologist.

More here for those who've not heard the message

 

[markjay]

So universal democracy when the big parties control what's on offer.

And selective democracy for a few on other stuff.

UKIP were banging on about Brexit for ages. Anyone in favour of Brexit could have voted for them. They gained a lot of momentum in the run-up to Brexit but never quite made it to the top spot.

I guess the Brexit issue was just not important enough to a siginifact number of voters, and the majority voted instead based on other political and social agenda which they prioritised over Brexit. So UKIP and Nigel Farage never made it to No. 10.

But how is this a failing of our democratic system?

I'm not entirely happy with that. I think that referendums (referenda?) are risky things. But the EUref demonstrated itself as an example of something that the country as a whole had a different opinion on compared with the overal establishment - including those parties.

I don't quite see how 'the establishment' comes into the debate?

Yes, David Cameron PM was all in favour of Remain, but many senior Tories were opposed to it. As were senior opposition members.

Put differently... in what way does David Cameron represent 'the establishment', while Michael Gove, Boris Johnson, David Davies, Jacob Rees-Mogg do not?

Consider what has been said in other posts - it was only offered up on the assumption that the result would go with the status quo and that it would silence the agitators. Some suggest that it would not have been offered up if the eventual result had been expected. How moral is that?

So are we an agreement that the referendum was a bad idea? I'll even concede that it was born in sin.

 

[DSM10000]

[QMark
UOTE="markjay, post: 2671669, member: 19590"]UKIP were banging on about Brexit for ages. Anyone in favour of Brexit could have voted for them. They gained a lot of momentum in the run-up to Brexit but never quite made it to the top spot.

I guess the Brexit issue was just not important enough to a siginifact number of voters, and the majority voted instead based on other political and social agenda which they prioritised over Brexit. So UKIP and Nigel Farage never made it to No. 10.

But how is this a failing of our democratic system?

.[/QUOTE]
Mark

You are better than this!

People did not vote in their droves for UKIP in Parliamentary elections precisely because most voters are thoughtful about how they cast their vote. Many Leave supporters also want a lot more from a Government than one trick UKIP could ever offer.

Some people did move their votes in a number of local elections and a clear message was sent to all politicians.

As for agreeing that the referendum was a mistake............

No UK Government would have had the balls or overall support to take us out of the UK, over 17 million people however did wish to express a democratic free will to do so. Are you seriously suggesting they should have been permanently suppressed?

We can have many intellectual arguments about the definition and application of democracy but ultimately it is down to the choice of the people and once that choice is made then it must be honoured.

 

[Dryce]

UKIP were banging on about Brexit for ages. Anyone in favour of Brexit could have voted for them. They gained a lot of momentum in the run-up to Brexit but never quite made it to the top spot.

You might give some of the leavers (well a lot of them) credit for not just jumping o the UKIP bandwagon.

So are we an agreement that the referendum was a bad idea? I'll even concede that it was born in sin.

I don't see how you could come to that conclusion.

I think I said they are risky. And I think I also asked the question regarding the morality of it only being offered on the basis of the establishemnt's prefered result.

 

[Dryce]

Why is it that when a member decides to ignore another they feel that they have to announce it?

It's the law.

And as it's there to be broken I don't obey it. The select privileged few on my ignore list don't need to know who they are.

 

[Scott_F]

The point I am making is that (regardless of any of the politicians intent behind it) this had to be a decision taken independently by the voters.

When the proposition to join the EEC was put forward there were many in the country who strongly opposed joining although the Government of the day were strongly in favour, without a referendum many who held those contrary views would not have had a proper chance to show that, the same with the Scottish referendum or do you think that the UK Government knew best and should not have offered Scotland it's chance?

It is the principle that is important not your perceived machinations of politicians behind it but I doubt you are able to see that because as others have said you continue to pick, argue and obfuscate at every post that does not follow your own dogmatic views so I think it is time to re-instate the ignore button for you as you are not adding anything to this thread but are just dragging out the same tired arguments .

Goodbye!

This post demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the reasons behind the 2016 referendum.

It didn't have to be a "decision taken independently by voters"; it was a decision that didn't have to be made at all. Had Labour won the 2015 General Election, there would have been no referendum, we would have sailed on as before and this discussion would not be taking place.

The Conservative Party's relationship with Europe has always been far more problematic and divisive than Labour's. As far back as 25 years ago, Prime Minister John Major infamously described three of his senior Cabinet members as "b@astards" due to the constant problems that their Eurosceptic stance was giving him. In the 2010 Election, they failed to win a majority against Gordon Brown's tired Labour Government that was there for the talking and they were forced into five years of uncomfortable coalition. As the 2015 Election approached, all the polls suggested that they wouldn't win and they were deeply worried about the inroads that UKIP were making into their core vote. So to try to head off this threat and boost their flagging support, Cameron took a huge gamble and promised a referendum on our EU membership and ended up losing the vote, his Premiership and his entire political career overnight. No other major party made such a foolhardy pledge as part of their manifesto because none of them felt as threatened by UKIP.

So there were no "principles" involved at all, it was pure party politics and my "perceived machinations of politicians" is the reality of what actually took place. And I would rather be guilty of "picking, arguing and obfuscating" (although I would simply call it having a different opinion to yours and saying as much) than be guilty of failing to understand the background behind the entire issue and then choosing to publically advertise the fact.

 

[Scott_F]

Dup.

 

[Dryce]

It didn't have to be a "decision taken independently by voters"; it was a decision that didn't have to be made at all. Had Labour won the 2015 General Election, there would have been no referendum, we would have sailed on as before and this discussion would not be taking place.

Hmmmmmm.

I'm troubled by this view. I think it's a bit like Bill Clinton's denial about Lewinsky.

Those at Westminster could say: 'We did not deny the voters the opportunity to express their opinion on the issue'.

Well yes that's true. But it conveniently misses the point that the voters were offered a selection of things to vote on and that selection neatly allowed the system as such to circumvent offering them an opportunity to vote on a significant issue.

I think if we had sailed on as before then UKIP would have grown as a protest movement and gained more traction. And that the number of votes it stripped from Labour would have caused complications as time progressed. Barring some other crisis by the time a GE was called in 2020 the poltical landscape would have been changing in ways that we would be discussing and the focus would be on the EU - and it might well be Labour or both parties offering up a referendum on their manifestos to be held around 2021 or 2022.

It's an inconvenient truth for anybody thinking that a Labour win in 2015 could have resolved this long term that UKIP were taking votes from Labour while the media tended to play on them taking votes from the Conservatives. If that trend had continued and I think it is likely that it would have then that would have left Labour under pressure north of London.

Political fortunes can also change dramatically. The Labour collapse in Scotland in 2015 is perhaps now being forgotten - but is a warning to any party that thinks it has a solid foundation.

 

[renault12ts]

Dup.

No swearing!

 

[Peter103]

Good post Scott, shame DSM10000 won't read it as you've been "buttoned out!"
PS, I feel your pain.

 

[Scott_F]

Good post Scott, shame DSM10000 won't read it as you've been "buttoned out!"
PS, I feel your pain.

He has plenty of form in this area.

When threads don't go his way he's an habitual teddy-thrower and like most teddy-throwers it's important to him that everyone knows he's thrown his teddies.

 

[Yugguy]

It's a mistake to think UKIP support was all Tory, far from it. I do agree that Cameron never though he would lose the referendum. I remember his face in the post interviews, he looked completely shell-shocked.

I am still unsure as why asking the question about EU membership is such a bad thing?

A common trading bloc is an excellent idea, countries pooling buying and selling power to gain a better deal for all members is a great idea.

Trying to tie countries with disparate economies and disparate policital leanings was never going to work.

 

[DSM10000]

It is truly pathetic that remoaners keep putting forward the argument that we should never have been given the chance to voice an opinion on our EU membership because ,presumably , they know better than those 17 million plus with different views.

Our continued participation in the EU was / is a hugely contentious issue, the only way to settle it and to move forward was a referendum.

We are entitled to vote on matters of such importance and to keep repeating that the electorate should never have been offered a the chance to express an opinion is frankly appalling. No one knew or indeed knows what the outcome of Brexit will be, not the Treasury, not the IMF etc, etc. Look at how good their long term predictions have been at times.

 

[Yugguy]

This posted earlier is a very interesting read

https://www.politico.eu/article/brexit-anxiety-disorder-britain-middle-class/

"The underlying notion seems to be that they should have listened to ‘their betters’ — rather like naughty school children, if only they had ‘paid more attention in class.’”

This is exactly what I mean, this assumption that the reason we want to leave the EU is just because we are too stupid or badly educated to see how great it is.

 

[Scott_F]

Hmmmmmm.

I'm troubled by this view. I think it's a bit like Bill Clinton's denial about Lewinsky.

Those at Westminster could say: 'We did not deny the voters the opportunity to express their opinion on the issue'.

I can't see any relevance here at all.

Well yes that's true. But it conveniently misses the point that the voters were offered a selection of things to vote on and that selection neatly allowed the system as such to circumvent offering them an opportunity to vote on a significant issue.

I think if we had sailed on as before then UKIP would have grown as a protest movement and gained more traction. And that the number of votes it stripped from Labour would have caused complications as time progressed. Barring some other crisis by the time a GE was called in 2020 the poltical landscape would have been changing in ways that we would be discussing and the focus would be on the EU - and it might well be Labour or both parties offering up a referendum on their manifestos to be held around 2021 or 2022.

It's an inconvenient truth for anybody thinking that a Labour win in 2015 could have resolved this long term that UKIP were taking votes from Labour while the media tended to play on them taking votes from the Conservatives. If that trend had continued and I think it is likely that it would have then that would have left Labour under pressure north of London.

Political fortunes can also change dramatically. The Labour collapse in Scotland in 2015 is perhaps now being forgotten - but is a warning to any party that thinks it has a solid foundation.

Of course things change but it was the Tories not Labour that were threatened most by UKIP and it has always been the Tory Party that has been riven by splits over Europe in a way that Labour, or indeed any other party, has not. Labour has never even been close to offering a referendum on our EU membership and had they won in 2015 what they may have done in response to the UKIP threat is anyone's guess.

But the fact remains that the 2016 referendum wasn't a result of any wider demand from the electorate to have their say. It came about purely because one party thought that it could gain long-term political capital by securing a vote to Remain and by doing do finally silence UKIP.

 

[DSM10000]

The referendum result showed how out of touch our political "leaders" were (possibly still are...) with underlying opinion.

Who knows it may bring other benefits in terms of better engagement between those we elect and those that cast the votes in future?

As usual though this thread is just going around in circles with more ingrained dogma than direction..............

 

[markjay]

Typically, seismic events tend to influence the political map.

The 'political map' being the balance between the parties in parliament.

Brexit had near-zero effect through. Apart from the near-collapse of UKIP who became a spent force, and whose voters' votes went to other parties.

The balance of power between the Tories, Labour, and LibDems was not affected by Brexit. It is almost an a-political event.

Which is an odd situation... usually in a democracy, parties are 'punished' by the voters when they get important things wrong.

But in this case it is all personal... a bad outcome will be seen as a personal failure of May. But it will not affect the Tories as a party, with die-hard Tory Brexiters such as Gove, Johnson, and Rees-Mogg ready to take over from May in due course.

 

[Yugguy]

Labour have never offered a referendum because:
a) they were never in a position to do so when it became a pressing question
b) whichever way the decision went they could blame the Tories for messing it up.

I also don't believe it was all just Cameron's gamble. There was a groundswell of discontent that had to be addressed sooner or later.

 

[st13phil]

Cameron took a huge gamble and promised a referendum on our EU membership and ended up losing the vote, his Premiership and his entire political career overnight.

I don't disagree with that analysis. I do not, however, subscribe to the view that had he not made the gamble it would all have somehow gone away though.

Rather, my belief is that had it not been Cameron in 2016 then it would likely have been someone else around 2020/21 as there was significant dissatisfaction amongst the electorate with our EU membership that was becoming ever harder for the mainstream parties to ignore. UKIP was essentially a single-issue party with some rather unpleasant baggage yet it managed to achieve 12.6% of the vote in the 2015 election, and that was after Cameron had promised to hold a referendum on EU membership if he were returned to power. My guess is that the level of support for UKIP would have continued to grow to the point where efforts to marginalise it would cease to work and one (or both) of the mainstream parties would have been compelled to offer a referendum on the UK's EU membership.

In that respect, had Cameron not made the gamble he did when he did, it would have just been kicking the can down the road and we'd be (probably ) arguing over Brexit in 2022/23.