Brexit - the next steps

[jeremyp]

If I vote a certain way I'm not doing anything with your money which is what you claimed.

No I didn't,, I claimed you were doing it with everybody's money.

We will all be relatively less wealthy as a result of Brexit than if we stayed. There will be people living on the streets who would otherwise have been housed. There will be people not getting NHS treatment who would otherwise have received that treatment. The reason why these things will be happening is because 52% of voters thought saying fuck you to the EU was a reasonable use of billions of pounds.

Why would the EU regard the UK as being a political enemy?

Because we have deserted them. We're the kid that left in a strop taking our ball with us because we didn't get exactly our way. If you think the other EU nations will be disposed to be nice to us in the future, you must be very naive.

[ProfessorDavey]

No I didn't,, I claimed you were doing it with everybody's money.

We will all be relatively less wealthy as a result of Brexit than if we stayed. There will be people living on the streets who would otherwise have been housed. There will be people not getting NHS treatment who would otherwise have received that treatment. The reason why these things will be happening is because 52% of voters thought saying fuck you to the EU was a reasonable use of billions of pounds.

It's actually worse than that - all 65 million people in the UK will be affected, on the basis of the votes of just 17 million, or just 26% of the population.

That is why the government must act in the best interests of the 65 million, not just the 17 million - even less so the smaller number again of hard brexiteers.

[Rhiannon]

I find it hard to stomach that the future security of my kids has been put hugely at risk because of the lies told by brexiters on both the right and the left.

[Stranger]

Just read this:

In 2016 our then Prime Minister David Cameron caved in to pressure from his backbenchers to hold a referendum on British membership of the EU. This was a question of immense complexity involving sophisticated economic ramifications, the full extent of which became only too apparent later in the year when prodigal regiments of lawyers and civil servants had to be employed to cope with the administrative and legal load. If ever there was a matter for lengthy parliamentary debate and cabinet discussion heavily informed by advice from highly qualified experts, it was membership of the EU. Could there be a question less suited to a single plebiscite decision? And yet we were told to mistrust experts (‘You, the voter, are the expert here’) by politicians who presumably would demand an expert surgeon to remove their appendix or an expert pilot to fly their plane. So the decision was handed over to non-experts like me, even people whose stated motives for voting included ‘Well, it’s nice to have a change,’ and ‘Well, I preferred the old blue passport to the European purple one.’ For the sake of short-term political manoeuvring within his own party, David Cameron played Russian roulette with the long-term future of his country, of Europe, even of the world.

And so, to the precautionary principle. The referendum was about a major change, a political revolution whose pervasive effects would persist for decades if not longer. A huge constitutional change, the sort of change where, if ever, the precautionary principle should have been paramount. When it comes to constitutional amendments, the United States requires a two-thirds majority in both houses of Congress followed by ratification by three-quarters of the state legislatures. Arguably that bar is set a bit too high, but the principle is sound. David Cameron’s referendum, by contrast, asked for only a simple majority on a single yes/no question. Did it not occur to him that so radical a constitutional step might merit stipulation of a two-thirds majority? Or at least 60 per cent? Perhaps a minimum voter turnout to make sure such a major decision was not taken by a minority of the electorate? Maybe a second vote, a fortnight later, to make sure the populace really meant it? Or a second round a year later, when the terms and consequences of withdrawal had become at least minimally apparent? But no, all Cameron demanded was anything over 50 per cent in a single yes/no vote, at a time when opinion polls were yo-yo-ing up and down and the likely result was changing day by day. It is said that a leftover statute of British common law stipulates that ‘no idiot shall be admitted to parliament’. You’d think at least the stricture might apply to Prime Ministers.

-- Dawkins, R (2017). Science in the Soul: Selected Writings of a Passionate Rationalist. Transworld. Kindle Edition.

[Humph Warden Bennett]

I find it hard to stomach that the future security of my kids has been put hugely at risk because of the lies told by brexiters on both the right and the left.

Spot on. I have a personal stake since my kids are now "mixed race" thanks to Brexiteer bigoted shit.

Our kids both have UK Passports. Ukip can fuck off. And YES I have given Ukip people a hard time when they campaigned on our Market Square.

[jakswan]

If you vote in a particular way and that results in changes in policies which make people poorer then that is, in part, your responsibility. You own that decision and you own the consequences that arise from that decision.

If you fail to persuade the majority to vote in a particular way and that results in changes in policies which make people poorer then that is, in part, your responsibility. You own that decision and you own the consequences that arise from that decision.

[jakswan]

No I didn't,, I claimed you were doing it with everybody's money.

Don't see how that changes anything.

We will all be relatively less wealthy as a result of Brexit than if we stayed. There will be people living on the streets who would otherwise have been housed. There will be people not getting NHS treatment who would otherwise have received that treatment. The reason why these things will be happening is because 52% of voters thought saying fuck you to the EU was a reasonable use of billions of pounds.

So next time we will check in with your first to see if its ok to vote a certain way?

Because we have deserted them. We're the kid that left in a strop taking our ball with us because we didn't get exactly our way. If you think the other EU nations will be disposed to be nice to us in the future, you must be very naive.

Neither naive or stupid enough to think that your analogy is representative of how nation states work.

[jakswan]

It's actually worse than that - all 65 million people in the UK will be affected, on the basis of the votes of just 17 million, or just 26% of the population.

That is why the government must act in the best interests of the 65 million, not just the 17 million - even less so the smaller number again of hard brexiteers.

The Govt / parliament have invoked article 50 the only way to stop Brexit is another referendum and that ain't happening until at least the Labour leadership changes policy.

[jeremyp]

So next time we will check in with your first to see if its ok to vote a certain way?

People were telling you that these would be the consequences. Leavers heard them. Leavers chose to ignore them. Some of them did it because they thought it was a price worth paying. Some of them did it because they were told not to listen to experts by the Leave campaigners. Either way the responsibility is on the Leave voters.

Neither naive or stupid enough to think that your analogy is representative of how nation states work.

Honestly, do you think our relations with the EU member states are better or worse than they were in May 2016?

[jeremyp]

the only way to stop Brexit is another referendum

The government does not need another vote to stop Brexit. The referendum was not legally binding. However, it would be politically very difficult.

[jakswan]

People were telling you that these would be the consequences. Leavers heard them. Leavers chose to ignore them. Some of them did it because they thought it was a price worth paying. Some of them did it because they were told not to listen to experts by the Leave campaigners. Either way the responsibility is on the Leave voters.

Honestly, do you think our relations with the EU member states are better or worse than they were in May 2016?

No in a democracy the responsibility is on everyone, it is your responsibility to come up with persuasive arguements, you failed some you bear the burden.

Who told anyone to not listen to experts, who you are misrepresenting now?

[ProfessorDavey]

The government does not need another vote to stop Brexit. The referendum was not legally binding. However, it would be politically very difficult.

That's right - constitutionally and legally the government can stop bret without a referendum, just as they could have enacted brexit without a referendum, or indeed decided to ignore a referendum result. However this would be very difficult to justify politically. However it could easily be achieved politically through another referendum (which wouldn't be a second referendum as the question would be different, being about whether to accept a specific brexit deal vs remaining).

[jeremyp]

No in a democracy the responsibility is on everyone, it is your responsibility to come up with persuasive arguements, you failed some you bear the burden.

The arguments were made. The evidence was there. I did the best to make sure I understood all the evidence and facts. And now you are claiming it is my fault that the Leave voters didn't think for themselves too.

Stop trying to absolve leave voters of the blame. In the unlikely event that it all turns out fine, I'm sure there won't be much "everybody was responsible" talk. This is on the leave voters.

[jakswan]

The arguments were made. The evidence was there. I did the best to make sure I understood all the evidence and facts. And now you are claiming it is my fault that the Leave voters didn't think for themselves too.

Stop trying to absolve leave voters of the blame. In the unlikely event that it all turns out fine, I'm sure there won't be much "everybody was responsible" talk. This is on the leave voters.

In a democracy the rules are if you want an outcome you have to persuade the majority. Suggesting the majority can't think for themselves, can't understand facts and then blaming them for the result, sounds like the first step all dictators take.

[Nearly Sane]

This doesn't bode well for any form of rational policy



https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/feb/18/uk-hits-skilled-worker-visa-cap-third-month-home-office-refuses-applications

[Aruntraveller]

In a democracy the rules are if you want an outcome you have to persuade the majority.

Not in our democracy they aren't. You merely have to persuade a large enough minority.

[jeremyp]

In a democracy the rules are if you want an outcome you have to persuade the majority.

The rules in our democracy are normally that. if you want a certain outcome, you have to vote a party into power that is sympathetic to implementing it.

But if that's they way you want it, you have to agree that the Leavers failed to persuade the majority too. Only about a third of the electorate voted for Brexit.

Suggesting the majority can't think for themselves, can't understand facts and then blaming them for the result, sounds like the first step all dictators take.

Well claiming that people who didn't want Brexit and expressed their displeasure by voting against it are to blame really doesn't look much like thinking to me.

Look, if you turn out to be right and everything is hunky dory in five years time you can come back and tell me "I told you so" and you can take the credit (your fellow leavers certainly will). However, even the pro-Brexit government's own figures tell us that everything isn't going to be hunky dory.

[jakswan]

The rules in our democracy are normally that. if you want a certain outcome, you have to vote a party into power that is sympathetic to implementing it.

But if that's they way you want it, you have to agree that the Leavers failed to persuade the majority too. Only about a third of the electorate voted for Brexit.

Persuade the majority of those that vote then then, the point still stands.

Well claiming that people who didn't want Brexit and expressed their displeasure by voting against it are to blame really doesn't look much like thinking to me.

Agreed, blaming voters is silly idea.

Look, if you turn out to be right and everything is hunky dory in five years time you can come back and tell me "I told you so" and you can take the credit (your fellow leavers certainly will). However, even the pro-Brexit government's own figures tell us that everything isn't going to be hunky dory.

Huh are you deluded? I'm interested in what you think and why you think it as it helps me form my own view on issues, if you think in 5 years time I'm going to be looking for some sort of approval or 'yeah i win', lol who cares about that?

[jeremyp]

Agreed, blaming voters is silly idea.

The voters that vote for a bad idea are very much to blame unless they were persuaded by lies.

Huh are you deluded? I'm interested in what you think and why you think it as it helps me form my own view on issues, if you think in 5 years time I'm going to be looking for some sort of approval or 'yeah i win', lol who cares about that?

I think you will. If this debate is on going in five years and everything is going fine, you'll be telling us we were wrong to be doubters. I would have no issue with you doing that.

However, no matter what happens over the next five years, we have still destroyed our relationship with thew other EU member states and that is reason enough in itself to be sad about what is happening.

[jakswan]

The voters that vote for a bad idea are very much to blame unless they were persuaded by lies.
I think you will. If this debate is on going in five years and everything is going fine, you'll be telling us we were wrong to be doubters. I would have no issue with you doing that.

However, no matter what happens over the next five years, we have still destroyed our relationship with thew other EU member states and that is reason enough in itself to be sad about what is happening.

All you can do is vote so if I were you I'd blame politicians who are accountable to you by virtue of your vote. If you blame voters who cares?

I see centre left politicians in Labour are happy that JC is going to be in favour of customs union (not the customs union). weird I think everyone is in favour of a customs union?

[ProfessorDavey]

weird I think everyone is in favour of a customs union?

The hard brexiteers aren't in favour of the (or a) customs union at all.

[jakswan]

The hard brexiteers aren't in favour of the (or a) customs union at all.

Citation required, from all of them.

[ProfessorDavey]

Citation required, from all of them.

I don't need to, as it is self defining.

A hard Brexiteer is, by definition, someone who favours a hard Brexit.

A defining feature of a hard Brexit is that we leave the customs union (or a customs union that effectively achieves the same thing as the customs union).

Therefore by definition hard brexiteers aren't in favour of the UK being part of the (or a) customs union.

It isn't rocket science.

[jakswan]

I don't need to, as it is self defining.

A hard Brexiteer is, by definition, someone who favours a hard Brexit.

A defining feature of a hard Brexit is that we leave the customs union (or a customs union that effectively achieves the same thing as the customs union).

Therefore by definition hard brexiteers aren't in favour of the UK being part of the (or a) customs union.

It isn't rocket science.

As far as I know some that you would describe as being hard would favour a customs arrangement, which is a customs union. In fact its the Govts position to have a customs arrangement so Labour and Tories are almost on the same page, calling it Customs Union or arrangement is spin.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As far as I know some that you would describe as being hard would favour a customs arrangement, which is a customs union. In fact its the Govts position to have a customs arrangement so Labour and Tories are almost on the same page, calling it Customs Union or arrangement is spin.

Totally agree. May will suggest a custom arrangement exactly like Corbyns union and people will accept it as a good idea.
The rebels will vote against Soubry and it will be Corbyn who will be in the Keech.