Although my prior impression that Boris Johnson was at least a harmless buffoon has been shown to be wide of the mark, at least he’s still funnier than most American politicians.
This is another interesting layer (but a bit clickbaity): "Brexit Referendum Was Corruptly Won, But Result Stands Thanks To Loophole" - LBC
Basically a lawsuit alleging damages based on the referendum/decision to leave the EU was made based on the leave campaign breaking election law, but because the referendum itself was not legally binding, it can’t be legally nullified. Jessica Simor (not sure if she’s the plaintiff or attorney) never says that if it had been legally binding her case definitively would have nullified it, but basically implied that the court never her to sue to nullify the result but otherwise that’s what she would have sued for, and she thinks that they would have nullified the result.
What she did sue for was some way of demanding that May’s government respond to the findings that the leave campaign violated election law, but she lost that despite having evidencei n her favor because she didn’t bring the case early enough (despite the fact that in the allotted window people didn’t know that leave had broken the law).
I’m a Spaniard. I’m completely pro-EU mainly because I believe we’re reaching an unavoidable era of giant economic markets and it’s better to be inside of one. But once a referendum is made, and a decision taken, it should be given the chance to fail or succeed. Let’s say two, three decades. Otherwise it will become a torn on the side of European politics forever.
No, it shouldn’t. To begin with, the UK only controls the first and last option. The rest are bilateral agreements, as in, not just up to the UK.
I doubt it. The version of the IRA that became terrorists wasn’t just about Irish Nationalism, it was also a Marxist-Leninist movement supported by the countries inside the Iron Curtain.
There are other issues coming from the Emerald Isle, however. And that’d be the Republic of Ireland considering Brexit a violation of the Good Friday Agreement and using their veto power to essentially take control of the EU-UK relations with their own political agenda.
This is true. On the other hand the fact that several of these options are not something the UK government can unilaterally deliver doesn’t stop voters from having a preference for (or against) them. And if the purpose of the referendum is not to guarantee a particular outcome but to secure a democratic mandate for pursuing it (and if this purpose is property communicated to voters) then offering those options makes perfect sense.
Which raises the question, of course, of what referendums are for, and what they can and can’t achieve. Which is a question they haven’t really answered to their own satisfaction in the UK.
Mmm. Not really. When the IRA split in 1969/70, both factions initially pursued militant action, but it was the Marxist-Leninist faction which moved away from this, and towards conventional politics, fairly early on. In 1972 they declared a permanent ceasefire (as against the crown forces) and by the late ‘70s they were opposing all republican political violence, which they regarded as “distracting working class attention from the class struggle”, and urging people to co-operate with the security forces. The more classic Irish republican faction continued its armed activities for another 25 years until the ceasefire of 1997, before eventually disarming in 2005. They didn’t receive any support from the Soviets at any point, and the absence of a Soviet Union to support them now would not be a factor in whether or in what circumstances political violence might resume.
The Republic doesn’t have a veto power that would allow it to “essentially take control of the EU-UK relations”. They could probably veto an EU/UK trade deal, though whether they could do so would depend on what was in the deal and, even if they could veto a particular deal, that’s not the same thing as taking general control of the relationship.
And none of the successive iterations of the process of terrorism to unarmed politics-as-usual in that part of Irish politics ruled out the “physical force” enthusiasts splitting into new groups launching their own campaigns. They may be few, but there is already at least one group capable of planting pipe bombs and the like: bung up customs posts along the border (or maybe anywhere in Ireland), and they’re a sitting target for potshots or worse. It might be like the campaign of the 1950s, that wasn’t taken all that seriously, or it might be worse if Loyalist counter-paramilitaries re-launch themselves and/or London mishandles the situation as badly as it did in the early 70s (and with this shambles of a government, I wouldn’t give you odds).
Will the second referendum mean anything or will there be a third and fourth until the people reach the “correct” result?
Parliament can do what it wants obviously, but I think it would lose all credibility with the UK public WRT referenda in the future if it acted in this manner.
Cameron played a game and lost. The Eurosceptics and UKIP were gaining a lot of power and Cameron tried to shut them up by holding a referendum that he was certain he would win. He didn’t. The Leave campaign won what they were promised fair and square.
Further everyone knew that it would take at least two years and there would be difficulties in negotiation. It is bad faith to say, “Well, it’s been two years and negotiations are hard, so maybe the people want something different now.”
I agree that Cameron never should have held the vote, and if he did, he should have required a supermajority for such a major change. But he didn’t and it is unfair to deny the victors what they earned after following the rules.
I think a lot of people would see that as a feature rather than a bug at this point.
There should be one referendum where the voters are well-informed about the options and can make a reasoned decision, bearing in mind the economic and political consequences.
No they didn’t!
The Leave campaign talked about how new trade deals could be put in place almost instantly and that the NHS would promptly receive millions each week.
Bad faith?! This coming from the side that saw Boris Johnson lie repeatedly throughout the campaign.
After nearly 2 years, negotiations are still raging on (especially over the Irish border) and there is no majority in parliament for any option.
And which option did they vote for?
What is your solution to the Irish border question?
This claim could be made of any vote or any election. Let’s undo the 2018 Congressional Elections because surely the voters did not appreciate the fact that socialists would be elected, or that there would be a Green New Deal, or these things.
One person’s idiocy is someone else’ “reasoned decision.”
In every campaign there are accusations that one side or the other misrepresented the position. I’m not familiar with all of the ins and outs, but it was up to the Remain campaign to point these alleged lies out and convince the public otherwise.
They voted to Leave. That was the option they voted for. I’m continually puzzled by posters in this thread saying that the proper question was not on the ballot.
Suppose the U.S. had a referendum on Trump’s wall and the vote was “build it.” An objection should not be raised that we need a revote because nobody said how tall it should be, what portions of the border it should cover, what material to use, whether it would be a virtual wall, etc. In any proposal it is up to elected officials to work out the details. That’s why they get a paycheck.
In the supposed one fair vote, the people of the UK said that we want to leave the EU. That should be implemented, or simply in the future not mislead the public that you really care what they have to say about things.
Yes, but Boris Johnson et all took lying to a new level. Try googling ‘Leave campaign lies’ and examine some of the 12 million hits.
Well Donald Trump would certainly agree with you - but that doesn’t make it right.
I am familiar with the facts.
The Remain campaign did point out that Leave were lying.
Have you heard the saying “A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on.”?
When caught in a lie, Leave (and Trump) simply say the other side is lying. :smack:
I would like you to state which option they voted for, how the Irish border question is going to be resolved and how long you think it will take to agree new trade deals with the rest of the World (particularly the USA and China.)
And those officials having examined the details, it is clear that:
- there is no agreement in Parliament for any option
- there is no clue how to deal with the Irish border question
- a ‘no-deal Brexit’ will be an economic catastrophe
Yes, you mentioned that. And that’s all the detail you know?
Please answer my questions above.
I will look into that. Really. I’m just not familiar enough now with the issue to comment on it.
What is “right”? Unless God or Jesus comes down and tells us, we don’t know. We all look at the issues, debate about them on this board and at work or school and we do the best we can to come up with what we think is right. At the end of the day, you might think that me and my side are a bunch of fools, and I may think the same about you, or we can say that we have an honest disagreement.
But respect for democracy demands that a promised vote means something.
We might as well just have absolute monarchies or dictators since the public can be so easily fooled. Why have any sort of representation at all when “lies” control the day?
Again, the vote was clear. The people did not vote on any single one of those options. But they did vote to Leave. It was left up to the government to provide the exact mechanism. None of this is novel.
When you voted for your MP, did you attach of list of things that he or she must do and the exact way to do them? No, you voted because he or she said things in broad strokes, like cutting taxes, or passing this law, or enacting this social program. You liked what he said and you voted in favor or against that. In no representative democracy are the people tasked with working out every detail.
And because they didn’t specify with any detail in this particular referendum, like they never have before or will again, doesn’t mean that it is time for a revote.
A new development, as May announcesthat she will bring a motion to Parliament on delaying Article 50:
It’s worth saying that proposing a delay is a screeching U-turn for May, who has been publicly rubbishing the concept of getting more time for months.
Getting a delay is now a 4 stage process:
- MPs vote on the existing deal (perhaps with some minor but potentially critical amendments to the non-binding Political Declaration.
- If that doesn’t pass (it lost last time by 230 votes) then MPs will vote to approve No Deal. This won’t in itself stop No Deal, but it will give some reason to think that the UK’s negotiating position will change.
- There’s no point changing the negotiating position if you’re going to leave on 29th March, so MPs will be asked to vote on whether they want to extend the A50 deadline.
- The EU will decide if they agree to the new deadline.
The last two points contain the detail where the devil lurks. May is proposing a short extension, to July 1st. It’s not an arbitrary date - it’s when the current EU Parliamentary term ends. Elections for the subsequent term will be in May, with the new term starting July 2nd. Under this scheme, the UK won’t participate in the elections as it won’t be a member when the new parliament starts. This is important, because due to a new rule, if the EU Parliament doesn’t have representatives from every members state, then it won’t be a duly constituted Parliament. This would be a legal/constitutional nightmare for the EU. So: if the UK were to get a longer extension, it would need to participate in the May elections and return MEPs to Parliament. Even if only for a day. But: this is a ludicrously short extension and doesn’t really give room for any meaningful shift in the UK position. It’s hard to conceive of a general election or a second referendum being agreed, conducted, resolved and the resulting shift in negotiating positoin being implemented in three months. As a result, what May is offering MPs is the choice between her deal or nothing by March 29th, or waiting three months to have a her deal or nothing choice by July 1st.
The EU have said that the logical move is a 2-year extension replacing the current agreed “transition period” during which final trade deals would be negotiated. This would give time for the UK to sort itself out, avoid cliff edges and get things moving forward. It would be long enough for the UK’s participation in elections for a body it plans on leaving not to be utterly mad. But it won’t be on offer unless Parliament takes control of the process (the Cooper amendment which would do exactly that has been rejected once but will come back again) and decides for itself that this makes sense. Both these are poor bets.
So this is almost, but not quite, progress towards some sort of sensible Brexit.
But…
They do want something different now.
Nobody is happy with the current political situation. 
I understand why Sinn Fein won’t take their seats, but by God it’d be hilarious watching Arlene Foster spontaneously combust if they suddenly decided to.
This insistence that Remain’s request for a second referendum is purely based on grumpiness and sour grapes is yet another bit of Leave bumfodder they’ve been promulgating in order to ignore the fact that virtually everything they promised leaving the EU would deliver was either wrong or an outright lie and that the reason they don’t want a second referendum is because they want to avoid accountability for what they said the first time.
These days I’m wondering who thinks Parliament has any credibility NOW.
If by “fair and square” you mean “everything they promised was wrong or false, they were heavily supported by foreign propagandists and they may well have violated campaign financing laws”, sure.
And yet that’s the exact opposite of what we were told by the Leave campaign. So everyone didn’t “know that”.
No, that’s democracy.
For a given value of “following the rules”.
Let me bring up an example I’ve used previously.
You have a house. A real estate agent comes to you and says “If you agree to sell your house, I can get you three times the market value plus moving costs covered.” And you agree this is a great deal with obvious benefits and you say yes. Two years later the agent says to you, “Actually, the best deal I can get you is twenty quid and a packet of crisps, and you have to leave 10% of your furniture in the house when you go”. Which is an awful deal with no benefits and obvious detriment.
A “reasoned decision” would involve re-evaluating the initial decision to sell your house, based on the actual terms of the deal you will get rather than the unrealistic terms you were originally promised. “Idiocy” would be saying “Nope - house sale means house sale” and popping round to Tesco to see if they have any spare cardboard boxes.
You’re advocating for the second option.
Are you sure “It’s Remain’s fault for not stopping Leave from lying and cheating” is a compelling argument?
And yet here you are.
Yes. An non-binding advisory referendum indicates that a majority of the public wanted the Government to move to leave the EU. It did not legally require the government to do so, and certainly not at any cost.
We have a mechanism for dealing with politicians who lie. It’s called “voting them out at the next election”. That’s democracy, a position you’re currently arguing against.
I appreciate that.
When you’ve done so, I think you’ll understand why I (and millions of others) are infuriated by the lying Leave campaign.
Sorry, I’m an atheist. 
The only true debate has happened since the Referendum.
Since then:
- Prime Minister Theresa May’s Brexit deal has been rejected by 230 votes - the largest defeat for a sitting government in history
- Labour has said it is prepared to back another EU referendum to prevent a “damaging Tory Brexit”
- the Liberal Democrats will make a fresh attempt to persuade MPs to back a second Brexit referendum
- 8 Labour MP’s and 3 Conservative MP’s have quit their parties in protest at the way Brexit is being handled
- around 570,000 demonstrators protested in London and called for a new referendum.
The consequences of a no-deal Brexit are described by the Financial Times as ‘Trade with the EU would switch to World Trade Organization terms, raising customs checks and tariffs overnight. Capital could flee the City of London, followed by a run on the pound. Food supplies would be at risk because of the uncertainty over certification and standards. The UK’s ports and airports would be thrown into disarray. The list is endless, and no amount of wishful thinking can overcome this reality.’
Why do you not respect the Referendum result of June 5th 1975, with a 67.4% vote in favour of remaining in the EU?
In a UK General Election (as I’m sure you know), each party publishes a detailed manifesto of its proposed policies.
MPs visit voters on the doorstep and hold meetings to discuss issues. Politicians are interviewed in the Press and on TV about what they stand for and intend to do.
However in the Referendum, the Leave campaign simply lied about Turkey, the NHS funding and used meaningless slogans.
P.S. Please give your solution to the Irish Border question.
Is there any evidence of Putin meddling in the Brexit campaign?
Once more with feeling UV, seeing as seem to keep ignoring it…
The 2016 vote was:
a) narrowly won
b) through lies
c) and undeliverable promises
d) the answer was vague
e) and Brexiters have mangled whatever it was the electorate said by insisting all Leavers demanded one thing, and one thing only (hard Brexit)
f) the economy is slumping and businesses are leaving because of Brexit
Therefore:
The public are now better informed, the choices before them more stark and clear, and the consequences more apparent and difficult to deny. And the situation has changed, with polls indicating a swing against Brexit.
So there’s every moral imperative to have a second vote, to get a new steer and clarify what democratic mandate exists.
The only people insisting a second vote would be about ‘the people should give the right answer’ are Brexiters terrified of losing their assault on the constitution.
You’ve fallen for the spin.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I know it usually isn’t the onus to prove a negative, but they’ve meddled in just about every other “Leave” campaign or movement I can think of in the past 5 or so years, so my default assumption is that they materially supported Brexit as well.
I’d also add
g) non-binding
So May’s bottled it. I guess it’s not surprising, but it is disappointing. I’m also guessing the end-of-June extension will be countered by the EU, and May will cave again, which will mean 22-28 months more of this manure processing calamitous farce.