Brexit

And the people of the UK did decide that they don't want to head in that direction. The problem is their MPs do.


Obviously remoaners don't agree with you.

Are you suggesting that Labour is a leave party???


No, the people didnt return a hung parliament. A hung parliament only came about when 21 tories went back on their promise to those who elected them. You cant blame the people for voting for MPs who promise to do one thing but then do another. That's down to the rebel tories. The blame lies squarely at their feet and their feet alone. They should never have stood for election as Tories if they were not going to honour the electoral promises of the party.


Again, there was only ever a problem because 21 MPs stood before their electorate and said that if you vote for me I will work with my Conservative colleagues to respect the result of the 2016 peoples vote and take the country out of the EU...with OR without a deal. Their electorate believed them and wanted them to do as they promised and so they elected them. These rebels then betrayed the trust of those who had elected them and they worked to stop Brexit from happening.



The only way to 'fix it' was/is to have another general election and let the people once again have their say. This gives the people the chance to judge the actions of those who have not done as they said they would.


Co-operation is impossible as you can't be both in and out of the EU at the same time. You have to be one or the other. When asked the majority of people said they wanted to be out of the EU. They were told this would mean out of the customs union, out of the single market. The majority said no worries, just take us out. So how do you co-operate (really compromise) when one side is saying we will do as the people asked and take the country out of the EU whilst the other side are saying we think the people were wrong and we want the country to remain in the EU. How do they co-operate? How do they compromise? Indeed why should they even have to compromise? What compromises would remain supporters have made had they won in 2016?

As for principles. In a democracy you must respect the democratic process whether you like the outcome or not. The 2016 peoples vote was the single biggest vote of its kind in the Uk's history. The vote must be respected or else you risk undermining faith in the entire political process. In a democracy you must respect the wishes of the majority. In any democratic vote there are going to be winners and losers. That's how it works and when you are on the losing side you have to accept this reality. Otherwise democracy simply doesnt work.


Actually in a democracy what you do in matters of such intrinsic importance is go back to the people, which the UK is now doing. Let the people decide how they feel about the actions MPs have taken. We shall await their verdict. If there is another hung parliament (assuming it's not because MPs change sides once elected) then the people can have no complaints and they shall be given the parliament they deserve.


Firstly i don't talk about people voting 'correctly' as what is 'correct' is subjective. Secondly, i believe that in a democracy that the concept of losers consent is extremely important. Democracy doesnt work without it. There have been plenty of votes that I have taken part in where the outcome is not as i would wish. But that's the nature of democracy.

The simple fact is that Parliament agreed to let the people decide whether or not the UK would remain within the EU. The people (17.4 million and change) said 'we want out'. So the MAJORITY in a democratic vote said they wanted the UK to leave. Parliament however said no. They said 'we don't care what you want we are not leaving'. I am saying that the government were right not to ignore the expressed wishes of the majority which is what would have happened with any so called 'compromise'. This is because, as I have previously said, you can't be both in and out of the EU at the same time...and the majority of MPs wanted the UK to remain in.

So the people voted leave and MPs voted remain. The only logical way to address this conflict in a democracy is to go back to the people, which will happen in less than a weeks time. If the public return a remain government then so be it. If they return a leave Government then people need to accept that. If they return a hung parliament then no one can have any complaints. You were given the chance to break the impasse and you didnt take it. So anyway, I am not "wagering important decisions on faith". What I am doing is supporting the right of the public to decide in which direction their country heads.

So anyway, what exactly do you think the government should have done? What compromises should they have taken and why?

Only there wont be another in/out referendum. MPs only ever agreed to an in/out referendum because they were confident that remain would win. After-all, all of the major parties (including Labour who were, and are, a remain party) told the people to vote remain. Most of the mainstream media, and most of social media, told people to vote remain. Most celebs told people to vote remain. It therefore came as quite a shock to many when the people didnt do as they were told. So MPs wont risk that happening again, thus you will NOT be given another in/out referendum. What Labour propose is a choice between remain or choosing a withdrawal agreement that sees the UK trapped in the customs union, trapped in the single market, subject to the rulings of the ECJ, obliged to follow EU rules, regulations, policies and directives whilst having no voice in the EU but still paying in billions of pounds. So it's remain with a voice in the EU or remain without a voice in the EU. These are the two choices you will be given. But the referendum wouldnt even be btw remain and remain light as all you would be voting on is a choice btw remaining and a withdrawal agreement. The W.A isnt what happens once you 'leave' it's simply what happens during the process of leaving. So even if you voted for Labour's remain light W.A you will not be given a say in what exactly will be the future relationship btw the UK and the EU. This will be decided in a FTA and you can be certain that in this scenario the UK would be very tightly bound to the EU. So again, any so called '2nd referendum' will NOT give the people of the UK the opportunity to chose to genuinely leave the EU. Indeed Labour's referendum plan reminds me of a magician who asks you to pick any card knowing all along exactly what card you will end up with. There is the illusion of choice but noting more.


Agreed.

Which is not, nor never was, the EU's fault. Instead of attempting to fix the mess that their governments have made of their participation in the EU, those elected have instead been given a free pass to b**** and moan and blame all the problems resulting from their own ineffectual stweardship on the EU instead. This means, obviously, that even if the UK leaves the EU, the people who voted in most of the policies that resulted in the withdrawal in the first place will still be in power and still be voting in policy. Who will the 'lying politicians' blame next to cover their own ineffectual governance? And the cycle repeats itself ad infinitum.

I'm saying that Labour is, largely, a different type of Leave Party then the Tories. Their vision for what leave means differs, but they would still do it if they could do it their way. It may not mean leave to you, but that is inconsequential. EU regulation gets in the way of both the Tories' plans for a free market UK and Labour's (or Corbyn's, I honestly can't tell) plans to turn the UK into a Communist State.

Whether or not you think Labour's platform is leave enough is unimportant. The important thing is that Labour's platform is not the same thing as remaining. Having looked it over, from a big picture perspective, it actually looks a fair bit worse than remaining.



Uh no. The people definitely returned a hung Parliament. That was the reason why the Tories power was all caught up in controlling interests like the DUP. The Tories and the DUP were not naturally aligned with each other. They aligned out of necessity over Brexit...and then collapsed again because Boris Johnson thought it was a good idea to screw the DUP over with his 'new' WA.

As for betraying 'the electoral promises of the party', where in the Tories 2017 manifesto did they say they would leave 'with or without a deal' within 2 years time? Where did they promise they would leave 'with or without a deal' at all?

Even disregarding whether or not Parliament was hung or not by the electorate, saying that 'there was only ever a problem because 21 MP's rebelled' illustrates my point perfectly. The Tories and the public did not respect how little wiggle room they had to 'get Brexit done' and got bitten for it. Parties are not monolithic creatures. They are made up of different people who share different opinions, but band together for ideological or pragmatic reasons. A certain amount of dissension when enacting huge, long lasting policies, would be natural I think, and failing to account for them would be nonsensical.



Which is what I said a year ago.



The vast majority of remain supporters I have seen here and elsewhere fully acknowledge, and even agree to a certain extent, that the EU has problems and that they don't wish to 'become an ever closer union'. Jennifer's feelings on the matter, while not limited to just her, seems like a minority opinion from where I'm standing in that regard. That seems like a good place to start building common ground. Or we could continue this trend of believing that compromise is impossible and hope that a victor 'eventually' appears with enough clout to force whatever they will through.



Of course you have to accept that reality. Doesn't mean you have to help it in any way whatsoever. And should the 'wining side' lose power to enforce their policies, it doesn't mean that the 'losers' can't override it either. The whole point of the vote, after all, is to establish who, if any, has enough political power to enforce their will on the general public.



I like how in the same post you say that the people didn't return a hung Parliament, and then here you say that if the electorate returns 'another hung parliament', indicating that they had done so before.

Anyways,



Am I reading this right? You're saying that if the public returns a remain or hung Parliament you would accept that as democratic, even though it would more than likely either reverse Brexit or drag it on for years, and yet you would not accept a second referendum, which could also reverse Brexit or potentially push parliament into no-deal? How does that work? How would a second general election 'respect the result of the referendum' if a second referendum wouldn't?



I don't understand what you want from me. I've already told you what the government should have done, and spent paragraphs telling you why and how. What information are you specifically looking for?

No, Labour are very clearly remain. They campaigned for remain in 2016. Corbyn campaigned for remain in 2016. Pretty much all of their front bench are remainers. Look at Emily Thornberry for example. She has repeatedly stated that she would work to get the UK the 'best' W.A possible and then campaign against it in favour of remain! JC still refuses to say that he won't campaign against his own W.A. Keir Starmer has said many times over the past six months that he wants, and expects, Labour to campaign strongly for remain if there were to be another referendum. Barry Gardiner is another. The list goes on. To claim Labour are not a remain party is absurd. Look at their latest Brexit position. Barry Gardiner says the party will now amend T.M's deal (which they thrice rejected), put this amended deal to the people and then oppose it! Now in the past week or so he has modified his rhetoric and is saying that he thinks Labour's amended deal would be a good option but flat out refuses to say if he (and Labour) would still campaign against it. The fact that he has said they would in the past and now refuses to comment tells you all you need to know.


Totally disagree.


If B.J did as the DUP wanted there wouldnt even have been a W.A to vote on in the first place. That was the unfortunate reality when you had the majority of MPs opposed to the government.



The manifesto says “NO deal is better than a bad deal for the UK". The Tories stated that any deal would take the UK OUT of the single market and out of the customs union.

Specifically the Tory election manifesto stated that:
- "As we leave the European Union, we will NO longer be members of the single market OR customs union."
- "The negotiations will undoubtedly be tough, and there will be give and take on both sides, but we continue to believe that no deal is better than a bad deal for the UK."

It's all there in black and white. Check for yourself.


So it's the tories fault some of their members refused to do what they promised they would if elected. It's the publics fault that the 21 rebels went back on their promises. Interesting.


So again, it's fine for politicians to promise to act in a certain way if elected and then refuse to honour their commitment to those who voted for them. Not how i see things but so be it.


You havent answered my questions. Again:
- HOW do you co-operate (really compromise) when one side is saying we will do as the people asked and take the country out of the EU whilst the other side are saying we think the people were wrong and we want the country to remain in the EU. How do they co-operate?
- HOW do they compromise?
- WHY should they even have to compromise?
- What compromises do you think remain supporters would have made had they won in 2016?


No. The whole point of the vote in 2016 was to let the PEOPLE decide whether or not they wanted the UK to remain in the EU.

If Parliament agrees to ask the people what it is they want Parliament then needs to respect the wishes of the people. The 2016 people's vote wasnt a G.E. Parliament agreed to the people's vote. They reinforced this when they passed a bill giving authority to the PM to trigger article 50. Since that moment the majority of MPs have been doing everything possible to stop Brexit from happening because they don't like it. In effect the people voted to leave and the pollies then voted to remain. So this election is very much a case of the people vs parliament.


I was referring to the fact that when the 21 rebels crossed the floor the result was a hung parliament. Well more accurately a 'zombie parliament'. So going into this election the people knew they were dealing with a hung parliament and they have seen what the result is. So if they returned a parliament that was still hung then the blame falls on them. Again, UNLESS Parliament once more ends up hung because of MPs refusing to do what they told voters they would.


I believe that the actions of the rebel alliance who refused to accept the result of the people's vote was undemocratic and that there should never have been the need for yet another election. However, the fact is that their actions made another election necessary. Now an election is obviously a democratic process and i believe that you should respect the outcome of a democratic process. Doesn't mean you have to like it. Not accepting the outcome of the G.E would be as bad as not accepting the outcome of the 2016 people's vote and i don't think two wrongs make a right.


Again, the people were asked what they wanted re the UK's relationship with the EU back in 2016. That should have been enough. In a democracy that should have ben enough. Only it wasnt and so there is yet another vote (though Labour have tried hard to make this election about anything other than Brexit). Anyway, if the people return a remain government and Brexit is overturned I would not be happy as it confirms that when people voted in 2016 their votes meant nothing. It would confirm that when people were told their wishes would be respected they were lied to. But, if the people still want to return a government that is determined to ignore the 2016 people's vote then so be it.


Firstly a 2nd in/out referendum would be undemocratic when you haven't even honoured the result of the first one. But the only people pushing for a 2nd referendum are refusing to give the people a genuine leave option. As stated in previous posts parliament will only offer the people the choice btw remain or remain without a voice. That's all they are offering. It's not even BRINO it's remain light. So the difference is that in the G.E people have a genuine leave option that they won't get with a 2nd referendum. In the G.E the people can vote for the Tories who are promising to 'respect the result of the (2016) referendum'. In the proposed 2nd referendum all people would have to choose from is two different versions of remain. That is the difference and it's a BIG one. That is why a G.E can result in 'respect (for) the result of the referendum' whilst the proposed 2nd referendum is completely disregarding and disrespecting the result of the 2016 people's vote.

I love watching Nooneinparticular tie the Aussie up in knots. He hasn't go an argument and knows it but he's too arrogant to let it drop.

Ho-hum.

But how about a little light relief..? No matter what side of the fence you stand on, this is bloody brilliant.

So if Labour are a leave party why are they even pushing for another referendum? Why are they wanting to allow 16-17 yr olds the right to vote in their referendum? Do they think they will be more likely to vote for Labour's 'leave' option? And why are they wanting to allow EU nationals living in the UK the right to vote? Do they think EU nationals living in the UK are more likely to vote for Labour's 'leave' option rather than remain? Or could these things be yet more blindingly obvious proof that Labour will do whatever it takes to remain. That they are as voters think they are...a REMAIN party. Oh, and why has J.C just recently sought legal advice to make sure that his key election promises don't contravene EU law. Hmm, I wonder. A real head scratcher to be sure.

Labour a remain party..? Sounds like a good thing to me.

But as a card carrying, paid up member of the Green Party, I'll not be voting for them anyway.

Corbyn wants England to leave the EU as much as Johnson does, but he knows which way the wind is blowing here.

There is a better chance of getting Brexit through a public vote where there is a realistically acceptable deal on the table.

Unlike Johnson, Corbyn is not a wannabe despot and he (Corbyn) will recognise the fact that even if a majority still wanted Brexit, there would still be a very sizeable number in favour of remaining and they should have the option to have their say.

To have no remain option will cause a s***storm that will make the last (nearly) four yeas look like a walk in the park. If you think remain has caused trouble so far, you aint seen nothing as to what will happen if there is no remain option in a second referendum.

He is also smart enough to know that it is necessary to plan for remain even if he personally wants to leave.

It was the failure of the Tory government to recognise the significant remain vote in 2016 that caused such resentment by remainers and contributed to the determined opposition to Brexit. Had the Tories created an All Party Committee to form the withdrwal team, and commit to a conciliatory departure then Brexit would have been delivered on 29 March. It was Theresa May's red lines, underlined by her offensive, provocative quotes such as:

"No deal is better than a bad deal"

"If you're a citizen of the world, you're a citizen of nowhere." (that one really made me, and millions of other remainers see red)

Brexit means Brexit."

Which did more than anything to mobilise the opposition to Brexit and re-ignited the otherwise dead Scottish independence movement. It was clear that the Tories would cut Britain completely adrift of Europe and make no consideration whatsoever of the large remain vote or the special situation of the Scots.

They should have formed an all party committee. That was the first mistake and when the opposition to Brexit movement became organised and mobilised everything went downhill for Brexit from there.

Corbyn is smart enough to know that he cannot blithely ignore the remain lobby. He won't make the same mistakes that the Tories blundered headlong into.

16-17 year olds should have been allowed to vote in 2016 because that is the generation that will be most affected by Brexit (should it happen). Bearing in mind that negotiations will take many years to complete (see post #346 if you can extract your head from up your arrogant arse for five minutes) and during the time of those negotiations 16-17 year olds will attain majority age.

It is recognised by all that those of less than age 16 should not be able to vote for obvious reasons.

Corbyn is smarter than Johnson.

Johnson may get Brexit over the line, but still it won't be over. This will run for years and years.

And Britain WILL re-enter the EU in the future. And then we can kiss goodbye to the sterling pound forever. Once we adopt the Euro (which I am in favour of), that will be the decisive move that binds Britain to Europe forever.

For me, it can't come soon enough.

As a rule of thumb, I err on the side that says people do things for selfish reasons. I don't really know what those potential demographics would vote for if given the chance, but I assume Labour has some reason for pushing for it. I can't really predict whether or not those demographics would vote for a hypothetical Labour deal over remain, for instance, nor do I know which outcome Labour would want, having not seen any deal plans from Labour thus far. Be that as it may, is there a reason to block either of those demographics from voting on principle? Regardless of what is being voted on or how they ultimately end up voting?



What's the contention here? That he sought advice at all, or that he sought advice only now when the election is so close?

What? That they don't know what they're doing? I've thought that for a while now. Labour's main problem is that they've been wishy-washy over this entire thing. Brexit split their party much the same as it did the Tories, but they haven't been in the driver's seat for most of this so it's been harder to tell. Now that they actually have to campaign, it's become more obvious.

Hence why I made the distinction that I didn't know whether it was just Corbyn's faction who is secretly hoping for 'a Brexit their way' (which is why he can't say whether he'd campaign for his plan or not, which would probably be a vote splitter, let's be honest), or if it was Labour's main plan. If this is actually Labour's main plan then they're morons. If it's Corbyn's design then his faction is full of wishful thinking. Either way, they, like the Tories, have also failed to coalesce around a single cohesive idea, and it's hurting their position badly.

As an aside, you do realize that just because Corbyn campaigned for remain doesn't necessarily mean that he doesn't want to do it his way right? In politics, stopping the opposition is often seen as more pressing then fighting within your own party over differing ideals. Normally, that's because while you're busy fighting among yourselves, your opponent can potentially come in and snatch the prize so dealing with them takes higher priority.



I don't see how having a voice in the decisions and being subject to them is worse or equal to having no voice and being subject to those same decisions but okay.



Agreed, but that doesn't change the fact that it negatively affected his already shaky power base. The thing about burning bridges is that you end up becoming more dependent on the ones you haven't burned.



Neither of which proclaims that the Tories would stop attempting to make a deal past 2 years. "No deal is better than a bad deal for the UK" does not mean "We will negotiate for 2 years and if we can't reach an acceptable deal then we will leave without one". Also, "we will no longer be members of the single market or customs union" does not mean "we are obligated and duty bound to vote for the first WA that achieves those goals somewhat".

If anything, that entire manifesto states the opposite intention. That they will fight bitterly and to the end if need be to get 'the best deal for the UK', which is not necessarily Johnson's WA.

What you advocate for is ending negotiations with the EU. Quite funny, considering all of the 'UK can make the most out of Brexit' and 'we will achieve the best deal for the UK' talk around the leave camp and especially the Tory camp.



I was unaware that they all promised they would back Johnson's plan, or that they would not oppose an attempt to force no-deal.



With that attitude, compromise becomes difficult. If you insist on pursuing this version of Brexit because of a moral obligation and insist that the opposition wants nothing but to remain in the EU, then yes compromise becomes increasingly difficult.



As I've said already, both sides should re-examine their beliefs and figure out what they can and cannot give on. Then they should meet, WITHOUT the traitor rhetoric hanging in the air, and hash that out. I cannot tell you anything more than that because I don't know, ultimately, what the two sides would hypothetically give up on, in their entirety. Unless you would prefer this conversation spin into unending hypothetical situations then I suggest that you not ask me to discuss guesswork.



Why should they have to compromise? Because, as I have said many times already, they don't have the power to enact their polices otherwise. You can view that any way you wish but it doesn't change the reality or the math.



What would leave supporters have supported instead of complete dissolution? If that's the only demand or route they would be willing to take, then compromise becomes difficult. If instead they wanted to address some of the issues that I've seen you and others bring up, like the concerns over 'ever closer unions' then there is some common ground among a lot of the remain camp, who have some of those same concerns.



I meant that's the whole point of voting in general. Voting bequeaths power to the representative, and a majority of similar minded empowered representatives increase the chances of policy going a certain direction.



Do you not understand what a hung Parliament means or something? Because it definitely wasn't just created when the rebellion happened, nor is a hung Parliament necessarily equivalent to a 'zombie Parliament'.



Voting is a means, not an end. Our participation in democracy does not end after we vote. In a democracy, just voting is typically not enough. Whether you wish to believe that or not is up to you, but from my perspective, since I started paying attention to politics almost 15 years ago, it has never once been enough to just vote.

"Firstly a 2nd in/out referendum would be undemocratic when you haven't even honoured the result of the first one" says the person who also said "Not accepting the outcome of the G.E would be as bad as not accepting the outcome of the 2016 people's vote and i don't think two wrongs make a right". Is a G.E. somehow more intrinsically democratic then a second ref? How is it that not accepting the results of a G.E. would "be as bad as not accepting the outcome of the 2016 people's vote" but not accepting a second ref would not? They're both people's votes that (potentially) invalidate the 2016 ref. You seem to be opposed to a second ref on principle, not based on anything on the political landscape.



Okay, but I wasn't talking about Labour's ref proposal. I was talking about a ref in general, of which you had continuously opposed months before we ever knew what a potential ref might conceivably look like. Even then, the Tories could have held their own ref proposal that was more 'fair' to the previous vote if they wanted to. They chose not to.

Why don't you Brits just admit that you are never going to actually Brexit so you can move on with your lives?


Oh... same reason we are not going to re-elect Trump in 2020.

Oh that that were true, Chaski.

But you can't begin to imagine how divisive this issue is, here.

This is the biggest domestic crisis this country has faced since the Civil War, and I am not kidding in that.

And both sides are equally determined to come out of it the winner.


One thing that comes out of this thread though, is that I'm thoroughly enjoying watching nooneinparticular wipe the floor with the Aussie in every department of this discussion.

I was joking. 😎

Well yes, because most under 18's don't work and have spent their entire school lives receiving an overwhelmingly 'progressive' left view of the world. With very little real life experience they generally accept the views of their teachers. So no surprise that polls consistently show that this age group is far more likely to vote Labour. As for EU citizens...well that is pretty self explanatory.


You have been telling us that Labour are a Leave party. If so it's obvious what they want. Now however you are saying you don't know what Labour want.


Just listen to Labour MP's like Emily Thornberry and Barry Gardiner. They have just recently stated what Labour's newest vision for a deal would be. It would be a version of T.M's deal. You know, the one they rejected three times! They would however make some changes fully lock the UK into not simply the customs union and the single market but also to include a political declaration that would firmly lock the UK into alignment with all aspects of the EU. That would mean the UK would have too follow all EU laws, decisions, policies, directives etc. Basically their deal involves the UK remaining without representation.


My oath there are reasons but, seeing as you are the one advocating for change, why should these groups be permitted to vote? What are the compelling reasons for changing UK electoral law?


He's not checking just in case the UK leave. He knows the only two outcomes possible are remain, or remain without representation. So he needs to check that there will be no problems as he knows the UK will be bound by EU law no matter what the result of the clayton's referendum.