European Union Referendum

[Laker]

I don’t have the time to reply fully atm but:

I made it up?! Are you f*cking kidding me?! You literally just ignored that the Tories held a referendum and ignored the fact that the negotiator was a Tory. Instead you call her a remainder, rather than accept the fact that she is and was a Tory.

Stop hiding from the truth and face the real world, you & Boris can bend facts all you want and blame others for the failure, it’s very Trump-esque. Honestly I don’t know how people fall for the bullshit.

I’m actually stunned you can’t accept Tories fucked up but instead blame it on others. Open your eyes ffs from the propaganda for once

My view is that whatever deal was presented to the house was going to be rejected because there are too many MPs who don’t want Brexit at all, rather than too many who don’t want May’s Brexit or Boris’s Brexit. Therefore I don’t agree with you at all that failure to leave is a fuck up by the Tories, aside from the fact they fucked their majority with a disastrous election campaign in 2017.

Anyway we have an extension which leaves the door open for an election now (which we desperately need). If I was Boris I’d go with the LibDem/SNP offer and stop trying to force his deal through until after an election, if he commands a majority.

 

[Gassy]

The only part I’m confused about is how people can think Boris is doing a good job, just because he’s a Brexiteer. It’s like a weird cult, ‘he’s one of us’ - even if he acts unlawfully & misleads the queen, he’s still doing a good job. Quite frankly it’s disturbing.

Laker, the fuck up of their majority is the entire reason it gets blocked in parliament. It’s literally square 1 of the entire story. Every time parliament blocks the current government comes from a Tory fuck up of throwing away a majority, you can blame the individuals blocking it all you want but if they Tories didn’t throw it away, we wouldn’t have this problem, Brexit would have been done 2 years ago. I do understand the point you’re trying to make, but for me that’s step 2 which wouldn’t have happened if the biggest fuck up of them all didn’t happen.

I’m in Japan atm, I read something about Lib Dem & SNP wanting December 9th, any reason? SNP will want a GE so they can push for independence but I don’t see why Lib Dems are pushing for one? They have no chance and the only party they could side with is Labour, but Swinson already ruled that out - so what is her of Lib Dems objective? I really don’t understand it.

Now the EU have put an attachment to the extension that it can’t be renegotiated (which isn’t worth the paper it’s written on let’s be honest), I assume Labour will vote for the election? Otherwise what’s the point? We’re then just heading for no deal again?

 

[Laker]

The only part I’m confused about is how people can think Boris is doing a good job, just because he’s a Brexiteer. It’s like a weird cult, ‘he’s one of us’ - even if he acts unlawfully & misleads the queen, he’s still doing a good job. Quite frankly it’s disturbing.

Laker, the fuck up of their majority is the entire reason it gets blocked in parliament. It’s literally square 1 of the entire story. Every time parliament blocks the current government comes from a Tory fuck up of throwing away a majority, you can blame the individuals blocking it all you want but if they Tories didn’t throw it away, we wouldn’t have this problem, Brexit would have been done 2 years ago. I do understand the point you’re trying to make, but for me that’s step 2 which wouldn’t have happened if the biggest fuck up of them all didn’t happen.

I’m in Japan atm, I read something about Lib Dem & SNP wanting December 9th, any reason? SNP will want a GE so they can push for independence but I don’t see why Lib Dems are pushing for one? They have no chance and the only party they could side with is Labour, but Swinson already ruled that out - so what is her of Lib Dems objective? I really don’t understand it.

Now the EU have put an attachment to the extension that it can’t be renegotiated (which isn’t worth the paper it’s written on let’s be honest), I assume Labour will vote for the election? Otherwise what’s the point? We’re then just heading for no deal again?

I get the Tory-majority point and you’re right it did start there. But as FP said in one of his posts, I did expect the other parties to actually want to honour the referendum result as they initially said they would. Instead they’ve just set out to block it. If I’d thought they’d have blocked it as they had, I and many others would only have voted Tory because of this single issue. In essence we were conned into a vote for other parties.

The LibDems and SNP want it earlier to stop Brexit legislation being passed. Boris wants another crack at it prior to the election. Given it’s got no chance of passing in this Parliament, Boris is better off going with the Libs and SNP in order to get an election in the diary. It requires a change in the law if Labour won’t vote for that date. Labour say they won’t vote for an election unless no deal is removed altogether first.

Hypothetically though, I presume a government could take us out on no deal if it had a majority? So if Boris agreed to take no deal off the table, won a Tory majority (or even formed one with the Brexit party), he could reverse the law to take no deal off the table and just do it? I guess if Labour can prevent a Tory majority then Labour’s strategy has legs but if it doesn’t then they’re rather fucked anyway aren’t they?

 

[Gassy]

Yeah I understand the point you’re making but even FP (like 99% of people) said May’s deal was a bad one. Boris actually rejected it himself along with many other Tories - that was under the same manifesto of honouring Brexit, essentially the Tories even blocked themselves so I don’t buy the argument that it was parliament, it was themselves. It’s the oppositions job/position to disagree/challenge the government so they need to look at themselves before anyone else.

I didn’t hear Boris or anyone else moaning about parliament holding up Brexit before under May, but suddenly it’s Parliaments fault now? Boris can’t have it both ways ffs

So it seems since your post Boris is pushing for the 12th December anyway, which won’t pass.

Essentially as it now stands leaving without a deal on January 31st is legal again, I believe the Benn Act was limited to the October deadline, but to take us out immediately we’d have to vote it. So yes in theory that could happen, but I don’t think the Brexit party will do as well as first thought. Boris has done a pretty good job at uniting the leavers around the Tories. Whilst I think the Tories would win without a majority, I’m not sure the Brexit party would prop them up. Could be wrong though.

Can a coalition be more than 2 parties?

What I do find hilariously annoying from Labour & Libs though is that they could almost end this all within 2 weeks. If only Swinson could get off of her high horse and support a temporary government under Corbyn or Corbyn could just move aside for someone ‘neutral’ and they could literally overthrow Boris tomorrow, form a temporary government and hold a 2nd referendum.

But I guess that’s the problem, egos will get in the way of every politician

 

[Soup Ladle]

What I do find hilariously annoying from Labour & Libs though is that they could almost end this all within 2 weeks. If only Swinson could get off of her high horse and support a temporary government under Corbyn or Corbyn could just move aside for someone ‘neutral’ and they could literally overthrow Boris tomorrow, form a temporary government and hold a 2nd referendum.

But I guess that’s the problem, egos will get in the way of every politician

Exactly, the Lib Dems are so obsessed with Corbyn and anti semitism that they wouldn’t even contemplate a unity government with them. I don’t like Swinson much. Whenever I see her in the house she just rants like the angry feminist that she is.

If you get the Greens in with the LD and Labour they’d demolish the tories in an election but sadly won’t happen.

 

[Gassy]

Exactly, the Lib Dems are so obsessed with Corbyn and anti semitism that they wouldn’t even contemplate a unity government with them. I don’t like Swinson much. Whenever I see her in the house she just rants like the angry feminist that she is.

If you get the Greens in with the LD and Labour they’d demolish the tories in an election but sadly won’t happen.

Would the greens win any seats? I think there’s more chance of SNP with Labour?

But I completely agree on Libs & Swinson. She’d rather leave with no deal, than join with Corbyn for 5 weeks and hold a second referendum/revoke that she wants. It’s quite pathetic really.

Ultimately if anyone was to be temporary PM, it should be Corbyn considering his party would he the majority holding the government up ffs

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

The only part I’m confused about is how people can think Boris is doing a good job, just because he’s a Brexiteer. It’s like a weird cult, ‘he’s one of us’ [...]

The reason people think he's done a better job than May is because it's self-evident. He's secured a better deal than May and forced the EU to make concessions where she could not (or would not). The fact that he's a Brexiteer and actually wants to leave the EU in a meaningful sense is fundamental to that. I'm not a Tory, I've never voted Tory, I've said in the past that as a "conservative" party they're not fit for purpose - and I don't particularly trust Boris either... but I don't see how anyone can look at the job he's doing and not concede that it's better than what May managed.

I get the Tory-majority point and you’re right it did start there. But as FP said in one of his posts, I did expect the other parties to actually want to honour the referendum result as they initially said they would. Instead they’ve just set out to block it. If I’d thought they’d have blocked it as they had, I and many others would only have voted Tory because of this single issue. In essence we were conned into a vote for other parties.

The LibDems and SNP want it earlier to stop Brexit legislation being passed. Boris wants another crack at it prior to the election. Given it’s got no chance of passing in this Parliament, Boris is better off going with the Libs and SNP in order to get an election in the diary. It requires a change in the law if Labour won’t vote for that date. Labour say they won’t vote for an election unless no deal is removed altogether first.

Hypothetically though, I presume a government could take us out on no deal if it had a majority? So if Boris agreed to take no deal off the table, won a Tory majority (or even formed one with the Brexit party), he could reverse the law to take no deal off the table and just do it? I guess if Labour can prevent a Tory majority then Labour’s strategy has legs but if it doesn’t then they’re rather fucked anyway aren’t they?

The only legislation that could reliably take No Deal off the table, even if we wanted it to, would be a law that forces the PM to revoke Article 50. I think agreeing to that would be political suicide for the Tories. They'd never get the majority they'd need to overturn it, and the Lib Dems and the rest of the EU fifth column would get the Brexit betrayal they were looking for.

What I do find hilariously annoying from Labour & Libs though is that they could almost end this all within 2 weeks. If only Swinson could get off of her high horse and support a temporary government under Corbyn or Corbyn could just move aside for someone ‘neutral’ and they could literally overthrow Boris tomorrow, form a temporary government and hold a 2nd referendum.

It takes many, many months to set up a referendum. The process by which the electoral commission assesses the 'intelligibility' of the referendum question alone takes a minimum of about 12 weeks. The 'temporary' government wouldn't be very temporary, they'd need to commit to it for quite a while to get anything done, and even if they could, what would they even agree to commit to? An re-run of the 2016 referendum is not something either party is proposing were they to be elected, likely because neither of them truly believe they could win it.

 

[Fompous Part]

Boris wants an election because he believes the public have changed their mind since the 2017 general election. However, they couldn’t possibly have changed their mind since 2016 referendum and they shouldn’t be given the chance to.

The electorate had the chance to express a change of mind in 2017. They voted overwhelmingly (82% of the vote; approx. 90% of the seats) for the parties that stood on a pro-Brexit manifesto.

Since that result was implemented (unlike the 2016 result), we have approx. 30 months of experience to judge it on. Clearly, many MPs among the 2017 intake were elected on false pretences. Clearly, the parliamentary arithmetic has changed significantly since June 2017, and largely owing to decisions (e.g. defections) that haven’t been approved via any democratic mechanism. Clearly, the government lacks the ability to govern at a time of great national importance. This isn’t sustainable.

There is very little evidence indicating that a significant number of Leave voters have changed their mind since 2016. But if they have, a 2019 election gives them another chance to express it. So, what’s the problem?

 

[Gassy]

But I didn’t say whether he’s doing a better job than may, I said how people can think he’s doing a good job. Completely different things. Who’s confused now?

Why would the referendum in theory take longer than the general election? They can in theory agree either Boris’ deal or remain - no reason why it couldn’t be set up the same day as a general election is there? 2 votes, 1 is the referendum the other is the GE.

Easy peasy, feel free to vote Gassy for PM

 

[Gassy]

The electorate had the chance to express a change of mind in 2017. They voted overwhelmingly (82% of the vote; approx. 90% of the seats) for the parties that stood on a pro-Brexit manifesto.

Since that result was implemented (unlike the 2016 result), we have approx. 30 months of experience to judge it on. Clearly, many MPs among the 2017 intake were elected on false pretences. Clearly, the parliamentary arithmetic has changed significantly since June 2017, and largely owing to decisions (e.g. defections) that haven’t been approved via any democratic mechanism. Clearly, the government lacks the ability to govern at a time of great national importance. This isn’t sustainable.

There is very little evidence indicating that a significant number of Leave voters have changed their mind since 2016. But if they have, a 2019 election gives them another chance to express it. So, what’s the problem?

So 82% voted for their parties because of their Brexit policy? Never before have I read something that bends a statistic so much in my life! Might as well hand the over the commons to the Brexit party now

A general section splits the vote, why not a referendum which has 2 answers instead of 6? It’s not about leave voters changing their minds, the Brexit situation has changed from the original ‘pitch’ and many people who didn’t/couldn’t vote are in favour or remain 2:1 at least.

I think in future the UK should also ban polls, much like the EU does on European Parliament elections as they affect the final outcome

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

Why should Remain be on the ballot at all, when the question of remaining has already been answered, and the only ambiguity is the question of how we do it? If there were to be a second binary referendum, surely the questions on the ballot paper should be Deal or No Deal, not Deal or Remain.

 

[Fompous Part]

So 82% voted for their parties because of their Brexit policy? Never before have I read something that bends a statistic so much in my life! Might as well hand the over the commons to the Brexit party now

No, of course not. But if MPs are elected on a manifesto promising X and then spend the next 2-3 years brazenly doing everything in their power to prevent X, it's clear they were elected on false pretences. Bear in mind that here X is not some obscure policy commitment on sugar tax or whatever but the defining issue in British politics.

My point is we have political deadlock and abundant evidence that a significant number of the MPs causing the deadlock are acting entirely contrary to their manifesto commitments. That alone justifies calls for an election. Let’s get rid of all the silly pretence. The politicians who are hell bent on stopping Brexit can stand for election on that platform. The Conservative Party can stand for election promising Brexit, deal or no deal. Voters can decide. Fair enough, no?

It’s not about leave voters changing their minds, the Brexit situation has changed from the original ‘pitch’ and many people who didn’t/couldn’t vote are in favour or remain 2:1 at least.

The decision to leave was made in 2016. Every electoral contest excludes people on the basis of franchise eligibility, and the criteria used in 2016 was sensible and consistent with convention. It’s straw-grasping of the most desperate and nakedly partisan kind to suggest the 2016 vote (uniquely) should be re-run on that basis.

The convention in our politics is to implement electoral results and experience their consequences before having a re-think. We don’t nullify an electoral result because people on the losing side don’t like that result and/or think it'll be shit. That sets a terrible precedent. It also destroys the pre-political social trust required for a democratic way of life to endure.

Is stopping Brexit (rather than, say, building a strong re-join movement) really worth that price?

 

[Gassy]

So a referendum result that was based on lies shouldn’t be looked at again and shouldn’t be brought back to the people.

However the winners of seats in a general election in 2017 who’s seats were won on a basis of lies should be looked at again.

Makes sense.

I noticed no one answered my question as to why a referendum & GE can’t be on the same day, it’s very easy to just say ‘it takes too long’ when a GE can take 5 weeks. There is no reason that I see why they can’t be the same day.

The reason I believe it should be back on is because circumstances have changed, the vote leave was based on lies and guessed & people may have changed their minds. It’s funny, we can have a general election every 2.5 years recently and it’s called democratic because people change their minds on politics, but suggest another referendum on the same basis and it’s called undemocratic.

Btw, this was the 3rd referendum on leaving the EU I believe. Why not have a 4th, why should this be final? People say because ‘just because you lost you want another one’ - leave lost twice and yet it still came back.

Swings and roundabouts and all that

 

[Laker]

The problem with having another referendum is that parliament haven’t even enacted the last one yet and we were told throw was going to be a “once in a generation” referendum. In a GE, the vote results in the “enactment” of a new Parliament and you know there’ll be another one in five years’ time. That’s how they differ.

Frankly leavers are pissed off the referendum result hasn’t been put into action - you’re not going to get any support for another referendum from leavers as they don’t trust another leave win to not be ignored again. And why should a remain vote be respected? I certainly wouldn’t respect it as the original vote was ignored. Another referendum will lead to more division regardless of which way the vote goes, especially if it’s a remain win.

You talk about lies by the leave campaign and probably have a valid point. But don’t you think the remain campaign lied too? I’d have to question your sanity if your answer is “no”! And don’t you think both sides would lie again? In any case, a fair chunk of the leave vote (I reckon over half of leave voters) had already decided to vote leave before campaigning began. So if there were lies, not everyone was influenced by them.

We need a general election as the current numbers in the HoC do not provide any way forward for anything - there is a total stalemate that goes beyond Brexit. The house is effectively broken. And there have been a significant number of MPs switch parties (which in my opinion should result in a by election but that’s another discussion), plus a prime minister who wasn’t elected by the people.

On top of this, as FP correctly says, several MPs were elected on the back of manifestos they haven’t followed through. The mandate of the HoC is flimsy at best.

If a remain party (or coalition) wins and elects to revoke article 50 I’d be pretty pissed off and in my opinion the referendum result will have been ignored. But at least they’d have been forced the campaign on that basis so people know what they’re voting for. I guess I can half-forgive revocation then.

Edit: 3rd referendum on leaving the EU? Can you please point me in the direction of when the other two were? We had one on joining the common market (not the EU) in the 70s. We were then taken into the EU without a referendum thereafter.

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

I noticed no one answered my question as to why a referendum & GE can’t be on the same day, it’s very easy to just say ‘it takes too long’ when a GE can take 5 weeks. There is no reason that I see why they can’t be the same day.

I've already explained to you that the intelligibility assessments alone take about 12 weeks to complete. The preparation in it's entirety took about 13 months last time. Lots of work needs to be done to satisfy the electoral commission that everything is above board. You cannot just churn one out in a few weeks. It wouldn't be legal.

The reason I believe it should be back on is because circumstances have changed, the vote leave was based on lies and guessed & people may have changed their minds. It’s funny, we can have a general election every 2.5 years recently and it’s called democratic because people change their minds on politics, but suggest another referendum on the same basis and it’s called undemocratic.

I believe that you're being disingenuous. I believe that had Remain won the referendum you would have ignored their lies and made no calls for another referendum to be held.

Btw, this was the 3rd referendum on leaving the EU I believe.

Nope.

Swings and roundabouts and all that

Or goalposts, and the ones you keep moving.

 

[Gassy]

My apologies on the previous referendums, I could have sworn I read it somewhere but clearly I was confused about something else.

I don’t really get your point on the ‘once in a generation thing’ - why should it be? You were also lied to, still are lied to (as we all are) and have broken promises every day from politicians for the last 100 years, why are you hellbent that ‘we were told it was a once in a generation vote’ must be the one enshrined quote that cannot be broken? Genuinely curious.

I’m well aware of how they differ, I’m just saying why (and since when) should a referendum vote be a one time vote, when the original campaign was based on lies and since then everything has changed.

Of course leavers are angry, I would be. Hell, who isn’t atm? And I don’t expect them to want another referendum. Why should remain be respected if it won? Well the leave vote has tried to be respected, but contrary to the nonsense that came out before, it isn’t as easy as they all promised! However, remaining is a pretty simple job. If someone wants to put it back into their manifesto that they’ll take us out the EU on a general election then so be it, they win. Likely if leave won again and it didn’t go through then I personally would be testing outside Westminster to take us out.

 

[Gassy]

I've already explained to you that the intelligibility assessments alone take about 12 weeks to complete. The preparation in it's entirety took about 13 months last time. Lots of work needs to be done to satisfy the electoral commission that everything is above board. You cannot just churn one out in a few weeks. It wouldn't be legal.



I believe that you're being disingenuous. I believe that had Remain won the referendum you would have ignored their lies and made no calls for another referendum to be held.



Nope.



Or goalposts, and the ones you keep moving.

What goalposts have I moved?

It takes 22 weeks to hold a referendum, not a minimum of 12 months.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-politics-46426380

Goal posts being moved by who, sorry?

Yes, I probably wouldn’t have moaned in the other way around, much like you’re not moaning now despite the lies from vote leave. I thought that much is pretty obvious...

 

[Ebeneezer Goode]

So you admit that you don't respect the referendum result because it was Leave that won and not Remain, but you're not sure which goalposts you're moving? Yeah I see what you mean, that's a real head-scratcher...

 

[Fompous Part]

If a remain party (or coalition) wins and elects to revoke article 50 I’d be pretty pissed off and in my opinion the referendum result will have been ignored. But at least they’d have fought the campaign on that basis so people know what they’re voting for. I guess I can half-forgive revocation then.

Ditto.

 

[Fompous Part]

So a referendum result that was based on lies shouldn’t be looked at again and shouldn’t be brought back to the people. However the winners of seats in a general election in 2017 who’s seats were won on a basis of lies should be looked at again.

Describing it as a “referendum based on lies” is a gross caricature. Use of misleading or false statistics is, regrettably, a common feature of political campaigning. So is making highly-biased predictions that prove to be massively wrong. If making bad arguments is sufficient reason for voiding an electoral result, we might as well dispense with the democratic experiment entirely and commit ourselves to a state of endless inertia. Human nature is too imperfect to ever pass that test.

Any argument that the 2016 result (uniquely) should be voided on this basis has to explain why it is different to any other electoral contest (e.g. the 1975 referendum during which the pro-EEC side lied consistently) or why the infamous £350m claim (challenged and exposed as false at the time) was worse than, say, the demonstrably false claims about two thirds of our manufacturing jobs being dependent on EU membership, or George Osborne lying by omission by not mentioning the Treasury and the Bank of England’s contingency planning (which potentially cost Leave millions of votes) until after the contest.

Voters know that politicians are, by and large, sneaky shits. They know that politicians are trying to win an argument, not impart platonic truth. A certain amount of scepticism comes with that, which (along with a scrutiny of the media) is a pretty effective safeguard against the worst excesses. It’s a much more serious matter when people campaign for election promising X and then spent the next 2-3 years doing the complete opposite. Wariness about politicians can’t guard against that, because engagement in the democratic process is impossible unless you’re willing to trust candidates on the absolute fundamentals. If you can’t trust politicians to honour the most basic pledges on which they were elected, the only safeguard is to opt out of the process altogether.

And you are still not grasping the most significant difference between the 2016 and 2017 results, namely that the 2017 one was implemented. I have no objection to subsequent referendums on the issue of EU membership. I just want the result of the last referendum to be honoured first. Let’s base any future re-think on lived experience, not the bad-loser special pleading or apocalyptic doom-mongering of people who have never liked the idea and want it to fail.

 

[Camborne Gills]

Ditto.

i could never forgive. Remain LOST, end of!! Get over yourselves, you pathetic snowflakes.

 

[Camborne Gills]

Hopefully, Boris will win without any 'help' from the DUP, then we should't need another (pointless)referendum.

 

[Super_horns]

General Election on December 12th.

Might shake things up !?

 

[PuB]

I would be furious if article 50 was revoked without the consent of a second referendum, that’s entirely unacceptable even if parties campaign to do it during the election (hey EG look at me).

Leaving could have been a fantastic thing for us, I was very borderline, but the continued fuckups from the tories have made it unworkable. For business and the population as a whole.

 

[Gassy]

So you admit that you don't respect the referendum result because it was Leave that won and not Remain, but you're not such which goalposts you're moving? Yeah I see what you mean, that's a real head-scratcher...

How is being unhappy about the result moving the goalpost? You know, I am entitled to my opinion, or do you expect me to jump on the leave band wagon? Still looking forward to your goalpost example.

FP, good post - and thanks for the explanation of your opinion. However you’re basing it that all politicians are liars and have always lied therefore we are good. The situation has changed IMO, we can’t get a good deal as expected and it will hurt us more than expected. I abstained on the vote at the time because I actually believed there could be good in Brexit, if we stick it out, I saw arguments for both sides. However, it is a complete mess, there is no way IMO it improves our country and will almost certainly break up the UK. This for me requires another opinion from the public. We have a deal & we can see what it will do. We have remain, but it will separate the country even more than it currently is. Take a pick

 

[Indian Dan]

General Election on December 12th.

Might shake things up !?

How? If you are a Leaver but can’t stomach 5 years of Corbyn’s policies, or a Remainer but can’t stomach 5 years of Boris bluster and lies, just who do you vote for?

A GE on what is, essentially, a one issue agenda is only going to generate more obfuscation and confusion.

 

[Camborne Gills]

Just watched Andrew Neil grilling Jo Swinson on BBC2. If she isn't the most deluded politician in history....................

 

[PuB]

She’s awful.

 

[Super_horns]

Not sure anyone should be allowed to just totally null and void a referendum result like she does just because they didn't like the outcome ..

Will she do the same for the election?

 

[Gassy]

Didn’t see her interview & I won’t vote for Lib Dems because I can’t agree with revoking article 50, however if their manifesto is to revoke it and they win an election with majority, surely that’s fair enough?