World Brexit: "Technical terms" agreed - Chequers minus, as feared, or Brexit in name only.

heyitsmike

The beatings will continue until morale improves.
kiwifarms.net
Lolz. Totally believable. /s

So the Queen wants to sack Boris for trying to force through Brexit over the complaints of the Remoaners? Yeah right.

I doubt her majesty has forgotten that just a few weeks ago Remoaners were wanting to cancel her.
 

Slimy Time

Rape Face #3
kiwifarms.net
Lolz. Totally believable. /s

So the Queen wants to sack Boris for trying to force through Brexit over the complaints of the Remoaners? Yeah right.

I doubt her majesty has forgotten that just a few weeks ago Remoaners were wanting to cancel her.
"A source"...Is this the same type of "source" that informed the US media of a whistle-blower? Because it smells like bullshit.
 

iRON-mAn

kiwifarms.net
Do they really mainly argue over whether the UK should leave or not?
Absolutely. Again, the Libdems official stance is to revoke article 50 and believe that they can get a remain vote through a second referendum, because that would some how negate the first vote.

I mean, I would not approve of a second referendum, but that would at least set the record straight as to what the people want.
Doubt it. First off they would try and split the leave vote by offering separate options for hard brexit, soft brexit, brexit in name, May's deal, and everything in between, then claim victory when the single remain option beats everything else. And even if remain wins, does that mean people have changed their minds? It'd likely only confuse the issue further.

It seems their focus is completely wrong, but to a certain degree, I think a major part of that problem is, that everyone has a subjective opinion of what is best. It's not like some politician chooses some bad deal knowingly out of spite. They think that their deal is in the best interest of the UK and everyone else disagrees, cause they, too, think their deal is better. I'd even argue, there is no objectively superior deal, since it really depends on what the end goal is for the individual.
To some, the independence of the Hard Brexit is better, to some, close ties to the EU are better. That makes it very hard to come to terms and no one wants to back down.
And? At some point push has to come to shove and there has to be some kind of decision. If one can't be reached, then that's specifically what no deal was designed for, but parliament are trying to make that impossible. So what exactly is supposed to be done when you can't move forward and you can't move back and the very mechanisms meant to keep this process from stagnating the government are being subverted in the name of democracy?

Wasn't the decision that Johnson was not to leave without a deal? Where does the "They will not accept any deal that he offers" part?
Genuine question.
SNP won't accept any deal he offers unless it's remain, because Scotland voted remain so they shouldn't be taken out against their will (despite that not being the question the referendum asked.)
Libdems will refuse any deal that doesn't call for a second referendum.
Labour will refuse any deal on the principle that they didn't negotiate it and they can't let the Tory's take credit for actually leaving. Whether the deal would actually conflict with the policy seems to be a daily matter.
 

mindlessobserver

kiwifarms.net
A common misconception about the American revolutionaries is they were pissed at the king. They were pissed at parliament first.

Parliament kept passing taxes without representation so the colonists asked the king to block assent but even back then the monarch hadn't blocked a bill for 70 years and so wasn't going to act.





"Supremacy of parliament" is the same reason they use for all the court actions against Brexit (though in the revolution it was parliament over the king and with Brexit it's parliament over the government).



Their overestimating the power of the monarch is probably the reason why the US president ended up so powerful.

We made the President so powerful because we saw exactly what happens when a legislature gets captured by its own inertia and cant stop a train wreck in progress. There was a deep concern of not only a repeat of the legislature implementing bad policy, but of also becoming so beholden to immediate political tides it sticks with them at all costs.

Which is the problem britain has. Parliament, and in particular a single chamber of it, has amassed massive unchecked power and its flailing about helpless, captured by it's own political shenanigans.
 

heyitsmike

The beatings will continue until morale improves.
kiwifarms.net
We made the President so powerful because we saw exactly what happens when a legislature gets captured by its own inertia and cant stop a train wreck in progress. There was a deep concern of not only a repeat of the legislature implementing bad policy, but of also becoming so beholden to immediate political tides it sticks with them at all costs.

Which is the problem britain has. Parliament, and in particular a single chamber of it, has amassed massive unchecked power and its flailing about helpless, captured by it's own political shenanigans.
After seeing the way things are playing out in the UK I'm glad we have a presidential system vice a parliamentary one. It allows the people to directly put someone outside the system at the top.

Some people say the President has too much power but this Congress has shown me it's not. I don't trust the Dems to do their job and not let the country suffer to score points. Look at the border situation. They would rather incentive child trafficking, allowing drugs and criminals to enter and expend taxpayer money on benefits to illegals than give Trump a win.

That's why I was glad he vetoed the bill preventing him from taking military action without Congressional approval. If Trump needed to use military force the Dems would rather not authorize it and let an attack happen to use as a cudgel than let him defend the country.
 

Irrelevant

kiwifarms.net
We made the President so powerful because we saw exactly what happens when a legislature gets captured by its own inertia and cant stop a train wreck in progress. There was a deep concern of not only a repeat of the legislature implementing bad policy, but of also becoming so beholden to immediate political tides it sticks with them at all costs.

Which is the problem britain has. Parliament, and in particular a single chamber of it, has amassed massive unchecked power and its flailing about helpless, captured by it's own political shenanigans.
That's what I mean though, they wanted it to work that way so they made it work that way. But most simple explanations of the revolution will blame the king for being too powerful and people celebrate parliament becoming more powerful.

The monarchy was already pretty defunct by 1700. It probably only stays around because when England was actually a republic under Cromwell he purged MPs he didn't like whereas the monarch usually let anyone in because it doesn't really matter to them.

But why did Cromwell purge parliament in the first place? Because they got themselves trapped by something similar to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_Parliament

The Long Parliament was an English Parliament which lasted from 1640 until 1660. The Long Parliament received its name from the fact that, by Act of Parliament, it stipulated it could be dissolved only with agreement of the members
 

Slimy Time

Rape Face #3
kiwifarms.net
We made the President so powerful because we saw exactly what happens when a legislature gets captured by its own inertia and cant stop a train wreck in progress. There was a deep concern of not only a repeat of the legislature implementing bad policy, but of also becoming so beholden to immediate political tides it sticks with them at all costs.

Which is the problem britain has. Parliament, and in particular a single chamber of it, has amassed massive unchecked power and its flailing about helpless, captured by it's own political shenanigans.
The problem here is the Fixed Terms Parliament Act enacted in 2011, when there was no clear majority after an election and the Tories teamed up with the Lib-Dems to become a coalition government. One of the terms of this coalition was the instillation of said act, which shifted the power to call election out of the hands of the PM and into the hands of parliament, so as to stop the Tories and David Cameron from simply trying to call an election when his party was on the rise and kick the Lib-Dem portion out. It stripped a major power from the PM and put it into parliament - the power to call a snap election more or less whenever they want without a 2/3 vote in parliament and the power to choose a date when to have an election.

This is why we have this problem today. If not for that act, there would already be an election and the former remain MPs would be out in due course. Because of this act, the PM can no longer call a snap election whenever they want, it has to go through parliament, which weak governments or governments with small majorities would do on a particular policy issue, and allow them to keep pushing through legislation even in a minority. This means that a weak government, which can't pass anything because the opposition blocks them, like the one we have now, cannot be given the chance to either fall or strengthen itself. This was actually predicted as a problem by a legal article in June, and lo and behold, it was right.

One of the things apparently a few conservative MPs are looking to do as a result of the gridlock is repeal this bill when an election does occur and if they win with a majority. That would be the first thing they could do to shift power out of the hands of parliament and into the PM again.

Edit: The ability to call a snap election and timetable elections could also work against the PM, because a major fuckup or string of defeat would put pressure on him to call a snap to rectify it/push a bill through, and could possibly lead to his party being booted out, so it cut both ways. Now they don't have to worry about this, so they can do a May, or have this situation, and are unable to unseat or force the government to risk an election.

Edit#2: It's also the reason why people like Dominic Grieve, Rory Stewart, all these ex-Remain Tories and all these other independent politicians can previously walk around and spout off their garbage with impunity. If not for this garbage act, these guys would have likely fallen in line if they wanted to keep their jobs because at any time, the PM could withdraw the whip from dissenters, call a snap election and the major parties can put someone against them to kick them out. It was literally a way in which the PM could control his party and the Commons as a whole.
 
Last edited:

AnOminous

I'm not mad at anyone, honest.
True & Honest Fan
Retired Staff
kiwifarms.net
Edit: The ability to call a snap election and timetable elections could also work against the PM, because a major fuckup or string of defeat would put pressure on him to call a snap to rectify it/push a bill through, and could possibly lead to his party being booted out, so it cut both ways. Now they don't have to worry about this, so they can do a May, or have this situation, and are unable to unseat or force the government to risk an election.
I'd say this is an example of why having a written Constitution makes sense. It makes it somewhat more difficult to completely fuck up the balance of power between the branches of government just because someone felt like doing it because of their whim of the moment.

Now Parliament is apparently simultaneously too weak to do anything but too "strong" in another sense just to get rid of it like you'd usually treat a malfunctioning body like this.
 

Slimy Time

Rape Face #3
kiwifarms.net
I'd say this is an example of why having a written Constitution makes sense. It makes it somewhat more difficult to completely fuck up the balance of power between the branches of government just because someone felt like doing it because of their whim of the moment.

Now Parliament is apparently simultaneously too weak to do anything but too "strong" in another sense just to get rid of it like you'd usually treat a malfunctioning body like this.
I agree, unfortunately I would never trust any politician in todays political climate to produce a constitution giving as much liberty to people as the US constitution does. If ever one did get implemented in the UK, it would more than likely codify the worst aspects of the current pseudo-police state. Your constitution is very uniquely "American" in the ideas and rights it protects, and would be seen as potentially blasphemous in Europe to even suggest.
 

BR55

kiwifarms.net
Your constitution is very uniquely "American" in the ideas and rights it protects, and would be seen as potentially blasphemous in Europe to even suggest.
Well thats kinda what happens when you view your population not as citizens with unassailable and un-revokable rights but as subjects who you the government are graciously allowing to have rights and who can take those rights away if the subjects are being uppity and disobeying their betters.
The relationship of europeans and their governments is just fundamentally fucked.
In a bygone age of civic virtue that arrangement might have been able to work but in todays world of Neoliberalism and the "enlightened" managerial state eurotrash are exceptionally vulnerable to these kinds of "this is for our your own good" shenanigans.
 

Ginger Piglet

Fictional Manhunt Survivor
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Queen E may not like dealing with these faggots, but who knows what Prince Williams would do. (Let's be real, Prince Charles is widely considered to be a lame duck figure at this point. I always loved the theory that Queen E refused to die on account of not letting her spineless son grace the throne.)
Brenda isn't going to die any time soon. Her mother got to over 100.

The republic being fed up is one thing, but a hard border needing to be drastically implemented along the north would be more irksome than haggling over exactly how they're going to manage it for the future.
Unlikely. Who's going to put one up? We aren't. The Irish won't because it impedes the land bridge. The EU army gonna come along and impose one?

Thing is, proposals to avert the backstop like max fac, frictionless checks and trusted traders schemes, and so forth, which already are in place at Calais and Norway / Sweden, are derided as a "unicorn" by the EU. This to me indicates they are not acting in good faith.
 

Alba gu brath

kiwifarms.net
Thing is, proposals to avert the backstop like max fac, frictionless checks and trusted traders schemes, and so forth, which already are in place at Calais and Norway / Sweden, are derided as a "unicorn" by the EU. This to me indicates they are not acting in good faith.
If I'm not mistaken, and by all means, correct me if I'm wrong, but to even go into friction-less trade, it'd require the whole free movement attachment. Which is kinda the match that set off the fireworks. That, and the fact we actively are saying no to EU regulations once we're out, means we wouldn't manage to function akin to say, Norway. Kinda is 'unicorn' to want to be one, when you refuse to wear the silly horn on your head.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Lou Wrong

iRON-mAn

kiwifarms.net
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7524125/Lib-Dem-leader-Jo-Swinson-warns-Jeremy-Corbyn-NOT-PM.html?ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&ito=1490

Ignore that it's the daily mail, I just couldn't find a report on the story that wasn't buried under reports of opposition groups meeting to discuss who should be unity leader.

So, they don't want no-deal, they won't support the government in power and they won't back each other...is this not exactly the kind of situation no deal was designed for? They seem savvy enough to know that ousting him at this point could still cause brexit, but what exactly is their plan? If they wait long enough Boris can force their hand by refusing to ask for an extension. Even if the Queen dismisses him as some suggested, the other parties still have to form a government, which if they can do, requires a general election, which will lead to us crashing out.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Botchy Galoop

RomanesEuntDomus

May contain nuts.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
Absolutely. Again, the Libdems official stance is to revoke article 50 and believe that they can get a remain vote through a second referendum, because that would some how negate the first vote.
Libdems arguing over that is ridiculous and if they got into power and stopped Brexit, that would be some next-level bullshit.
Admittedly, the Brexit Referendum was not legally binding, but it would be scummy beyond believe to ignore it... which brings me to my next point:
Assuming there is a new referendum (again with only the option of leave vs. remain) and this time, remain won out by whatever margin, how would that not negate the first referendum?
The whole argument of "This is what the people want" would fall flat on its ass and become null and void.

I sincerely hope that there will be no second referendum, though.

And? At some point push has to come to shove and there has to be some kind of decision. If one can't be reached, then that's specifically what no deal was designed for, but parliament are trying to make that impossible. So what exactly is supposed to be done when you can't move forward and you can't move back and the very mechanisms meant to keep this process from stagnating the government are being subverted in the name of democracy?
Demonstrations, protests, stuff like that.
Not assassination threats or terrorism.

SNP won't accept any deal he offers unless it's remain, because Scotland voted remain so they shouldn't be taken out against their will (despite that not being the question the referendum asked.)
Libdems will refuse any deal that doesn't call for a second referendum.
Labour will refuse any deal on the principle that they didn't negotiate it and they can't let the Tory's take credit for actually leaving. Whether the deal would actually conflict with the policy seems to be a daily matter.
My point is that exactly: The problem is that too many people have their minds set on whatever *they* think is best for the UK and they are supported by parts of the population, therefore speaking with the authority of "the people" in toto is moot.

The stalling of the government is due to opposing political views, not the result of a legislation as was insinuated earlier.
It's a major difference, one is the logical outcome of a fragmented parliament, the other would be a deliberate sabotage by all major parties together on a major political level.
Admittedly, the effect is the same, but the mechanics behind it are what matters.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Unog

Absolutego

kiwifarms.net
Libdems arguing over that is ridiculous and if they got into power and stopped Brexit, that would be some next-level bullshit.
Admittedly, the Brexit Referendum was not legally binding, but it would be scummy beyond believe to ignore it... which brings me to my next point:
Assuming there is a new referendum (again with only the option of leave vs. remain) and this time, remain won out by whatever margin, how would that not negate the first referendum?
The whole argument of "This is what the people want" would fall flat on its ass and become null and void.

I sincerely hope that there will be no second referendum, though.
Unless the pro-Remain swing was to such a degree that they could claim a mandate (65%+, imo), pro-Brexit figures won't drop the "this is what the people want" mantra, they'll just begin to bring up previous times countries have been made to re-vote on EU-related legislation until they voted the way their government wanted, like in Ireland and Portugal.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Unog

RomanesEuntDomus

May contain nuts.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
they'll just begin to bring up previous times countries have been made to re-vote on EU-related legislation until they voted the way their government wanted, like in Ireland and Portugal.
Which is the exact reason why I don't want a 2nd referendum. UK politicians created this mess and I don't want this pile of incompetence laid on my doorstep, so to speak. No matter how this shitshow ends, Hard Brexit, Checkers, no Brexit, it's all the responsibility and doing of the UK politicians.

But how is a first referendum with 52% in favor of leave more legitimate than a (hypothetical) second one in favor of remaining, that's what I don't get.
Sure, letting people vote until the desired outcome is achieved is ridiculous, but one could argue that now, with the current EU deal, a No-Deal situation and the possibility of revoking Article 50, people have a much better understanding of what they are actually voting for and what Brexit actually means. In that line of thought, a 2nd referendum would make a lot of sense to clear things up. It goes without saying that this referendum should mirror the first one and only offer leave and remain as option. In case Leave has the upper hand, you could have another referendum on what kind of deal people want and list off all the alternatives at hand.

I think leavers want to avoid a 2nd referendum, cause they are mortally afraid it could show that most people now support remain.
 
  • Dumb
  • Optimistic
Reactions: Unog and JohnDoe

iRON-mAn

kiwifarms.net
Libdems arguing over that is ridiculous and if they got into power and stopped Brexit, that would be some next-level bullshit.
Admittedly, the Brexit Referendum was not legally binding, but it would be scummy beyond believe to ignore it... which brings me to my next point:
Assuming there is a new referendum (again with only the option of leave vs. remain) and this time, remain won out by whatever margin, how would that not negate the first referendum?
The whole argument of "This is what the people want" would fall flat on its ass and become null and void.

I sincerely hope that there will be no second referendum, though.
Which is the exact reason why I don't want a 2nd referendum. UK politicians created this mess and I don't want this pile of incompetence laid on my doorstep, so to speak. No matter how this shitshow ends, Hard Brexit, Checkers, no Brexit, it's all the responsibility and doing of the UK politicians.

But how is a first referendum with 52% in favor of leave more legitimate than a (hypothetical) second one in favor of remaining, that's what I don't get.
Sure, letting people vote until the desired outcome is achieved is ridiculous, but one could argue that now, with the current EU deal, a No-Deal situation and the possibility of revoking Article 50, people have a much better understanding of what they are actually voting for and what Brexit actually means. In that line of thought, a 2nd referendum would make a lot of sense to clear things up. It goes without saying that this referendum should mirror the first one and only offer leave and remain as option. In case Leave has the upper hand, you could have another referendum on what kind of deal people want and list off all the alternatives at hand.

I think leavers want to avoid a 2nd referendum, cause they are mortally afraid it could show that most people now support remain.
It's legitimate because they asked a question and got an answer. You said yourself that voting until you get a desired outcome is ridiculous. They have their answer, they just don't like it.

Additionally, as you said, it would need to mirror the first referendum, which is all but impossible. What that would require is a fair test, but it'd be extremely difficult to keep most of the same conditions. There's no way to ensure things like voter turn out, so what happens when Remain wins the second time by a similar margin by a lower turn out? How does that settle the question?

And I can guarantee that what would actually happen would be that the red line would be set at 60% and when neither hit the target, Remain would claim it as a victory because there isn't enough leave support. So yeah, I think Leavers are scared of a referendum, but not because it'll show Remain support, but it'll just be another way for parties to pretend like the first vote never happened.

Demonstrations, protests, stuff like that.
Not assassination threats or terrorism.
As I've said before, I agree that threats and terrorism are going too far. However, I can understand the anger of people who feel like they've been ignored and that protests and demonstrations would continue to be ignored. There have been Pro-Brexit protests, but it's not like parliament then sat up and listened.

My point is that exactly: The problem is that too many people have their minds set on whatever *they* think is best for the UK and they are supported by parts of the population, therefore speaking with the authority of "the people" in toto is moot.

The stalling of the government is due to opposing political views, not the result of a legislation as was insinuated earlier.
It's a major difference, one is the logical outcome of a fragmented parliament, the other would be a deliberate sabotage by all major parties together on a major political level.
Admittedly, the effect is the same, but the mechanics behind it are what matters.
Well, no, there are MP's who are MP's of leave areas who are willfully ignoring their own people's views. They've decided what is best for the people based on the views of people who aren't even in their constituency.

I don't think it actually matters whether it's a political or legislative stall, if we can't come to an agreement, then the mechanic put in place to deal with this is 'no deal'. If politicians can't agree on what a deal should be, how it should look or who it should represent, the default is no deal. When you take that off the table, then where do you go from there?

I'm all for making concessions and compromise, but given that the leave vote did win, regardless of the narrowness of the margin, I don't see why the compromise should be that we actually don't leave and the people who wanted to just suck it up.
 

RomanesEuntDomus

May contain nuts.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
It's legitimate because they asked a question and got an answer. You said yourself that voting until you get a desired outcome is ridiculous. They have their answer, they just don't like it
If this was a debate over the 3rd, 4th or 5th referendum with all previous ones showing support for leave, I would absolutely agree. I don't think it applies to a possible second referendum as much in this case, since there have been some developements (namely: We now know what deal is on the table and what the alternatives actually mean), so people can make a much more informed decision, since they actually know what they are voting for.
If this was just a series of referendums without anything important happening in between, sure, that's scummy bullshit.
But in this very case, there is a major difference, that has a major influence on the decision at hand.

Additionally, as you said, it would need to mirror the first referendum, which is all but impossible. What that would require is a fair test, but it'd be extremely difficult to keep most of the same conditions. There's no way to ensure things like voter turn out, so what happens when Remain wins the second time by a similar margin by a lower turn out? How does that settle the question?
It only needs to mirror the choices available, not the turnout rate or anything else. What happens at a lower turnout? Well, what happens at a higher turnout? It applies just the same way the first one did, no matter trivial details such as turnout rates. As long as it's not a miniscule percentage of the public voting, I fail to see a problem or why any of this should matter. It didn't matter in 2016, it shouldn't matter now.

And I can guarantee that what would actually happen would be that the red line would be set at 60% and when neither hit the target, Remain would claim it as a victory because there isn't enough leave support.
Can they even do that? And what if the turnout is bigger than the first time and it's 65% in favor of remaining?
Your whole argument is "A 2nd referendum would not be legitimate, since they'd undoubtedly do something scummy!"... well... what if they didn't and it showed major support to remain?

I just don't see why a second referendum would be any less legitimate than the first one (assuming they don't pull any shenanigans with splitting the Brexit vote or implementing a 60% barrier or something like that). It's just ridiculous that Leavers are jerking themselves raw over "The people voted for Brexit, they want to get out of the EU" but at the same time, it seems to me, they lack any confidence that this decision would be confirmed in a 2nd referendum.

So yeah, I think Leavers are scared of a referendum, but not because it'll show Remain support, but it'll just be another way for parties to pretend like the first vote never happened.
There's only 2 possible outcomes: Either it confirms that people want out or it shows that people changed their minds. The latter case would mean exactly that: The first one no longer matters. So why is this a problem?

And I can't stress enough that despite all that, I still don't support a 2nd referendum, I just find the notion of it being somehow less legitimate by default than the first one to be absolutely nonsensical.

Well, no, there are MP's who are MP's of leave areas who are willfully ignoring their own people's views. They've decided what is best for the people based on the views of people who aren't even in their constituency.
I'm not familiar with UK politics, what say do these people have in the grand scheme of things when it comes to the UK as a whole? Can they vote on anything important?
And besides: You're reducing politics to this one question and want politicians to step down in favor of people supporting one certain stance in one certain field.
That's sort of reductive, wouldn't you say? These people have been elected into their office with a plethora of political stances, if their stance on Brexit was that big a deal to the voters, they could have elected someone else and I think there's still a wide field of political issues that these politicians cover for their constituency in agreement with their voters (ie: the very reason why they were elected).

I don't think it actually matters whether it's a political or legislative stall, if we can't come to an agreement, then the mechanic put in place to deal with this is 'no deal'. If politicians can't agree on what a deal should be, how it should look or who it should represent, the default is no deal. When you take that off the table, then where do you go from there?
The point I'm making is that someone claimed that parliament has ruled that Johnson can't leave without a deal and that they also ruled that they will not accept a deal from Johnson. That's simply not the case.

I'm all for making concessions and compromise, but given that the leave vote did win, regardless of the narrowness of the margin, I don't see why the compromise should be that we actually don't leave and the people who wanted to just suck it up.
I wholeheartedly agree, the UK should leave on basis of Brexit and I hope if they can't get their shit together by end this month, the EU should just give them one shot on adopting the current deal or simply deal with WTO rules.
If the UK parliament wants to stop it, the least they should do is hold another referendum and if that shows support to remain in the EU, then that might be used as a justification... but again:
I would never support a 2nd referendum.
 

iRON-mAn

kiwifarms.net
If this was a debate over the 3rd, 4th or 5th referendum with all previous ones showing support for leave, I would absolutely agree. I don't think it applies to a possible second referendum as much in this case, since there have been some developements (namely: We now know what deal is on the table and what the alternatives actually mean), so people can make a much more informed decision, since they actually know what they are voting for.
If this was just a series of referendums without anything important happening in between, sure, that's scummy bullshit.
But in this very case, there is a major difference, that has a major influence on the decision at hand.
I don't buy the rhetoric that people didn't know what they were voting for. They voted leave. Whether they thought that going out meant throwing off the shackles of slavery, just not having to deal with unnecessary European red tape or thought they could have all the perks with none of the responsibility, it doesn't actually matter, they all voted on the presumption that the UK would no longer be part of the European Union. They shouldn't have to be asked if they really meant it now that they've seen politicians fumble about for years debating whether they really meant it. They voted to leave and it was up to the UK government to figure out the best way to do that. If they can't then, no deal. That's literally the process, and a second referendum is completely unnecessary.

It only needs to mirror the choices available, not the turnout rate or anything else. What happens at a lower turnout? Well, what happens at a higher turnout? It applies just the same way the first one did, no matter trivial details such as turnout rates. As long as it's not a miniscule percentage of the public voting, I fail to see a problem or why any of this should matter. It didn't matter in 2016, it shouldn't matter now.
It matters because it's a confirmatory vote, and you can't confirm something with a completely different set of people. It did kind of matter in the first one but voter turn out was quite high, higher than most general elections, so it was difficult to argue that it didn't represent most people or that voters didn't make an effort to be heard. If voter apathy and disillusionment with the government causes a downturn on voter turn out, then you're simply just asking the first decision to be erased by a smaller percentage of people. A higher turn out would be preferable to enforce the decision, but my point is that you can't guarantee it one way or another. Additionally how many people have turned 18 in the past few years? How many people have died? You're asking a completely different set of people the same question and insisting that the people who answered the previous question should have to live with their answer.

Can they even do that? And what if the turnout is bigger than the first time and it's 65% in favor of remaining?
Your whole argument is "A 2nd referendum would not be legitimate, since they'd undoubtedly do something scummy!"... well... what if they didn't and it showed major support to remain?

I just don't see why a second referendum would be any less legitimate than the first one (assuming they don't pull any shenanigans with splitting the Brexit vote or implementing a 60% barrier or something like that). It's just ridiculous that Leavers are jerking themselves raw over "The people voted for Brexit, they want to get out of the EU" but at the same time, it seems to me, they lack any confidence that this decision would be confirmed in a 2nd referendum.
The point is that if the first one is legitimate, you don't need a second to legitimize it. There was also no path towards revoking article 50, but here we are, with a sizable portion of the Commons desiring to overturn the decision of the referendum entirely. As long as leave loses, they consider it a win.

Honestly, I'm quite confident that another referendum would repeat the first vote. There is still a lot of support for leave, but remain tends to simply shriek louder. I'm just against the very idea of a second referendum. But if you think that leavers are insecure, what's your opinion on the opposition parties reluctance to have a general election?

There's only 2 possible outcomes: Either it confirms that people want out or it shows that people changed their minds. The latter case would mean exactly that: The first one no longer matters. So why is this a problem?
We thought there were only two outcomes to the first referendum too, and look how wrong we were.

Again, why should the first one no longer matter? Because a bunch of politicians can't get their heads out of their ass long enough to cobble something together, or because they're trying to subvert the actual process by making no deal unlawful? This isn't a problem of the result, it's a problem with the politicians.

I'm not familiar with UK politics, what say do these people have in the grand scheme of things when it comes to the UK as a whole? Can they vote on anything important?
And besides: You're reducing politics to this one question and want politicians to step down in favor of people supporting one certain stance in one certain field.
That's sort of reductive, wouldn't you say? These people have been elected into their office with a plethora of political stances, if their stance on Brexit was that big a deal to the voters, they could have elected someone else and I think there's still a wide field of political issues that these politicians cover for their constituency in agreement with their voters (ie: the very reason why they were elected).
I'm reducing it to a single question because it's the question at hand. If the majority of their constituents voted to leave, it's pretty disingenuous for any politician to claim they voted in on the basis of lawn maintenance and then do whatever they want in terms of Brexit. Your people voted, so you should represent them. If you disagree and can't do that, step down.

As for what they can do, it's slightly different for the devolved governments, but English MPs are elected directly to the House of Commons, so they're the ones voting on the important stuff, yes.

The point I'm making is that someone claimed that parliament has ruled that Johnson can't leave without a deal and that they also ruled that they will not accept a deal from Johnson. That's simply not the case.
I don't think that @Krokodil Overdose actually said that it was legislative. I mean, that they can't leave without a deal is very obviously legislative now, but you just have to look at how they're forming blocs and conspiring to create a unity party to tell you that they simply have no interest in working with the government in power.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Unog
Tags
None

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1DgS5RfHw7xA82Yxa5BtgZL65ngwSk6bmm
ETH: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
BAT: 0xc1071c60Ae27C8CC3c834E11289205f8F9C78CA5
LTC: LSZsFCLUreXAZ9oyc9JRUiRwbhkLCsFi4q
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino