The Brexit Thread

[Ancalagon]

Xarog splitting hairs! That’s (not) a new one.

A Parliament cannot bind another future Parliament to carry out decisions either.

Any decisions made by the Cameron Parliament ended with the 2017 election. A future Parliament can choose to continue with a path of action but constitutionally they are also free to ignore.

So the new Parliament can ignore the referendum?

He he! If only it were that simple!

It was a non-binding referendum, that was a mistake by Cameron, if it was supposed to be a ”will of the people” no discussion or amendment decision fixed in law then it should have been legislated as such.

There are plenty of people locally who have changed their mind, mostly Leavers who now want to remain but there are also some remainers who now just want to leave, it’s been 3 years and it’s not unreasonable to put it back to the people. This time is should be legislated as a binding referendum with a binary choice between no deal exit or remain. The legislation should then also fix a Brexit date for leaving in the event it is a leave vote.

Simple, legislate it to ask “do you want to remain or leave with no deal on xx/xx/2020”.

There were a number of problems with the referendum.

One of the biggest I feel is that they should have said we will only change the relationship if more than 60% of people vote leave. It may sound unfair to leavers, but it would avoid precisely the problem we are in now, where 51% is just not enough of a majority to actually get anything done. We're in analysis paralysis which is very bad.

The second thing is that I don't feel like the people knew all of the facts. Unfortunately, with modern democracy, fake news dominates, so perhaps this would happen regardless. The Leave campaign was willing to spend more because they had more to gain personally from any deal struck with the US.

Related to the above, I think it would have been useful if the government could have actually spoken with the EU about it first. Before the referendum. Just asking the EU, what would happen? What would you expect? What sort of deal could we get? Something informal and non binding. Because, if they had done this, perhaps the issue of the Irish border would have been more widely known. I feel like a lot of people were not aware of the Irish border problem until last year.

 

[rietrot]

What double speak? That is the constitutional obligation of a UK member of Parliament.

Yes that's why they should do Brexit.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

It was a non-binding referendum, that was a mistake by Cameron, if it was supposed to be a ”will of the people” no discussion or amendment decision fixed in law then it should have been legislated as such.

The people were asked for their decision. You either respect it or you don't. Regardless of what the law says, the fact of the matter remains the same.

Parliament isn't intended to be a direct representation of the people. But's let's assume it were.

Coming along and replying to my reply that was addressing a particular assumption by trying to claim the assumption doesn't actually hold is stupid and taking comments out of context.

There are plenty of people locally who have changed their mind, mostly Leavers who now want to remain but there are also some remainers who now just want to leave, it’s been 3 years and it’s not unreasonable to put it back to the people.

Yes it is because it demonstrates a desire to screw the people over whenever they return a decision parliament doesn't like. If you think that won't undermine the people's confidence in parliament with respect to their legitimacy to rule, think again.

 

[Dave]

So the new Parliament can ignore the referendum?

He he! If only it were that simple!

Legally and constitutionally? Yes, they can. They won’t because it’s become a Tory project that they want to push through irrespective of problems and economic issues.

Of course it’s absolutely nothing to do with the new tax avoidance rules that the EU have passed and that have to be brought into national law early next year by all EU member states...

Some familiar names in this article

The Brexiters who put their money offshore

Some of the loudest voices in the debate – many of whom want the UK to be a tax haven – have their own offshore interests

www.theguardian.com

 

[Dave]

Yes that's why they should do Brexit.

Sorry, can you explain that?

Their primary duty is to act in what they view as the interests of the country as a whole.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

Sorry, can you explain that?

Their primary duty is to act in what they view as the interests of the country as a whole.

That would be carrying out the referendum result because it is absolutely against the interests of the country as a whole for the populace to get the impression that parliament isn't interested in serving the people.

 

[C4Cat]

You are delusional. There was no need for a second referendum. Brexiteers were never scared, just thought it stupid and wrong for remainers to want to keep voting until they win.
But your side can accomplish the same thing now with an election, which is actually needed to get new MPs. If the people want to remain they will vote for remain MPs, but parliament don't want an election, they are scared.

You are delusional. An election will not accomplish the same thing as a referendum. Many people may want to remain in the EU but do not want Corbyn as PM, tying the two together is absurd.

 

[Dave]

That would be carrying out the referendum result because it is absolutely against the interests of the country as a whole for the populace to get the impression that parliament isn't interested in serving the people.

That’s not how best interest works, they need to weigh up the possible damage to the economy, international relations etc.

You are also forgetting that they are also bound to work in the interests of ALL citizens, not just the 17 million who voted leave.

 

[Gingerbeardman]

That’s not how best interest works, they need to weigh up the possible damage to the economy, international relations etc.

You are also forgetting that they are also bound to work in the interests of ALL citizens, not just the 17 million who voted leave.

That is how best interest works; the damage I've pointed to far outweighs the damage of the issues you've raised.

Therefore I am not forgetting that they are bound to work in the interests of ALL citizens. If you think the AFD and other far-right parties emerging throughout Europe are bad, you really don't want to see what happens if parliament conspires to keep the UK in the EU.

 

[rietrot]

Sorry, can you explain that?

Their primary duty is to act in what they view as the interests of the country as a whole.

Which is Brexit, how is pointless extentions in anyone's interest.

 

[Dave]

That is how best interest works; the damage I've pointed to far outweighs the damage of the issues you've raised.

Therefore I am not forgetting that they are bound to work in the interests of ALL citizens. If you think the AFD and other far-right parties emerging throughout Europe are bad, you really don't want to see what happens if parliament conspires to keep the UK in the EU.

You do realise that the current Parliamentary process isn’t actually aimed at stopping Brexit?

It’s primarily aimed at stopping a no deal exit.

 

[Dave]

Which is Brexit, how is pointless extentions in anyone's interest.

How is the current no deal Brexit in the best interests of the country when the Johnson government’s own documents show it’s going to cause massive economic and logistical issues and damage?

 

[rietrot]

How is the current no deal Brexit in the best interests of the country when the Johnson government’s own documents show it’s going to cause massive economic and logistical issues and damage?

Sometimes some short term pain is needed and justified. How is remaining in the EU even a option after people voted leave?

 

[Cray]

Sometimes some short term pain is needed and justified. How is remaining in the EU even a option after people voted leave?

Spoken like someone who will not have to endure any of that pain himself.... It's easy to ask people to endure hardship from 11 000 kms away....

 

[Dave]

Sometimes some short term pain is needed and justified. How is remaining in the EU even a option after people voted leave?

The current argument is about no deal rather than a managed Brexit, but having said that, there’s nothing undemocratic in taking the question back to the electorate as a simple No Deal vs Remain question. This time being legally binding.

 

[Dave]

https://twitter.com/x/status/1171011891994484737

 

[rietrot]

Spoken like someone who will not have to endure any of that pain himself.... It's easy to ask people to endure hardship from 11 000 kms away....

There's no other way. The people want to exit. It needs to happen. Pretending or extending Brexit until you can do it pain free will never happen.

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

There are no communists in parliament

que?!? there are probably communists in every parliament, the UK is certainly no exception:
Communist Party of Britain embraces comrade Corbyn

 

[NarrowBandFtw]

Spoken like someone who will not have to endure any of that pain himself.... It's easy to ask people to endure hardship from 11 000 kms away....

Many of us would gladly swop that hardship for our own, I can't imagine even the most biased economist claiming brexit would do more damage than the trifecta of NHI, asset prescription and EWC ...

 

[Gingerbeardman]

You do realise that the current Parliamentary process isn’t actually aimed at stopping Brexit?

It’s primarily aimed at stopping a no deal exit.

BS. May was a remainer and spiked any prospect of a reasonable Brexit deal, and the current Parliament rebellion against BoJo is exactly a push to stop Brexit, because BoJo is actually right about how parliament is rolling over for the EU in their attempt to frustrate his policy.