No-deal Brexit opponents defeat government
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
If my partner and I decide together to buy a car, and then find out later that we can only get financing at 20%, then it is no way disingenuous to have another talk about whether we really need a new car. On the contrary, I would be quite peeved if my partner went ahead and blithely signed a 20% loan for a car without further discussion, and defended that decision by saying, "We already talked about this."
Losing an election does not equate to not having a say.
Nobody wages war or starts a revolution knowing what the outcome will be either. That's the nature of change.
We're fortunate enough to live in a world where we can vote for change instead of kill for it.
This is a baseless and false claim.
"Nobody wages war or starts a revolution knowing what the outcome will be either"
Even if true, this isn't relevant ... it cherry picks extremely chaotic changes to shore up a completely invalid argument.
"That's the nature of change."
No, it isn't ... well understood, predictable changes are executed all the time.
"We're fortunate enough to live in a world where we can vote for change instead of kill for it."
Not relevant.
Last I checked it's impossible to predict the future. Please educate me otherwise, because we'll make a fortune in the bond markets.
You cannot helicopter parent your voting populace. Otherwise votes just don't matter. If you feel that way, don't give people the right to vote in the first place.
Your political system has to provide an environment where the government (as in the will of the people) can safely fail at doing something important.
IMO, regardless of what is correct, a handful of insane politicians in the UK played a stupid game thinking they could avert a minor crisis and instead created a catastrophe. Those responsible should be pilloried and everyone should learn a great lesson from this. That said, I think that if the UK wants to remain intact, it is forced to take it on the chin and follow through with this.
Afterwards, the country can unite and pick up the pieces and fix it. The EU should also realize the opportunity it has here and be lenient.
The problem is that France and Germany can't stand the threat to their Union and will throw their weight around like the bullies they are. The Scandinavians will be convinced as always that they're just better than everyone else and let the UK suffer. The smaller EU countries simultaneously don't give a shit and also await the conclusion of this so they can see which way the wind blows.
I think if it goes up for referendum again, we'll actually see only 60% of the voter turnout of the last one. Could still go either way. In either case, the UK won't survive it. The only way forward is through.
It's better to leave yourself open to having a different/better thought in the future. Incidentally that's my biggest problem with tattoos.
They now know the realities of a no-deal and the implications it will have.
That's a lot more than they knew before the vote.
edit - people can disagree with me all they like, however I am not just making this up, so disagreeing with me will not make this go away.
Here is the 'Referendums in the United Kingdom - Constitution Committee', from the UK House of Lords;
'223. We recognise that because of the sovereignty of Parliament, referendums cannot be legally binding in the UK, and are therefore advisory. However, it would be difficult for Parliament to ignore a decisive expression of public opinion.'
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200910/ldselect/ldco...
I suppose you could try to argue that 52% is 'decisive'.
Is that because someone decided you had to accept any deal the car salesman made?
Perhaps you should have had the option of walking away.
Likewise, 'not being in the EU' means spending millions, possibly billions of pounds on lawyers to renegotiate deals (that we already have). We've already had to borrow lawyers from the EU because we do not have the legal manpower to enact Brexit!
The worst thing about this is that the position the UK will be in, means that it does not have a good standpoint for bargaining.
If the US loses trade deals with the UK, that's not terrible because the US still has trade deals with hundreds of other countries. If the UK loses trade deals with the US, that's catastrophic and puts us in a worse position for every other trade deal after that.
The entire reason why Asia sees Brexit as "an oppotunity"[1][2] is because Britain will be on the back foot for all trade deals, they can negotiate harder and we are in a compromising position.
[1]: https://asiahouse.org/india-sees-brexit-opportunity-indian-h...
[2]: https://www.worldfinance.com/home/asia-finds-post-brexit-opp...
It's almost like, I don't know, a bilateral trade agreement.
The UK is using lawyers from Europe, not from the EU, which is a political body. It's a very important distinction: the UK is withdrawing from a body where unelected people write laws, not making a xenophobic statement, despite people's attempts to frame it that way.
They are elected.
"A Member of the European Parliament (MEP) is a person who has been elected to serve as a popular representative in the European Parliament"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections_to_the_European_Parl...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Member_of_the_European_Parliam...
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/at-your-service/en/be-heard/el...
> not making a xenophobic statement, despite people's attempts to frame it that way.
Please explain why you think Joe Cox was murdered. Please explain why you think so many UKIP members are outed racists[0][1][2][3][4] (Notably, even Farage left UKIP because of the extremism). Please explain what you think the British National Front stands for.
0: https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2018/01/henry-bolto...
1: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/apr/26/ukip-a...
2: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/henry-bolton-ukip-racis...
3: https://www.itv.com/news/2018-12-04/former-ukip-leader-nigel...
4: https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/ukip-choking-racism-i...
(List of random bad things)
I'll let you explain how those things are relevant. There will always be racists and crazy people. Mass immigration may create more of them if that's what you wish.
You also write about racism yet link to an article about Islam. Islam isn't a race, you can read more about it using an internet search engine.
I stated their relevance above.
> There will always be racists and crazy people.
Please explain why there has been a noticable increase in 'crazy people' and fascist ideologies in the public eye since the introduction of brexit.
> Mass immigration may create more of them if that's what you wish.
[citation needed]
> You also write about racism yet link to an article about Islam. Islam isn't a race, you can read more about it using an internet search engine.
You obviously haven't done the bare minimum of reading on why Islamaphobia is deeply related to racism and in most forms consititutes racism and systemic bias. There are some good overviews of the relationship between islamaphobia and racism in the following links:
https://newhumanist.org.uk/articles/2512/is-it-racist-to-cri...
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/opendemocracyuk/taking-raci...
http://theconversation.com/why-uks-working-definition-of-isl...
Is it going to be another yes/no vote? If so, why not have a third, fourth, and fifth referendum, until you get the result you want?
Is it going to be a 'Deal/No deal/No', pick one vote? Why are you subdividing the "Yes" option, then? Why not subdivide the "No" option, too?
Is it going to be a two question vote, with 'Yes/No', and 'If Yes wins, Deal' and 'If Yes wins, no Deal'? I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that you are not going to like the outcome of that one, either.
They might also not, however. Sometimes voters get disappointed, change their ideas, viewpoints, or their personal life simply changes. No matter, the populace as a whole gets a chance to vote in new people and parties next time around. It's exactly this willingness to change one's viewpoint or political orientation which embodies the responsibility voters carry to maintain this democratic process.
Why is this referendum that fundamentally different? A lot of things have changed, a lot of issues have occurred. I also don't see why subdividing the options would be that harmful. Otherwise, following your reasoning, a two-party system would also be the best system in any democratic country (either this person, or that other fellow).
In a democracy, we know that an election will take place every 4 years/5 years/whenever the government fails a vote of confidence. Those are the rules, we vote for people with that expectation. (I also believe that representative democracy is rubbish, but that's neither here nor there.)
In a referendum, you are asked a question. Should Brexit happen, or not. Not 'Should Brexit happen, oh, and if we don't like the outcome, should we have another referendum?'
I supposed that technically, nothing about posing a referendum question precludes another referendum from taking place, before the first referendum is enacted into law. But can you imagine if, when we had an election, if the government didn't like the result, they'd just delay transitioning power to the winners, and would instead host another election? And another one? And another one, until they win?
It's also not clear that in the past three years, a single person living on the British Isles has changed their opinion on the matter of whether or not Brexit should actually happen.
No rules are being changed, and "people" is obviously too broad here.
"In a referendum, you are asked a question. Should Brexit happen, or not. Not 'Should Brexit happen, oh, and if we don't like the outcome, should we have another referendum?'"
Who is "we" here? The folks who want a new referendum are those who regret the outcome of the first one for various reasons, including being lied to.
"if the government didn't like the result, they'd just delay transitioning power to the winners, and would instead host another election? And another one? And another one, until they win?"
It's not "the government" who doesn't like the result. This framing is invalid, and frequently intentionally so.
"It's also not clear that in the past three years, a single person living on the British Isles has changed their opinion on the matter of whether or not Brexit should actually happen."
It is extremely clear that many have. If not, there wouldn't be so much pushback against another referendum.
Have they?
The problem with this vision of a continuous process is an obvious one. The people (Parliament) who have both the power to call a referendum and to delay Brexit overwhelmingly support remain. There's nothing stopping them from delaying and holding referendums until they get the answer they want. Virtually none have made any effort to design any kind of a Brexit (other than May, who really came back with the most obvious and possible plan that anyone would have expected her to), which looks like they're planning to fail.
That Parliament is trying every possible way to cancel doing something they didn't want to do in the first place seems utterly unsurprising.
Britain had a bit of a sweetheart deal in the EU, anyway, it's no wonder that they aren't willing to give them an even better deal in some sort of half-exit.
And you can argue that the facts on the ground have changed, but the powers offering the referendum are the ones changing the facts.
The EU didn't have anything to do with the calling of referendum.
The voices calling for a 2nd vote are inside the UK.
>the facts on the ground have changed,
The facts haven't changed, they've just been established for the first time - big difference.
Why should they be disenfranchised for a long time when they have to face the consequences for much of their lifetime, unlikely the very old?
Not to mention that there is no Brexit in heaven or hell, so the votes of the deceased shouldn't haunt people from their graves.
>And you can argue that the facts on the ground have changed, but the powers offering the referendum are the ones changing the facts
You mean like the 350 million pounds a year for NHS lie? Or the complete failure of the Brexiteers to offer a decent solution to the Irish border mess? How are those remainer's fault again?
What about the fact that the courts have found that the Brexit campaign violated campaign laws, and the reason a new referendum won't be forced is that the vote was non-binding?
Sounds like Brexiteers are actually afraid of democracy.
That is an argument you can make for every election.
And that is why we hold new elections every few years, instead of just sticking with the people we picked last time.
As commented above, it's like asking the voting public "Do you want lower taxes, yes or no?" That depends on an awful lot! How much lower? How is the decrease in revenue going to be handled? Will there be cuts? If so to what? Will there be a debt increase? Etc...
Do we want political decisions of this level of importance and complexity to be made through a process of vague referendums? Seems like madness to me.
There was a vote, we've spent the last 3 years dealing with it and the result (the deal) was roundly rejected. "Ok, what now?" Is not an unreasonable question to ask people.
Ken Clarke has also been making statements that he would be willing to back Corbyn in a unity government.
We are in very strange political waters right now. But one thing that seems clear is that the Conservative and Unionist Party seems to be in rather deep existential trouble.
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-britain-eu-soames/churchil...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/09/03/rebel-leader...
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/politics/ken-clarke-says-h...
The fact that the last referendum was so close should put increasing EU engagement at full stop to the feature creep. A big change should require a super majority vote to proceed, not a series of creeping measures over time.
Let's keep people A and B, but also add people C through CZZZZZ. And now we no longer need to frame it as an intractable argument between two people; we can recast it as an opportunity to re-survey all these people's opinion in order to see how everyone's opinion has changed in light of the new information that's been presented.
Which was the problem with the referendum. As in the example comment above it was like asking "Do you want lower taxes?" Well that kind of depends on a lot of stuff. Are the lower taxes coming from budget cuts (if so, from what), debt increase, or what?
What information then was available but the public didn't know?
> Because no one could have possibly known what the terms of Brexit would be, because they would have to be negotiated.
So then it's fair to say that information was not available.
There has never been an explicit democratic mandate to cede sovereignty to the united states of Europe. The current clusterfuck is a result of that.
Obviously, no deal is bad for the UK and the EU too, but how can the UK Government negotiate with their hands tied?
You have succinctly described one of the devastating flaws in the Brexit idea. The UK has very little leverage and the EU has a lot of incentive to make it very painful for the UK, as a warning to other would be EU deserters.
But now with one of the biggest countries in the union looking to leave, it threatens the entire idea. Kinda like if the United States actually left NATO. In both cases it is in the alliance's best interests to 'keep the band together'.
Brexit was sold to voters with the promise that somehow the UK could work out a comparably favorable trade deal with the EU without having to agree to freedom of movement, EU regulations, payments to the EU, etc. If EU gave them such a deal, why should any other country abide by the requirements of the union?
Brexit is a huge deal for the UK. It's a much smaller concern for the EU.
That it amounts to the UK being stuck in a very painful situation is not exactly EU's fault - it's not like EU taunted the UK to leave or something.
I do hope for the British' sake that they get a deal soon.
That is not clear at all. No deal is the legal default. So far, no other option has received a majority in parliament, and on 3rd April, parliament voted to go back to the normal procedure where the government decides everything that is debated on. i.e. they gave up their power to actually affect anything (until today's vote).
Sure they negotiate the exit tab and such but for a deal the size with the EU a couple of tens of billions over the period it is supposed to last just gives political points when talking to the media.
This video[0] from CGP grey using a slide by the EU chief negotiator from december 2017 defining the EU "negotiation tactic" which they haven't stepped away from yet gives an overview to the issue.
Clearly to rule out no deal is by definition to accept whatever deal the other party deems to give you.
At least some of the major issues aren’t about negotiations between UK and EU, but about the UK making its mind up as to what, exactly, it wants.
For example, does the UK want a customs union with the EU? If not, there must be border controls, both in Britain’s ports and between Ireland and North Ireland.
What can be negotiated there is how exactly those border controls will work, but that, relatively, is peanuts compared to the main question.
Similarly, does the UK want to conform to EU regulations w.r.t. food safety or not? If the latter, it will have to accept tougher controls at the border. If the former, they have to accept that the EU essentially controls their food safety laws.
The remainers believe it is a coup that the PM has suspended parliament seemingly in an effort to bring the country closer to a no-deal Brexit.
The leavers believe it is a coup that there is a bill with a very real chance of passing that would make leaving without a deal illegal, therefore leading closer to not leaving the EU at all.
I assume it’s Wait for Deal Brexit or Doing It Now Brexit, ya?
There hasn’t been any election that is close to being about the actual leave conditions, on account of the only concrete deal being written down in spring this year.
This, combined with the speaker's constitutional innovations have led to a situation where we have a government which can't govern. Again, an election should sort this (and may allow the removal of an activist speaker as well).
And yes, it will be about voting for a party which matches your preferred strategy. Tory = no deal. Libs = remain. Labour = ??? + radical socialism.
This is starting to be like one of those trading card games like Magic the Gathering or Pokemon.
Special ability: Prorogue. Interrupt with special session. FTPA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-term_Parliaments_Act_201...
The FTPA was a terrible piece of legislation.
Regardless, the point is that Boris can accede to Corbyn's demands, hold an election, and still leave on Oct 31st. If he wins.
- We had the Brexit referendum.
- We had the EU elections, by which (according to the BBC) pro Brexit parties including the Tories came out overwhelmingly on top.
- We can have an election now as a proxy third referendum.
Honestly, as a former remainer, I'm tired of this. The vote was to Leave, by about 1.5 million people.
People who don't like the result are trying to thwart it and weakening the UK's negotiating position.
If I want to buy your startup, and some MPs decide you must make a deal, I'm going to offer you next to nothing for all your equity.
Don't like that? Well you should have had no deal on the table.
If the people really want a no-deal Brexit (which is what they are going to get at the end of October), then they can vote for it.
The UK isn't at zero. The EU export to the UK. Surely you know this?
No Deal Brexit, is in fact, No Deal until utterly desperate for Any Deal.
The idea that the UK could just not have to ever agree to a trade deal with the EU is the purest of fantasies, and the idea that leaving first and kicking the can down the road will strengthen the UK's negotiating position is almost as delusional.
Expect a vote for a general election tomorrow.
If they can't get a super-majority, I think they might be stuck with waiting until term, absurd and broken though that is.
The Lib Dems weren't thinking at all when they pushed for fixed terms.
I mean, it would be somewhat in character for the UK to attempt to achieve that unilaterally and with no consultation, but I think that to try and just 'give it back' as a solution to Brexit is, while no doubt well intentioned, still representing a bit of a colonial point of view.
"It is the firm will of the Irish Nation, in harmony and friendship, to unite all the people who share the territory of the island of Ireland, in all the diversity of their identities and traditions, recognising that a united Ireland shall be brought about only by peaceful means with the consent of a majority of the people, democratically expressed, in both jurisdictions in the island."
In fact he probably can't even do that in all cases, as the local party branches might not let him.
I’m with you man, makes no sense to me.
I think how it works is the Queen will always deny having had any discretion. If she ever has to reject the 'advice' of her Prime Minister she will say she has been advised that the advice was unconstitutional and therefore she had no option but to reject it.
It's hard to believe that a one-year suspension in modern times would stand, but resolving it would be messy.
It'd be a pretty much immediate constitutional crisis but I don't doubt at all that it'd end up with the head of state getting changed to an elected position. Definitely messy though which is why the tradition stuff works fine for now.
It is actually though. We had a similar situation in Canada a few years back where the PM prorogued parliament for an extended period of time and the Governor-General (our representative of the Crown).
The procedure for formally ratifying a bill is called Royal Assent[1].
An exerpt from the wiki article on it kind of sums up your issue
>Under modern constitutional conventions, the sovereign generally acts on, and in accordance with, the advice of his or her ministers. However, there is some disagreement among scholars as to whether the monarch should withhold royal assent to a bill if advised to do so by her ministers. Since these ministers most often enjoy the support of parliament and obtain the passage of bills, it is improbable that they would advise the sovereign to withhold assent. Hence, in modern practice, the issue has never arisen, and royal assent has not been withheld.
So it's all a matter of tradition and stuff. Theoretically the Queen could go and put her foot down in England or in any other Commonwealth realm that she still technically rules.
That said the common consensus on what would probably happen there is that parliment would essentially immediately have a vote on tossing the queen as head of state, probably write in some elected presidential position or something to do all the stuff that the Queen or her representative used to do then go back to arguing about whatever they were before and the main consequence would be a wasted voting period and having to remove "Royal ____ of ______" from a lot of organizations.
In that case the Governor-General sought, and took, the advice of the Chief Justice.
On the Canadian example from 2008, I note the Wikipedia page says
« It was also at the same time said by Peter H. Russell, one of those from whom Jean sought advice, that Canadians ought not regard as an automatic rubber stamp the Governor General's decision to accept Harper's advice concerning prorogation; Russell disclosed that Jean granted the prorogation on two conditions: parliament would reconvene soon and, when it did, the Cabinet would present a proposed budget, a vote on which is a confidence matter. »
So it seems clear that in Canada, at least, it is not that simple.
Impossible position, much?
If they're required to vote with the party then why are they there at all instead of a single party representative casting multiple votes? How does a party ever change its mind about anything if its members can't make their own decisions?
A free vote allows an MP to vote against their party with no consequence.
at the other extreme we have:
A three line whip, which is literally underlined three times, are votes and proceedings the government considers important. Traditionally manifesto promises and last votes on major bills. Voting against a three line whip can result in removal of the whip, ie expulsion, but traditionally even this has been rare. Parties have usually had a few MPs well known for voting against them on some issues, and managed to keep them on as MP. Throwing out 21 when you lose your very first vote is unprecedented.
Mind you, losing your very first vote as PM is unprecedented. :)
https://www.parliament.uk/about/mps-and-lords/principal/whip...
The amount of contempt being expressed, from many sides, for democratic process is disgusting.
> Do you want Britain to remain or leave the EU?
With the accompanying pamphlet stating:
> The government will implement what you decide.
This includes the government negotiating with the EU. If the government must accept any deal the EU offers (because someone dislikes No Deal being on the table) then the EU will offer the worst deal possible, and has done so (the current deal has been rejected by parliament three times).
Well there's your problem! That's a vague reference. To a lawyer, it might obviously refer to the voter's decision with respect to the immediately preceding question. To the average UK voter, it might also refer to her decision that she wants blue skies, decent food, and a personal unicorn pony for everyone. It's hard to vote against unicorn ponies.
[EDIT:] Apparently parent just pointlessly made up something, to which I credulously responded. Sorry for the distraction.
And yes, 350M came from the Office of National Statistics, which is pretty solid.
I'm not sure what we're arguing about at this point. The referendum was advisory, that's the legal status of any decision made in it - the government chose to implement the result, but it was at full liberty not to as well. That's irrelevant at this point because things didn't go down that path 3 years ago.
It seems you think people didn't believe the government was going to implement what the people decided.
The people were told the government was going to implement what the people decided.
If you agree with the latter then let's move on with our day.
All I am saying is that now that we know that is the reality on offer, that the British people should get to vote on it. Since no-deal Brexit will lose at the ballot box, I can understand why its supporters want to avoid such a vote.
Other countries, e.g. Switzerland, that use referenda have rules about super-majorities, campaigning and spending, when and if they will become law and so on. Ensures that you don't get vague hand-wavy referendum that is campaigned as "we'll get a deal easily" morphing into WTO terms hard brexit some painful time later.
At least elections have the veneer of election law behind them. Referendum nations have a similar veneer behind referenda - to decide whether it was fairly arrived at, etc. Switzerland not long threw out a result because the electorate had been given some sort of misleading information in the campaign.
Anything would be better than how we did do it, really. :)
As far as the last part of the final sentence goes, one could also make a similar argument that the remain side should have shown some responsibility with regards to not utterly destroying the negotiating position in order to purposefully sabotage Brexit such that it becomes unsalvageable. But hey, them's the breaks and here we are.
I don't know what happened to make people so sure that the other side is always either evil or was tricked into its position, but it seems to be the way these days. Sometimes people just disagree. Sometimes they even have perfectly understandable reasons for feeling that way. We would all do well to presume our personal objective "rightness" a little less often in this day and age.
I do literally mean literally. Maybe I am wilfully ignorant then.
>> There's a significant minority who are more than happy with the idea of a no-deal Brexit and who voted for it with the understanding that may be the outcome.
See, I just don't believe that part. I don't believe that 3 years ago in 2016 there was any significant(or even greater than >1000) number of people who understood that if nothing is negotiated with the EU the UK will leave on WTO terms, who fully understood what that meant for the British trade position and who were still happy to proceed. Sure there is a lot of people who say that nowadays, but I just don't believe there was enough information about this 3 years ago for anyone but the most politically and economically engaged people to make such a choice and realistically be happy with a no-deal.
>>As far as the last part of the final sentence goes, one could also make a similar argument that the remain side should have shown some responsibility with regards to not utterly destroying the negotiating position in order to purposefully sabotage Brexit such that it becomes unsalvageable.
That just sounds like saying that half of the British society should have just shut up and said nothing for the 3 years while the government was negotiating. That's impossible in a democracy - not only people should be able to voice their opinions and displeasure with what is happening, they should also be able to change their minds about decisions already taken.
Logically speaking, every single person who voted to leave in 2016 either voted for no-deal as a possible mode of leaving or misunderstood the text of the referendum.
My understanding is the vote was
It was specifically non-binding
Was not a super majority
There was no definition of what was being proposed (Brexit means brexit...)
Not sure I see that as a democratic process, more a survey.
It seems self-evident to me that a set of people exists that wants Brexit with a "good" deal, but does not want "no-deal" Brexit. Which way do you think those people voted on the original non-binding referendum? Which way do you think those people would vote on a second referendum, with the actual choice between "no-deal" and "remain"?
It is also self-evident that the same people okay with "no-deal" Brexit voted "Leave" on the original referendum. Suppose a second referendum is held, and "Remain" wins because the "good-deal" Brexiters above are no longer voting with these "no-deal" Brexiters. Weren't the "no-deal" Brexiters a minority the whole time? Why should this minority get what they want, at the expense of the majority? That's the current trajectory.
"If the outcome is bad, that's just a lesson in consequences..."
This patronizing authoritarian attitude that entire nations must be punished when some of their citizens make errors in judgment is itself an example of terrible judgment but comes without consequences.
I think it's patronizing and authoritarian to shove pointless referendums in front of your peoples' face that you have absolutely zero intention of implementing if they vote the way you didn't expect.
I think it's patronizing and authoritarian to tell those people that they don't know what's good for them.
I think it's patronizing and authoritarian to tell them that they didn't really mean the terms that they voted for, as if they aren't capable of drawing conclusions from their actions and dealing with the consequences.