Is Brexit actually going to happen?

[pocketscience]

I got some really mardy looks for that at Glastonbury. 1992, I think.

Coz the maastricht treaty kicked in. Piss anywhere you like up to 1991

 

[pocketscience]

If I was going to get divorced I’d quite like it if someone explained the consequences to me so that I could make an informed decision.

with that attitude I doubt you'll get the choice

 

[redsquirrel]

I don’t think this argument about people not being qualified/educated enough to vote is a serious one. Democracy is everybody voting.

Yes. It could be argued that the referendum was always going to open up divisions & unleash the beast of racism that lurks in the heart of many of the most urbane folk you could choose to meet. So for that reason alone it should not have been held. It’s like bringing back hanging. Decades ago every time there was a particularly nasty murder particularly terrorist related the tabloids would argue for the return of the death penalty. Opinion polls always said a if referendum was held the voters would be in favour so for that sensible reason no government of the day even entertained it.

So what you actually mean is that democracy is everybody voting when it's sensible. (BTW IIRC the latest opinions polls, taken just after the referendum, show a majority opposed to the death penalty).

There were other ways to prepare for a referendum if that’s what people wanted, eg a Royal Commission to prepare an options paper.

You can have any option who want so long as it's in blue and yellow.

If I was going to get divorced I’d quite like it if someone explained the consequences to me so that I could make an informed decision.

The unspoken belief here being that anyone properly informed would, of course, be opposed to leaving.

A few pages the dismissal of the innate anti-democracy of liberalism you've got the same anti-democratic arguments being repeated, that the government, of the informed, need to manage the people. We can't just expect the common human to appreciate these complex issues, no their job is to put a cross in a box every four years and let the informed people get on with things.

On the practicability or desirability of political and industrial democracy… If the bulk of the people were to remain poor and uneducated, was it desirable, was it even safe, to entrust them with the weapon of trade unionism, and, through the ballot box, with making and controlling the government of Great Britain with its enormous wealth and its far-flung dominions?

Like all fundamentalisms, democratic extremism takes a noble idea, that everyone’s political views should count equally, too far. But if democracy is to endure, voters must inform themselves of the facts, avoid being swayed by prejudice and emotion, and to base judgements on evidence. The romantic invocation of popular sovereignty is no substitute for calm deliberation.

Early 20th or early 21st century, who can tell.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

If I was going to get divorced I’d quite like it if someone explained the consequences to me so that I could make an informed decision.

The consequence of divorce is that you are no longer married.

I thought leavers were supposed to be the thickies.

 

[kabbes]

I think lots of stuff is too complex and difficult to make a black or white decision about. In fact, that's pretty much life: stuff that's too complex and difficult to make black or white decisions about. Is this now a controversial position?

What about when a black or white decision is necessary on stuff that is too complex and difficult for black or white decisions?

Is it best in that case to have a referendum on the underlying black or white principle and then let those responsible for implementation get on with implementing that principle as best they can?

 

[teuchter]

What about when a black or white decision is necessary on stuff that is too complex and difficult for black or white decisions?

Is it best in that case to have a referendum on the underlying black or white principle and then let those responsible for implementation get on with implementing that principle as best they can?

What do you mean by "necessary", assuming you are talking about the EU referendum?

 

[kabbes]

What do you mean by "necessary", assuming you are talking about the EU referendum?

It is always necessary as a country to decide whether or not we should be in the EU. That decision is constantly remade, either positively or by inaction.

 

[teuchter]

It is always necessary as a country to decide whether or not we should be in the EU. That decision is constantly remade, either positively or by inaction.

But why is it necessary to present it as a "black and white" decision?

 

[kabbes]

But why is it necessary to present it as a "black and white" decision?

The principle — and the final result — is indeed black or white. Either we want to be in the EU or we don’t. The details follow, they don’t determine the principle.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The principle — and the final result — is indeed black or white. Either we want to be in the EU or we don’t. The details follow, they don’t determine the principle.

Nah, that's entirely arbitrary. You could just as easily come up with some other principle, of which membership or not of the EU would be one of the details.

 

[teuchter]

Nah, that's entirely arbitrary. You could just as easily come up with some other principle, of which membership or not of the EU would be one of the details.

Indeed.

 

[Chz]

Nuke it from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. To be sure

To add a bit of cheerfulness to the thread, this used to be my opinion of it. So much hate, and so many people tied up in their hate, and no-one willing to forgive. There's no hope, may as well carpet bomb the area and start over.

Then the GFA happened. And it gave me... what? Actual hope in humanity? That people can actually sort their shit out when the will is there? Holy cripes. And that's why I refuse to accept that there's not some sort of peaceful solution to Israel and the general Middle-East. Before Ulster sorted itself out, I'd have said the rest of the world is better off without them and approved of a (limited) nuclear exchange to reset things to zero.

And that's why I'm horrified at the notion of it falling apart. It was such an example to the rest of the world of how to put your hatred aside and just learn to get on with one another. You could always say "Look. Just look at the history there. And they got over it. Why don't you give it a try?"

 

[kabbes]

Nah, that's entirely arbitrary. You could just as easily come up with some other principle, of which membership or not of the EU would be one of the details.

Go on then. Put forward your principle and we'll see what it implies.

I'd say that the principle of where the sovereignity of a country lies -- what its ultimate authority is in terms of courts, trade and all those other things -- is a pretty fundamental one, to be honest. But if you have something even more fundamental, I'd be interested to hear it.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Go on then. Put forward your principle and we'll see what it implies.

I'd say that the principle of where the sovereignity of a country lies -- what its ultimate authority is in terms of courts, trade and all those other things -- is a pretty fundamental one, to be honest. But if you have something even more fundamental, I'd be interested to hear it.

National sovereignty is never absolute. It's a bit of a post-imperial conceit of places like the UK to pretend otherwise. Smaller countries know full-well that the idea, and even the aspiration to work towards it, is silly.

Every international treaty signed limits national sovereignty. Which of those limits you consider to be the most significant is an individual judgement. Does membership of the EU limit national sovereignty more than, say, membership of NATO? Which bits of national sovereignty are you interested in? Which bits are taken away by membership of the EU? Does membership of a particular international group weaken or strengthen national autonomy - it's not obvious that leaving the EU means more autonomy: without the backing of a larger group that shares certain ideas, the smaller entity may be less able to decide upon its terms when dealing with the rest of the world. And this is not an abstract idea - the UK will confront this problem when trying to strike new trade deals.

So even the principle 'we would like to strengthen Westminster' (one that I am not keen on, btw) does not necessarily mandate leaving the EU as one of its details.

 

[MightyTibberton]

The notorious "excrutiating detail" sectorial analyses - I NEVER SAID IMPACT ASSESSMENTS - have been published by the Exiting the EU Committee (and MPs are sharing bits of them on social media).

Publications - Exiting the EU Committee

I don't have any specialist knowledge in any of this stuff, but I had a quick look at the Broadcasting one on the basis that it might be more understandable to the layperson. It looks very, erm, padded is the first impression.

 

[kabbes]

National sovereignty is never absolute. It's a bit of a post-imperial conceit of places like the UK to pretend otherwise. Smaller countries know full-well that the idea, and even the aspiration to work towards it, is silly.

Every international treaty signed limits national sovereignty. Which of those limits you consider to be the most significant is an individual judgement. Does membership of the EU limit national sovereignty more than, say, membership of NATO? Which bits of national sovereignty are you interested in? Which bits are taken away by membership of the EU? Does membership of a particular international group weaken or strengthen national autonomy - it's not obvious that leaving the EU means more autonomy: without the backing of a larger group that shares certain ideas, the smaller entity may be less able to decide upon its terms when dealing with the rest of the world. And this is not an abstract idea - the UK will confront this problem when trying to strike new trade deals.

So even the principle 'we would like to strengthen Westminster' (one that I am not keen on, btw) does not necessarily mandate leaving the EU as one of its details.

I'm sorry, but none of that detracts from the fact that whether or not we want to have our government subordinate to a supra-national body is pretty bloody fundamental a principle.

NATO, you say? Well, it wouldn't be an unreasonable principle to have a vote on either. But saying you'll be in a defensive pact is a long, long way short of saying you'll allow your laws to be set elsewhere.

 

[1%er]

I don't have a dog in the EU fight so don't really have a side to choose. Before the referendum I don't recall hearing talk of a hard-brexit or soft-brexit but I believe I now understand the difference.

My question is about if brexit doesn't happen. Could the debate then move too, would it be a soft-remain or a hard-remain. Could the other EU 27 then tell the UK if you want to remain/rejoin you can on the same terms you had just prior to the referendum, that would be a soft-remain, or could the EU 27 tell the UK you can remain/rejoin but you have to join the Euro, sign up to schengen and or other EU agreements, that would be a hard-remain.

 

[Pickman's model]

I don't have a dog in the EU fight so don't really have a side to choose. Before the referendum I don't recall hearing talk of a hard-brexit or soft-brexit but I believe I now understand the difference.

My question is about if brexit doesn't happen. Could the debate then move too, would it be a soft-remain or a hard-remain. Could the other EU 27 then tell the UK if you want to remain/rejoin you can on the same terms you had just prior to the referendum, that would be a soft-remain, or could the EU 27 tell the UK you can remain/rejoin but you have to join the Euro, sign up to schengen and or other EU agreements, that would be a hard-remain.

as i understand it, the government can at any point say whoops we've changed our mind and rescind the article 50 bit, at which point the position as it was on 23/6/16 would resume. however, british influence in the eu corridors of power would i suspect be significantly less than it was before the referendum.

 

[MightyTibberton]

as i understand it, the government can at any point say whoops we've changed our mind and rescind the article 50 bit, at which point the position as it was on 23/6/16 would resume. however, british influence in the eu corridors of power would i suspect be significantly less than it was before the referendum.

Not with any great further knowledge, I've seen it put about that if we do go ahead and formally leave but then are driven to ask to come back in because of a crippling shortage of soft cheese or something that the EU are likely to insist on a Full, No-Messing-About membership with the Euro included.

I've seen it said also I think that the rebate is probably gone even if we go back before properly leaving - "I'm sure I left my coat in the kitchen...!"

 

[1%er]

as i understand it, the government can at any point say whoops we've changed our mind and rescind the article 50 bit, at which point the position as it was on 23/6/16 would resume. however, british influence in the eu corridors of power would i suspect be significantly less than it was before the referendum.

I don't know if Article 50 can be rescind, I've read stuff from lawyers on both sides of the debate, so I guess it will have to go to Court for a definitive answer. There is no mention of revocation in the text of Article 50, but then it is an appalling example of legal drafting, so it will not in the end be a political decision rather a legal one.

I do find the question of a "hard or soft remain" an interesting concept.

 

[Pickman's model]

I don't know if Article 50 can be rescind, I've read stuff from lawyers on both sides of the debate, so I guess it will have to go to Court for a definitive answer. There is no mention of revocation in the text of Article 50, but then it is an appalling example of legal drafting, so it will not in the end be a political decision rather a legal one.

I do find the question of a "hard or soft remain" an interesting concept.

tbh leave or remain it's a question of a hard fuck or a soft fuck, but a fucking there will be

 

[Kaka Tim]

I've always thought it was a stupid question to have a referendum on - the ramifications of "leave" were/are mindbogglingly complex - as clearly demonstrated by nobody having a clue about how this is going to pan out. Its not like having a referendum on equal marriage. Direct democracy is not well served by Yes/No choices - people need to be engaged in the decision making and in a constructing a range of choices (the writing of Iceland's constitution probably the best known example of this).

Also i dont think having a popular majority automatically means that gives the majority a right to inflict potentially very negative consequences on a sizeable chunk of the population.
The fact that a big chunk of retired home owners (who are likely to be pretty well protected from the outcome) voted leave, whilst a big chunk of younger people (who will have to live with the consequences) voted remain sucks big time in my view - and undermines the notion that the "will of the people" should be sacrosanct.

 

[sleaterkinney]

If I was going to get divorced I’d quite like it if someone explained the consequences to me so that I could make an informed decision.

 

[MightyTibberton]

Out of interest - and absolutely not expressing support for the idea of tests for voting - does anyone who's younger than me (born 1971) or who has kids have any idea if there is any education about politics or governance in schools these days? We had something called citizenship when I was at school, but I think that was just an optional cse subject. There's political content in all sorts of courses, of course, history, geography, English I guess, (others too I suppose), but is there a dedicated "this is how the government works" course? I can't recall learning anything about the EU in school - or EEC!

I saw that Leanne Wood of Plaid Cymru brought up improving political education the other day,

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

I like the big dangling cock and balls above mainland Europe.

 

[kabbes]

Also i dont think having a popular majority automatically means that gives the majority a right to inflict potentially very negative consequences on a sizeable chunk of the population.
The fact that a big chunk of retired home owners (who are likely to be pretty well protected from the outcome) voted leave, whilst a big chunk of younger people (who will have to live with the consequences) voted remain sucks big time in my view - and undermines the notion that the "will of the people" should be sacrosanct.

This I certainly agree with. It applies to a lot more than this Brexit decision though. The tyranny of the majority is a major problem throughout society, most certainly including the impact of fiscal decision-making on the disenfranchised and marginalised.

 

[sealion]

If I was going to get divorced I’d quite like it if someone explained the consequences to me so that I could make an informed decision.

What are the consequences of staying in a relationship because it's better the devil you know ? You say people voting leave didn't know what they were voting for. Do remain voters have some inside info on where the cabal is heading ? The eu has changed a bit since it's inception and will carry on doing so. What's in store for us if we stay in ? What plans have they got for us next ?

 

[Winot]

This I certainly agree with. It applies to a lot more than this Brexit decision though. The tyranny of the majority is a major problem throughout society, most certainly including the impact of fiscal decision-making on the disenfranchised and marginalised.

Doesn’t a referendum automatically include this risk?

 

[Winot]

What are the consequences of staying in a relationship because it's better the devil you know ? You say people voting leave didn't know what they were voting for. Do remain voters have some inside info on where the cabal is heading ? The eu has changed a bit since it's inception and will carry on doing so. What's in store for us if we stay in ? What plans have they got for us next ?

Actually I’m more annoyed by the politicians not researching the implications. For all my Remoaning, I don’t blame voters (you might not believe that but it’s true). I have to accept the result of the referendum. My biggest gripe is the way it’s been handled since - May has fucked up every strategic decision she’s had to take.

 

[Pickman's model]

What are the consequences of staying in a relationship because it's better the devil you know ? You say people voting leave didn't know what they were voting for. Do remain voters have some inside info on where the cabal is heading ? The eu has changed a bit since it's inception and will carry on doing so. What's in store for us if we stay in ? What plans have they got for us next ?

You won't believe what they're planning next