Is Brexit actually going to happen?

[Winot]

Does it matter whether I agree or not? The vote was to leave. Subverting directly asked democratic decisions is something with downstream consequences at least as great as losing a few points of GDP.

“Subverting” is a bit loaded, isn’t it? There are perfectly democratic pathways to change the direction of travel of the UK. We don’t talk about a later election result “subverting” the result of the earlier one.

FWIW I am not in favour of a second referendum.

 

[Pickman's model]

Yes.

Article 50 has been triggered, we're half way into the process; both main parties support the concept of leaving the European Union; there's no overwhelming public desire to reverse the Brexit etc; etc.

TBH there's no overwhelming desire to leave, unless you think 52:48 is a massive majority

 

[pocketscience]

Before we ask why, we should probably ask if.

yes.

The sentence makes no sense if i replace the word why with if.
Are you saying that it's quesionable if EU citizens pay for Eurocrats making laws or, it's questionable if the EU has made directives and law that stifles (re)-nationalisation (in this case rail)?

 

[Raheem]

The sentence makes no sense if i replace the word why with if.

I double checked and it absolutely does, provided you can live with a sentence containing the phrase "if the fuck".

 

[gosub]

Before we ask why, we should probably ask if.

At the very least you are showing how opaque their systems are.

 

[butchersapron]

Wells has a piece on a year-on polling - precis here with links to more detailed piece - upshot seems to be be little has changed, leavers still want to leave and enough remainers think we should leave on the basis of democratic process to produce a majority for leave and against 2nd referendum. Bad polling for Corbyn as well.

Nary a mention of ireland either - for shame.

 

[Hollis]

Whatever the opposite of Lexit is... that's where we're heading.

 

[teuchter]

Does it matter whether I agree or not? The vote was to leave. Subverting directly asked democratic decisions is something with downstream consequences at least as great as losing a few points of GDP.

But most of the "workable solutions" seem to subvert the Good Friday Agreement, which was also the result of a democratic referendum decided with a much larger majority (and a much clearer statement of the consequences and details of practical implementation) than the Brexit one.

 

[Bahnhof Strasse]

Whatever the opposite of Lexit is... that's where we're heading.

Rexit. WreckShit.

 

[mojo pixy]

rēxit

1. third-person singular perfect activeindicative of regō

regō (present infinitive regere, perfect active rēxī, supine rēctum); third conjugation

1. I rule, govern
2. I guide, steer
3. I oversee, manage

Not a great term for the current fiasco-in-progress. Little guidance, oversight or management in evidence, tragically.

Though the supine form may have some input on the matter.

 

[MickiQ]

But most of the "workable solutions" seem to subvert the Good Friday Agreement, which was also the result of a democratic referendum decided with a much larger majority (and a much clearer statement of the consequences and details of practical implementation) than the Brexit one.

Well yes but that wasn't mentioned during the campaign, the Leave argument was all Take Back Control, More Money for the NHS and Schools (with a nasty subtext about immigrants) the Remain campaign was almost entirely scaremongering about the negative consequences of leaving.
I was expecting Remain to win but I wasn't all that surprised by the Leave Vote, The Remain campaign was promising a better world whilst the Leave campaign was keep the status quo or else.
If someone is struggling to get by under the status quo they can hardly be expected to vote to keep things the same, something the likes of Cable and Blair just can't grasp.
I think if the Good Friday Agreement had been brought up in the campaign it would have made little to no difference because to most people in the mainland UK it is just not that relevant an issue.
It has the possibility of becoming a massive issue if Mayhem and her bunch of clowns can't come up with something that satifies the ROI Govt since they will able to stall any trade negotiations (which the Tories do care about) until they are happy with the solution.

 

[andysays]

But most of the "workable solutions" seem to subvert the Good Friday Agreement, which was also the result of a democratic referendum decided with a much larger majority (and a much clearer statement of the consequences and details of practical implementation) than the Brexit one.

So the people of Britain are simply not allowed to leave the EU, even though they voted to do so, because the people of Ireland voted for something else which might be difficult (though certainly not impossible) to continue if Britain were to leave.

Sounds legit...

 

[kabbes]

“Subverting” is a bit loaded, isn’t it? There are perfectly democratic pathways to change the direction of travel of the UK. We don’t talk about a later election result “subverting” the result of the earlier one.

FWIW I am not in favour of a second referendum.

I’m not in principle averse to a second referendum and if such a thing were to indicate a remain vote, that should become the default position.

But you are not in favour of a second referendum, and neither am I. So what other route us there that does not subvert democracy?

But most of the "workable solutions" seem to subvert the Good Friday Agreement, which was also the result of a democratic referendum decided with a much larger majority (and a much clearer statement of the consequences and details of practical implementation) than the Brexit one.

it doesn’t subvert the GFA at all. That’s a non-starter if an argument.

 

[Winot]

I’m not in principle averse to a second referendum and if such a thing were to indicate a remain vote, that should become the default position.

But you are not in favour of a second referendum, and neither am I. So what other route us there that does not subvert democracy.

A General Election won by a party or coalition running on a ticket of reversing/diluting Brexit. Doesn’t look very likely, but perfectly democratic.

 

[DotCommunist]

given may explicitly made her snap election about brexit? That went well.

Although that reaming-the-poor and robbing-the-old manifesto can't have helped either

 

[Supine]

Though the supine form may have some input on the matter.

Nope!

 

[kabbes]

A General Election won by a party or coalition running on a ticket of reversing/diluting Brexit. Doesn’t look very likely, but perfectly democratic.

Only if that were the only dividing line between parties. Which it never will be. Otherwise, how can it override a directly asked question?

 

[teuchter]

it doesn’t subvert the GFA at all. That’s a non-starter if an argument.

One of your perfectly workable solutions was a united Ireland. That can't come about without subverting the GFA unless enough people vote for it.

I'm less clear about whether a hard land border technically subverts the GFA. It seems at least to subvert the spirit of it though.

 

[sleaterkinney]

So the people of Britain are simply not allowed to leave the EU, even though they voted to do so, because the people of Ireland voted for something else which might be difficult (though certainly not impossible) to continue if Britain were to leave.

Sounds legit...

NI is part of the UK and this will affect them the most, not Ireland.

 

[Winot]

Only if that were the only dividing line between parties. Which it never will be. Otherwise, how can it override a directly asked question?

Do you mean politically or constitutionally? The constitutional position is quite clear. The referendum was advisory only.

 

[kabbes]

One of your perfectly workable solutions was a united Ireland. That can't come about without subverting the GFA unless enough people vote for it.

Im not suggesting it happens without people voting for it.

I'm less clear about whether a hard land border technically subverts the GFA. It seems at least to subvert the spirit of it though.

Well, come back to me when you are clear on it.

The notion you seem to be putting forward is that it is literally impossible for the UK to leave the EU simply because of the Irish border. But if you take a step back from the detail of how it will end up being done in practice, that as a notion clearly has to be ridiculous. Borders exist all over the world in all kinds of forms. Its not beyond the British and Irish governments to have the same.

So from this point, it’s up to the democratic governments of the U.K. and ROI and their people to decide which are their priorities and then go from there. Starting with the notion that an open border is the one sacrosanct item in the whole decision making process really is letting the tail wag the dog. Instead, people will have to start by accepting that the EU will not allow a no border to exist in the absence of a trade deal and then work out from there which of the three options is their most preferred. Either that or agree a trade deal that allows the border to stay open.

 

[DotCommunist]

the only people to oppose the GFA are now in a confidence and supply arrangement with the Tory party, the british state. The 'spirit' of the agreement eh

I see theres a vast network of old military tunnels in the rock of gibraltar. I know where I make my lst stand then.

 

[kabbes]

Do you mean politically or constitutionally? The constitutional position is quite clear. The referendum was advisory only.

Constitutionally, those in power can pretty much always find a way to do whatever the fuck they want. When I talked about a step back from Brexit subverting the democratic process, do you think I meant constitutionally?

 

[Riklet]

Arguably hard border with the UK combined with losing a next door EU trading partner will be far worse for the ROI. And they know it. Why else is this charade over the border still going on?

The Irish gov dont have the balls to push the issue in terms of a united Ireland, clearly. This is the ace in the British government's hand, but which they cant play cos of.... the DUP.

Just been hanging out with a mate from the North. He is worried about Brexit impact and the lack of government and current mess. The Good Friday Agreement has been shafted far more by the dodgy DUP deal than by Brexit, as things stand in 2018.

 

[Winot]

Constitutionally, those in power can pretty much always find a way to do whatever the fuck they want. When I talked about a step back from Brexit subverting the democratic process, do you think I meant constitutionally?

I doubt if I can craft an argument which convinces you that those in power aren't cynical and I won't even try. It's a pretty barren cul de sac to go down.

However when you said:

Only if that were the only dividing line between parties. Which it never will be. Otherwise, how can it override a directly asked question?

You seemed to be saying that the referendum result was binding in perpetuity until there was another referendum asking the same question. This article has some interesting thoughts on that:

A mandate can be either democratic or irreversible, but it cannot be both – an argument

 

[andysays]

NI is part of the UK and this will affect them the most, not Ireland.

And the people of NI voted to remain in the EU; if they choose to leave the UK and become part of Eire, as there is provision for under the GFA, then both those wishes could be met simultaneously. I've already said that would be my preferred solution but that ultimately it's not for me to decide.

But my post referred deliberately to the people of Britain, who have voted to leave the EU but weren't consulted about the GFA, and who, I suggest, cannot and should not be prevented from doing so because of the GFA.

 

[kabbes]

In principle, given time, the U.K. government can reasonably diverge from a referendum result based on their electoral mandates. But not so soon after the result of direct question. It’d create a massive democratic crisis.

 

[teuchter]

Im not suggesting it happens without people voting for it.

Then that has implications for its "workability".

The notion you seem to be putting forward is that it is literally impossible for the UK to leave the EU simply because of the Irish border.

No, I don't think it's impossible. I think that people are being unrealistic in dismissing it as a significant issue though.

 

[teuchter]

But my post referred deliberately to the people of Britain, who have voted to leave the EU but weren't consulted about the GFA, and who, I suggest, cannot and should not be prevented from doing so because of the GFA.

So does, in principle, any potential consequence of leaving the EU have to be tolerated simply because people "weren't consulted about it"?

 

[kabbes]

And the people of NI voted to remain in the EU; if they choose to leave the UK and become part of Eire, as there is provision for under the GFA, then both those wishes could be met simultaneously. I've already said that would be my preferred solution but that ultimately it's not for me to decide.

But my post referred deliberately to the people of Britain, who have voted to leave the EU but weren't consulted about the GFA, and who, I suggest, cannot and should not be prevented from doing so because of the GFA.

Put it this way: the people of NI should have a referendum about joining ROI before we even DREAM of talking about letting the Irish border issue driving the need for a second Brexit referendum.