Many people voted pro-Brexit in the referendum due to the increasing disparity and alienation between the ruling/political class and the rest of the country. By deferring the decision to a parliamentary majority, the High court has ensured that Brexit will not happen. That's a sound result for the politicians and chiefs of industry based in London, but what will it mean for the wider UK? Both the courts and parliamen…
Or like Gore getting an incredibly thin majority based on interpretation of ambiguous ballots and then having it overruled by the Supreme court?
(George W. Bush: 50,456,002.
Al Gore: 50,999,897. Yes, I do know how the electoral college works, but if the same election had been counted under referendum rules the result would have been different)
The main rallying cry was: o there are no down sides to leaving o Leaving would give us 350 million pounds extra a week to improve healthcare o We would have a strong currency o The world would fall over it's self to give "free trade deals" to the UK o UK tourists would be able to go to the EU without a visa o No businesses would leave the UK to avoid trade tarrifs/customs hops o The UK wouldn't loose service "passpo…
These are all lies told by the leave campaign, not the remain campaign?
The Leave side.
The Remain camp had "project fear" which basically translated the top end of the economic consensus into tabloid.
Parliament is involved in the Brexit process, including through the Brexit Select Committee. Politicians from across different parties will have their say on how the UK leaves the EU. However, the British people have voted to leave the EU, and it would be an affront to democracy if the will of the people were denied by Parliament. It would be unacceptable for Parliament to vote against triggering Article 50, so why e…
Even as someone who is fanatically pro-EU, I think you're right about the affront to democracy bit. The remedy for the public is to 'throw the bastards out' at the next election if they feel sufficiently affronted. Or alternatively to have made the referendum self-executing - a clause could have been added to the 2015 referendum act giving Article 50 notification in the event of 'leave' winning. Of course, that ship…
I agree that certain aspects of the referendum (both in terms of the Referendum Act and also the campaigning) were far from ideal. All the same, we're in the situation we're in, and everyone needs to look forward at how the UK can best proceed with Brexit, and not look backwards and try to overturn the referendum result (but of course I'd say that).
> I really wish they'd stop calling it a "clear majority". I'm not sure when 52-48 was ever such. It's a majority though. If they wanted to have a higher threshold for the vote (say 60%) they should have done as much when writing the referendum.
My take on this is that it was a "qualified" majority to "Leave" but no specific plan was outlined as to what "Leave" entailed. "Remain" is easy: Status quo. "Leave" means many different things to many people. In a constitutional republic (such as Ireland for instance) a referendum clearly specifies the change to the constitution down to the wording and an open informed debate is had on what the consequences, and pos…
There was no real way to define what "Leave" means: clearly it means ceasing to be a member of the European Union, and the only means provided for that is Article 50, but beyond that the UK does not have the power to decide unilaterally what "Leave" means (as it requires coming to an agreement with the Council of Europe), and therefore any referendum in the UK could not decide what "Leave" means.
My take on this is that it was a "qualified" majority to "Leave" but no specific plan was outlined as to what "Leave" entailed. "Remain" is easy: Status quo. "Leave" means many different things to many people. In a constitutional republic (such as Ireland for instance) a referendum clearly specifies the change to the constitution down to the wording and an open informed debate is had on what the consequences, and pos…
I disagree that remaining was a status-quo option. Firstly it was 'remain' with Cameron's new package of concessions, not remaining as-is, and it's not like the EU is a static entity. I think I would have preferred a real in-out referendum, with the 'in' option being really diving in and embracing the whole project.
The "hard remain" option would definitely have lost. The EU is not all that popular even among people who voted remain. Rather like the "oh well, Clinton if I must" voters in the US.
It would have been interesting to see a three-option ballot under runoff voting, but those are completely alien to the UK system.
MP's are in a hard place because of this. The majority of them are pro-remain, having concluded that brexit is damaging and dangerous and cannot result in a better deal. ... but they will be whipped into line by government (Tory) and party leadership (Labour) insisting that they follow the settled will of the clear majority of the people ... but the will of the people is neither settled nor a clear majority.
I really wish they'd stop calling it a "clear majority". I'm not sure when 52-48 was ever such.
Decisions like this should require a 2/3 yes vote. Raise the bar higher if something this big would have a long lasting impact.
What does a "clear majority" even mean? A majority that you personally would accept? Like a majority of your favourite TV celebs and comedians like John Oliver agreeing that Brexit is a good thing? The rules for the referendum have been set by the government therefore it has committed to follow these rules regardless of outcome. And the outcome has been clear for anyone who understands basic arithmetic. This whole de…
This referendum was not set up as binding or self-executing. If you can find where in the rules the government committed to any particular course of action, you're welcome to quote them.
Yeah this is the kind of legalese bs that leads to violent overthrows of governments. If you believe that this will stop Brexit you are living in phantasy land.
Isn't the current Swiss controversy just a simple case of Switzerland abrogating the treaty? Switzerland and the EU member states signed a treaty agreeing that Switzerland would be given access to the common market, on the same footing as if it were an EU member, in return for following the EU's common product labeling/regulation, and allowing free movement of labor between all signatories of the treaty. Then, recent…
The treaties, like all EU treaties, are deliberately designed to bind people to things they don't want to do by artificially tying them all together with a "guillotine clause". There is no need for this type of thing - it's a pure power play. Switzerland is heading for what could be a potentially nasty constitutional crisis, if things go wrong. Parliament is legally bound to implement referendums because they work by…
I sort of agree as regards the very general guillotine clause, but I don't think it would make a huge difference in this case, because the Swiss referendum hits at the core of the common market agreement. The common market is made up of a few things that all go together to attempt to produce an integrated economic zone: free movement of labor, equal treatment of foreign and domestic companies, regulatory harmonization, etc. If countries can choose to honor some parts and not others, then you end up with a very fragmented market that fails to achieve the objective. Maybe France passes labeling laws designed to exclude Danish dairy products, Switzerland decides to restrict free movement, Greece decides to tax foreign companies at a higher rate than domestic companies, etc., etc. So it makes sense to me that the treaties over the common market are written such that countries only retain membership as long as they continue to honor each of these factors.
I disagree that remaining was a status-quo option. Firstly it was 'remain' with Cameron's new package of concessions, not remaining as-is, and it's not like the EU is a static entity. I think I would have preferred a real in-out referendum, with the 'in' option being really diving in and embracing the whole project.
The "hard remain" option would definitely have lost. The EU is not all that popular even among people who voted remain. Rather like the "oh well, Clinton if I must" voters in the US. It would have been interesting to see a three-option ballot under runoff voting, but those are completely alien to the UK system.
More's the pity!
For some reason we have to stick with these archaic systems that produce perverse results...
> That's just how democracies work Our democracy is a parliamentary democracy in which Parliament is supreme. We elect representatives so that they can make the decisions for us. Any referendum is really just advisory.
I always wonder with people who say this - if the vote had gone the other way but Parliament decided to leave the EU anyway, would you still be saying the vote was only advisory so it's fine?
Rhetorical question, isn't it. Of course they wouldn't.
Support for the EU is deeply rooted in a belief that people can't/shouldn't rule themselves: they need to delegate 'complex matters' to elite experts who, of course, only have the people's best interests at heart. The sudden belief that the referendum was only a fancy opinion poll entirely fits with this narrative.