** The Brexit Thread ** - 'Brexit Means Brexit'

[reohn2]

A second 'Clegg' moment I suspect, oblivion awaits....

Al

Your track record on this thread is so far one of delusion and fantasy.
You refuse to answer when questioned of such fanatic beliefs only to declare that remainers on the thread as "hating Britain",and a belief that the EU is a Franco German conspiracy to rule the world.
How do expect anyone to take you seriously?

[Psamathe]

The Lib Dems just voted at their annual conference to fight for revoking article 50 and they are arguing that as we stand, if Labour, SNP, etc join the Lib Dems on a vote, parliament can revoke article 50. This is clearly undemocratic hence my view this will backfire on them, having said that, I doubt very much that Labour would be up fo it.... it would be polical suicide for Corbyn.

If the voters elect a majority of MPs who stand on a revoke platform, it would be undemocratic for parliament to revoke?

Do MPs actually have to "stand" for something in an election for their decision to become democratic? To require that would place a lot of constraint on what any Government could do, particularly in changing dynamic situations.

Is there not a case that our system allows MPs so spend time studying and understanding all aspects of complex situations and then making decisions on our behalf in our best interests. And those decisions will often not have been pre-decided in any election manifesto.

Ian

[horizon]

The irony of the Lib Dem position is staggering.

If the Lib Dems vote for enacting the result of the referendum, they will be accused of voting against their true beliefs and being hypocritical.

If the Lib Dems ask for a second referendum, they will be accused of seeking to overturn the first and ignoring democracy.

If the Lib Dems stand up and state what they truly want to and will do if elected, they are accused of being ironic.

They cannot win (or maybe they can ... )

[Mike Sales]

The Lib Dems just voted at their annual conference to fight for revoking article 50 and they are arguing that as we stand, if Labour, SNP, etc join the Lib Dems on a vote, parliament can revoke article 50. This is clearly undemocratic hence my view this will backfire on them, having said that, I doubt very much that Labour would be up fo it.... it would be polical suicide for Corbyn.

If the voters elect a majority of MPs who stand on a revoke platform, it would be undemocratic for parliament to revoke?

Do MPs actually have to "stand" for something in an election for their decision to become democratic? To require that would place a lot of constraint on what any Government could do, particularly in changing dynamic situations.

Is there not a case that our system allows MPs so spend time studying and understanding all aspects of complex situations and then making decisions on our behalf in our best interests. And those decisions will often not have been pre-decided in any election manifesto.

Ian

I quite agree. But candidates do have manifestos and generally expressed positions which are the reason the electors put their ticks in the box by that candidates name. In practice, the elector is often ticking the party name.

[Psamathe]

I don't want the UK cast adrift. Never have done.

Yet here we are. Adrift and humiliated. By Luxembourg.

Conservatives being very predictable (bringing up "the War") in defence of Piffle

Former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith dredged up memories of the Second World War, saying: “The irony is that Luxembourg was saved by Britain. National leaders should always treat one another with courtesy and civility. Good ones do.”

Ian

[reohn2]

Conservatives being very predictable (bringing up "the War") in defence of Piffle

Former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith dredged up memories of the Second World War, saying: “The irony is that Luxembourg was saved by Britain. National leaders should always treat one another with courtesy and civility. Good ones do.”

Ian

Unbelievable,only little englanders hang on to such notions to bring out when they believe it suit their agenda.Does IDS realise how unbelievably ridiculous he sounds uttering such a statement?

[georgew]

And where democracy falls in all this? Parliament has not mandate to revoke article 50.

If the Liberal Democrats want to revoke article 50 then I'd say let them campaign for a revoke of article 50 on the next General Elections and if they win by overall majority then they would have a mandate to revoke article 50 and any supporter of brexit that believes in democracy should respect the decision.

Isn't their campaign to stop the leave process implicitly a campaign to revoke?

Well they are now campaigning to revoke article 50 but that wasn't the case for the last election, also they are only the third largest political party in parliament, way behind Labour so they have a mountain to climb before they have a mandate to revoke article 50.

If I'm honest, I think this is simply a strategy to attract people that don't want Brexit full stop, by offering something different, the problem is that they are offering to ignore the referendum, like it never happened, while before they were asking for a second referendum but since Labour now also is seeking a second referendum, the Lib Dems need to seek something different. I have a feeling this is going to backfire on them.

Extraordinary.......it's as if the SNP with 35 seats simply did not exist.

[661-Pete]

Haven't we spun out this argument about "democracy" far enough?

Who was it said, “If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy”? Why - the Brex**iteers, sometime, very own darling poster boy, Mr David Davis! (where is he now btw?)

I don't remember all that I did on 23 June 2016, but I do recall going into a polling station, where I was given a piece of paper. I don't recall being handed a block of stone, a chisel, and a hammer, and being instructed to spend the next half hour chipping away at the stone! (Ed Miliband tried something of that sort, and it backfired on him).

Democracy isn't democracy unless it's flexible. So the Brex**iteers should stop fixating on a single, flawed and toxic poll result, obtained amidst a tissue of lies and misinformation. Even if the original referendum hadn't been flawed and toxic, it would still be open to a potential re-run.

So we must have the re-run. I wish people who bleat on about "democracy" would see that!

[mjr]

well Jo Swinson made me laugh, the BBC reports on World at One, she wont support either a Boris or Corbyn govt. Seems like Boris is not the only one living in a fantasy world if she thinks the Liberals stand a chance of winning an election?

You and that BBC reporter make me laugh. The UK electorate has a bit of a problem with political pragmatism in the past, so if she says she's open to coalitions, then Cummings will run "Vote Jo = Get Chicken" ads and Labour will run "Vote Jo = Get Lying Hulk" ads. What else could she do at this point but make what I suspect are carefully-worded denials?

She has only doubled the number of MPs she "has" by defections?

Is that not part of being a successful parliamentary party leader? Do they count any less? Haven't both Conservatives and Labour accepted "defections" like Winston Churchill and "the awful Shaun Woodward" in the past? All the major parties claim to be "broad churches" or "big tents" after all, to perpetuate the myth that they can govern alone.

And furthermore she wants to revoke article 50 without another referendum I wonder what funny juice she is on

As I understand it, the theory is that a Lib Dem election win would be a stronger mandate. What funny juice are you on if you think an advisory referendum overrules a later election result?

I thought your "questions" were rhetorical ones.

No, they are real questions about what you think the LD leader could do to avoid what seem like unreasonable accusations, whether you also mean to call Sir Winston Churchill a defector and how you arrive at an advisory referendum overruling all later general elections.

[RRSODL]

I might be mis-understanding your post but I thought the Lib Dems were not saying they were going to revoke Article 50 now ('cos they can't) but that it was to be their policy for the coming General Election where they would hope to get a mandate.

But given we elect MPs as our representatives to make decisions in our best interests, etc. in one respect they currently have a mandate to act in our best interests and if they collectively decided that it was in our best interest to revoke Article 50 then the last General Election (which is more recent than the EU Referendum) could be said to have given them this mandate.

I'm using "mandate" in the sense of

(That does not mean I'm so happy with many of the decisions made by our politicians that I don't agree with and would argue against ..... so maybe a bit of hypocrisy on my part arguing this for something I would prefer).

Ian

The Lib Dems just voted at their annual conference to fight for revoking article 50 and they are arguing that as we stand, if Labour, SNP, etc join the Lib Dems on a vote, parliament can revoke article 50. This is clearly undemocratic hence my view this will backfire on them, having said that, I doubt very much that Labour would be up fo it.... it would be polical suicide for Corbyn.

I see your point but in a representative democracy we elect our representatives to make decisions on our behalf, in our best interests. We have elected the current set of MPs so in effect we have mandated whatever decisions they make, we have authorised them to make these decisions by electing them in the 2017 General Election (authorised by choosing those we trust to make decisions on our behalf).

Thus, if the Lib Dems campaign and change enough minds now and Article 50 is revoked before any further public vote, that is a decision made democratically by those we have mandated to make such decisions. So there is an argument that it is perfectly democratic.

But I'll confess to a degree of hypocrisy because the same argument applies to the Conservatives cutting social benefits, same argument holds for the Conservatives tax cuts for the wealthy, same for the Iraq War, etc. and I'd be denying my own "mandate" argument above for those types of decisions.

Ian

I'm sorry but I find that pill too difficult to swallow. Parties campaign on a manifesto on which voters based their vote. Are you happy to accept MPs would follow their own political agenda after you elected them? The Lib Dems have a history on having a manifesto that says one thing and doing the opposite, I remember when they promised they would Not raise students university fees and within a short time they supported that.... I do remember how betrayed young people felt at the time.
There are many issues where I'd have no issues for my MP to make a decision on my best interest, simply because either I have no information or no interest BUT Brexit is a different matter altogether, we have been bombarded with information and misinformation for the best part of 4 or 5 years and we always understood this was a decision for the people to make and we were promised by a remainer PM, David Cameron, that whatever the result of the referendum, it would be respected, furthermore, a large majority of MPs in parliament voted to aprove it.

I remember Tony Blair giving a press conference days after the referendum where he was visibly upset and said what's done is done and there's nothing we can do about it now. He understood that the people had spoken and in a democracy you follow the majority vote.

When people tell me that lots of people have changed their mind, I have no doubt, it's being 3 years but people are changing their minds on both sides of brexit, my family wants to get on with it and do it when they voted to remain and initially they feared for their jobs..... my daughter thought she would be made redundant within months but she was up to recently managing a project on brexit so the bank is definitely staying, not going to Ireland like people said in 2016. The worst part is that we waisted 2 years with Mrs May and we run out of time to negotiate a good deal.

So to summarise, I really feel strongly about MPs following an agenda that is not in the manifesto I voted for, that is not democracy, otherwise we don't need elections anymore, give MPs a permanent position, they don't need my vote to do what is in their interest.

[horizon]

I'm sorry but I find that pill too difficult to swallow. Parties campaign on a manifesto on which voters based their vote. Are you happy to accept MPs would follow their own political agenda after you elected them? . . . and we were promised by a remainer PM, David Cameron, that whatever the result of the referendum, it would be respected, furthermore, a large majority of MPs in parliament voted to approve it.

I remember Tony Blair giving a press conference days after the referendum where he was visibly upset and said what's done is done and there's nothing we can do about it now. He understood that the people had spoken and in a democracy you follow the majority vote.

RRSODL: I'm a Remainer and I feel sympathetic to the point you're making. The whole point about the referendum was that Remain was supposed to win so nothing was worked through. Hence all the wriggling and repositioning now. Leave voters are understandably aggrieved that their "win" wasn't a win (a bit like when the bookies don't honour a bet). So what am I to do as a Remainer? Vote for something I don't believe in or agree with? Or fly in the face of the reasonable point of view that the referendum should have determined the end result?

[bovlomov]

I'm sorry but I find that pill too difficult to swallow. Parties campaign on a manifesto on which voters based their vote. Are you happy to accept MPs would follow their own political agenda after you elected them?

As a matter of law, do we not elect MPs rather than parties? What an MP chooses to do with that mandate is up to him or her. Even, sometimes, switching parties (everyone moans, but it is constitutionally sound).

In practice, the last Conservative manifesto was published half way through the campaign. I doubt many people read the manifesto or, still less, based their votes on its contents. Many postal votes would have already been submitted.

Also - as discussed above, most manifestos are a bunch of meaningless waffle that in any case are routinely breached, both according to the letter and the spirit.

[roubaixtuesday]

I'm sorry but I find that pill too difficult to swallow. Parties campaign on a manifesto on which voters based their vote. Are you happy to accept MPs would follow their own political agenda after you elected them? . . . and we were promised by a remainer PM, David Cameron, that whatever the result of the referendum, it would be respected, furthermore, a large majority of MPs in parliament voted to approve it.

I remember Tony Blair giving a press conference days after the referendum where he was visibly upset and said what's done is done and there's nothing we can do about it now. He understood that the people had spoken and in a democracy you follow the majority vote.

RRSODL: I'm a Remainer and I feel sympathetic to the point you're making. The whole point about the referendum was that Remain was supposed to win so nothing was worked through. Hence all the wriggling and repositioning now. Leave voters are understandably aggrieved that their "win" wasn't a win (a bit like when the bookies don't honour a bet). So what am I to do as a Remainer? Vote for something I don't believe in or agree with? Or fly in the face of the reasonable point of view that the referendum should have determined the end result?

Yup, I've every sympathy with these perspectives.

The reality is that it has been impossible to agree on what terms to leave. There are massively divergent possibilities, so that's not surprising.

And on MPs, how can they, in reality, follow a manifesto it is just not possible to implement?

The problem was the referendum not actually being between two equally defined options. Only parliament can decide how to proceed on that, the original vote itself gives no guidance.

It's a mess.

[Psamathe]

The Lib Dems just voted at their annual conference to fight for revoking article 50 and they are arguing that as we stand, if Labour, SNP, etc join the Lib Dems on a vote, parliament can revoke article 50. This is clearly undemocratic hence my view this will backfire on them, having said that, I doubt very much that Labour would be up fo it.... it would be polical suicide for Corbyn.

I see your point but in a representative democracy we elect our representatives to make decisions on our behalf, in our best interests. We have elected the current set of MPs so in effect we have mandated whatever decisions they make, we have authorised them to make these decisions by electing them in the 2017 General Election (authorised by choosing those we trust to make decisions on our behalf).

Thus, if the Lib Dems campaign and change enough minds now and Article 50 is revoked before any further public vote, that is a decision made democratically by those we have mandated to make such decisions. So there is an argument that it is perfectly democratic.

But I'll confess to a degree of hypocrisy because the same argument applies to the Conservatives cutting social benefits, same argument holds for the Conservatives tax cuts for the wealthy, same for the Iraq War, etc. and I'd be denying my own "mandate" argument above for those types of decisions.

Ian

I'm sorry but I find that pill too difficult to swallow. Parties campaign on a manifesto on which voters based their vote. Are you happy to accept MPs would follow their own political agenda after you elected them? The Lib Dems have a history on having a manifesto that says one thing and doing the opposite, I remember when they promised they would Not raise students university fees and within a short time they supported that.... I do remember how betrayed young people felt at the time.
There are many issues where I'd have no issues for my MP to make a decision on my best interest, simply because either I have no information or no interest BUT Brexit is a different matter altogether, we have been bombarded with information and misinformation for the best part of 4 or 5 years and we always understood this was a decision for the people to make and we were promised by a remainer PM, David Cameron, that whatever the result of the referendum, it would be respected, furthermore, a large majority of MPs in parliament voted to aprove it.

I remember Tony Blair giving a press conference days after the referendum where he was visibly upset and said what's done is done and there's nothing we can do about it now. He understood that the people had spoken and in a democracy you follow the majority vote.

When people tell me that lots of people have changed their mind, I have no doubt, it's being 3 years but people are changing their minds on both sides of brexit, my family wants to get on with it and do it when they voted to remain and initially they feared for their jobs..... my daughter thought she would be made redundant within months but she was up to recently managing a project on brexit so the bank is definitely staying, not going to Ireland like people said in 2016. The worst part is that we waisted 2 years with Mrs May and we run out of time to negotiate a good deal.

So to summarise, I really feel strongly about MPs following an agenda that is not in the manifesto I voted for, that is not democracy, otherwise we don't need elections anymore, give MPs a permanent position, they don't need my vote to do what is in their interest.

I think you have highlighted the shortcomings of our system or maybe of the poor politicians we have to chose between.

The electorate elects an MP not a Party. I think the predominance of Party is a major failing of our system, e.g. that our PM can be elected into office by 0.25% of the electorate who are mainly white with an average of 72 (disputed but unquestionably way different from the electorate as a whole).

I would also find it a difficult pill to swallow when discussing welfare cuts, child poverty policy, tax cuts for the wealthy, etc. but in an age of sound bites and how quickly situations can change no manifesto can adequately define decisions for a 5 year period and even if they could I believe that MPs are meant to act in our best interests that might not be doing what we want them to do.

I don't know what the answer is but I'm not sure more referenda on most issues is the answer (we'd quickly have public hanging re-introduced once the Daily Main realises the possibility). I do think that we need a confirmatory referendum over the EU mainly because the whole issue was created by a referendum. But given the lies and fraud from the last referendum then as a general principle I'm not convinced more would make us any more "democratic", at least not without more safeguards and accountability for "legal, descent, honest & truthful".

I was chatting to my brother at the weekend who used to hold a pretty senior position in a major London bank befor ehe chucked it in to give up working. But he stays in contact with ex work colleagues and the bank he worked for has now mostly moved to Paris and Frankfurt, UK presence dramatically reduced and all recruitment for the EU based centres.

It is worth remembering that the predictions about the jobs and economic impacts were largely based on what many of the Leave campaigners were saying - given notice day after referendum and leave shortly after that. We have not yet left and thus the initial impacts have been spread out over several years and the departure impacts are still to happen.

Ian

[mercalia]

I read some in the EU are worried that the UK may become Singapore-on-Thames. Well they should concentrate on dealing with Ireland which already is become that, a tax haven? Seems the Irish are upset they are misunderstood

The country has faced increasing criticism of its corporate tax policies, with the American economist Gabriel Zucman leading the charge.

He has accused Ireland of being "the world's number one tax haven".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe ... ting-story

It shouldnt surprise us that they have a bigoted attitude to the backstop