Sovereignty of Parliament includes making law to give the electorate decisions on vital matters like joining the Common Market and leaving the EU. When that is done, there is a high expectation by the electorate (not unreasonable surely) that Parliament will abide by the result. What if Parliament had refused to honour the 1970's Common Market referendum result and not joined? But it wouldn't have happened. As a member of the minority, Stan, I hope you'll keep voicing your opinion. But the Tories and Labour are right that the result of the 2016 referendum must be honoured. Then we get into - what is honouring it, and we all go round in a circle. I see David Owen in the Sunday Times seems to agree with you on the Norway option. Hmm...
The only way around this is to do away with referendums. I think you're in favour of this and fair enough. However, the chances of these complete clowns of all political pursations putting the people first is nigh on zero imo. So I'd prefer to stick to leaving it to the people when it's a question of a massive change for the country. Much as we did when we voted to join the Common Market (the people were lied to about that too).
Spot on again Goldie! May is a 'remainer' and I have found her very weak. it was also May that hampered Davis throughout the negotiations blocking his 'No deal' planning. After her sell-out Chequers paper I gave up with her. The EU has been doing what they do best which is not to adapt or change the rules unless it suits them. Look at the deal they made with Canada which took 10 years and the newest one with Japan which took 10 minutes? Yet it's so hard for a deal with a trading partner of 40 years (UK)? Look how they rushed off to the US for a sell-out deal after they said a week before that they wouldn't put up with 'Trump's threats'? Yet the remainers can't see this (or won't). It's all the Tories fault! https://brexitcentral.com/eus-record-shows-turned-hypocrisy-art-form/ The EU has been the problem from day one. They are hypocrites and will never change. Even Davis said it was 'hard' dealing with them. Others have said impossible. Farage for what people think of him has one of the best insights into the EU and he said from day one that "we must get out of this organisation for the good of the country". He was dismissed as some right-wing nationalist and now Jacob Ress Mogg says the organisation is 'like the mafia' they are now trying to make up crap about him. This is because they are frightened of him. Speaking of the Tories, you are also correct that the activists/members want her out. She keeps watering down the sell-out white paper and went cap in hand to Macron to give away more stuff because Barnier said 'Non'. She will be gone soon and we will get a strong Brexit leader like Boris or my choice JRM.
Yes, JRM would be my choice too. Highly intelligent. Stuck by his principles. Would have a firm but fair manner when dealing with the Brussels bullies. And I'm convinced he would not impose his sometimes singular religious beliefs on the rest of us.
Well you like a debate Goldie and usually respond to an argument with a counter argument, which is what it’s about. Others seem less comfortable with the process of dialectic. My preference would have been to stay in, but I’m pretty certain that since the referendum I have not argued for that on here (impossible to check without re reading the whole sorry thing). In those circumstances Norway is probably the least worst option, though it won’t satisfy the hard liners, but would be tolerable for the majority. My chief complaint, which I know is really boring, is the totally inept way my government has been going about this. If we had gone for complete break from day one there was a chance we could have prepared for it half decently, but not now. We will have a future trade deal with the EU, my concern is about the short and possible medium term impact of an acrimonious crash out in March without an exit deal. Currently they are trying to scare the EU about chances of a no deal, while keeping us calm about it. Just incompetent. It’s one of the downsides of not having a clear and explicit written constitution that the relative status of referenda, parliamentary statute etc will never be transparent. Whatever the people decide Parliament have to enact it, and if enough Parliamentarians think it (whatever it is, not necessarily Brexit) will damage the country, or conflict with their conscience or whatever, we have a problem. They are representatives, not delegates after all. And they represent all of their constituents, not just those who voted for them, and the government should look after the interests of all the population, not just those who voted for them or a particular way at a referendum. It’s all about compromise, and some people resent that. Tough titty. I’m not a fan of referenda, but I can see that there is a place for them. In the case of Brexit it was just a cop out by Cameron which he ****ed up. The question would have been fine if both sides had been honest and the campaign hadn’t been so toxic. Given the personalities involved, no hope of anything else. Totally agree that the quality of our representatives makes all this rather academic, they are highly likely to **** up and try to look after themselves whoever is in charge.
Yes, May's government has not covered itself with glory in the way it has conducted negotiations. The only thing I'd say in mitigation is that there has not been a more divisive issue in Parliament (on any of the benches) since some bright C17th MP said: "Charles? Why don't we cut off his head?"
mmm It's okay to vote in a General election and it's okay for a 'peoples vote' but it wasn't okay for the original vote? it gets better by the day.
The joy of a referendum is that it allows the government to identify what the people think about a topic. The misery is when they decide that means they have to follow it even it they believe it is not in the best interests of the country. Their job is to act in our best interests, not to just do whatever we tell them. If the Conservatives had not been divided internally, and Cameron was not mistakenly using this as a tool to shut up the other side of their party, we'd have seen them thank us for the answer and explainin why they were grateful for the feedback but didn't agree it was right - and vote us out if you disagree that much. But they didn't.
What effect do you think it would have on confidence in the way we are governed, our democratic system and the people governing us (which isn't high anyway), if Parliament gave the electorate a referendum and then ignored the majority result because they, the elite, didn't agree with it. No damage? Slight damage. Cynicism and low polling in elections for at least a generation? It would be the last of these, believe me.
Thing is, the government explicitly stated that the result of the referendum would be carried out. I am willing to wager that, had the result been 52% in favour of remain, not one remainer on here would be questioning the validity of the vote or calling for the government to take the final decision.
I think we will see a slump in turnout whatever. All the vox pops and polls show people don’t want another referendum or a general election, presumably because of the pain of the campaigns rather than the effort of casting their votes. Even the polls showing a majority wanting to Remain also show that most don’t want a chance to vote on it. Perhaps we have the politicians we deserve. In those circumstances it would be how the leavers would have reacted which would be relevant. Now we have both remainers and leavers vocally pissed off.
No, why would they? If the people said Remain and parliament agrees, and so it remains. What's the problem with that? My point is the referendum said Leave, parliament didn't agree (and it doesn't - given a free, anonymous vote, we'd see that) but they don't have the guts to stand by their principles and say "Thanks, but it's economic suicide so we won't do it". I don't question the result. That's a matter of record. I question if it's in our best interests to carry it out. I don't think it is.
May had a plan to carry out the result and the gammons were up in arms throwing their Carling around in disgust.
As Stan likes to say, tough titty. We voted to leave. Maybe you'll get a chance to vote again in a few decades time.
Yeah, you're probably right. I only do it because I like the thought of all the steam being expelled from gammony ears.
Negotiations between Japan and the EU started in 2013. If you want to make a case at least try and find some facts which support it. The US will reach a deal with the EU before they do with us because the EU is far more important to them. Of course the EU moves fast when it needs to. It doesn’t need to with us, the ball is in our half and we are busily passing back the the keeper. Farage explicitly sang the praises of a Norway/Switzerland relationship with the EU on many occasions before the referendum, the video has been posted on this thread. You can do this and not be a member of the EU. Viva Farage! In his defence, perhaps he didn’t really understand the nature of the relationship when he said that. Instead of saying the EU ‘is like the mafia’ and using emotive phrases like ‘vassal state’ (it always makes me laugh when these dudes with classical educations at the most expensive private schools and oxbridge assume that the mass of the population know what words like ‘vassal’ mean. They are so in touch!) why doesn’t Rees Mogg give us some incontrovertible examples? Perhaps he’s too busy getting his capital out of the UK. Johnson* and Rees Mogg want deregulation of the economy and open immigration. That’s unfettered free market capitalism! Is that what the leave voters wanted? Even if there is some kind of Tory coup and they get in they don’t have the time remaining to change the no deal outcome. Amazing that the Tories still can’t muster 48 MPs prepared to force a confidence vote in May. Perhaps May has told them she will call a general election if they try it. Austin Mitchell, member of the Socialist Campaign Group who claimed £10k in mortgage payments from the public ‘by mistake’ is your evidence on Brexit Central (sounds unbiased and even handed to me). Really? I’m on my third glass of Malbec and am in a Peter Finch in Network kind of mood. Bring it on! * Johnson of course doesn’t really want to leave the EU at all, he only backed Leave because he thought it would boost his chances of becoming PM. Remember his face at the press conference after the referendum result? He was shell shocked and ****ting himself. At various times he has said ‘if the EU didn’t exist we would have to invent it’ ‘ we must stay in the Single Market’ ‘I am a fan of the EU’ and has called for Turkey to be fast tracked in. What a lying ****wit he is.
