UK in/out referendum on the EU (Brexit vs Bremain)

Eldorion wrote:I'm trying to figure out if the petition is just a symbolic thing people are signing to express their discontent with the result or if retroactively changing the rules of the referendum is a serious proposal.

I don't think it's an "either/or" situation. There are other reasons I can think of, and I definitely don't see it as "just a symbolic thing" any more than the original referendum was. The petition is a formal mechanism with established rules for holding a democratically elected government accountable. It may only serve to require the government to justify why they choose not to have a second referendum, but that's really important in times when many politicians will be mostly saying as little as possible.

malickfan wrote:The thing is, even if we hold another referendum and vote remain, I doubt the E.U would except us, there is no going back from this, as you say Parliament would implode.

I don't agree with the decision, but the UK needs to grow up, get some sense and deal with its own mess, it's unfair on the rest of Europe to keep dilly dallying.

I've seen suggestions online that Johnson was actually hoping for a narrow remain win, and wanted to use the result as a platform for more negotiations...that turned out well...

I've seen some of the same things said about Boris. I could believe it. It seemed pretty clear when he got involved that he was positioning himself for a future leadership election but having to try to steer the UK through these dangerous waters is a lot riskier than being righteously indignant in public while able to maintain the status quo.

EDIT: I hear what you're saying, Dave. I got into an argument earlier with people on another forum who were claiming that the referendum lacked democratic legitimacy because the Leave side had lied during the campaign and I guess some of my annoyance carried over.

Boris could have gone either way, he wrote those two articles, one for IN and one for OUT, he has no solid foundation or principles. he is a chancer and stabbed his friend Cameron in the back. if he becomes PM I will truly despair as he is everything the outers were supposedly fighting against, ie the elite, it doesn't get more elite than an old Etonian. I understand the poorest and least educated doing a protest vote against the Tories but what on earth had the EU got to do with it? the country is now split in two, the young and old, the educated Guardian reader against the tabloid readers, urban international city versus insular country. its a bad do. the young are the worst hit and its a terrible shame for them, how could OAPs do this to their grandchildren is beyond my comprehension.

The economy is fucked, TATA steel works is now fucked, ERASMUS is fucked, European travel is fucked, and we have shown ourselves to be small minded fools to the world. well done Brexiters.

Eldorion wrote:people on another forum who were claiming that the referendum lacked democratic legitimacy because the Leave side had lied during the campaign

NOOOOO!!!! Surely not LYING????? And in a democracy too!!! {{{ }}}

2,500.000 and counting

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215

Mrs Figg wrote:Lance. when the Scottish people voted to remain in the union it was on the understanding of being part of Europe. that contract has been broken.

No... the Scottish voted to be part of the Union. It was well known that an EU vote was upcoming as that was always part of Cameron's mandate. That was known when the first Scots referendum took place and that risk was accepted by the people that votes remain.

Can't just demand another vote every time something happens they don't like. What happens when Westminster makes more cuts, or goes to war that isn't agreed with by all? Another vote? No... they voted to remain part of the UK and the wider democracy.

Yes.. And it's not the same Union.

Everyone has been clear tht time alone would not necessitate another referendum. A major change in the status quo of teh Union would however, which was stated even before the first independence referendum.

It's not the same question, so people have a right to be asked again. It's that simple.

I may be wrong, but I thought the EU referendum vote was only promised after the 2015 general election when the Conservatives won a majority, if we had got a Labour government an E.U vote would probably not have happened?

Like you new profile pick Blue

Yes it is... it is exactly the same Union. The question posed to Scots didn't have caveats in it. The same as the UK will not just be able to change its mind once we are out and expect it all to be fine (I. E. If the there was some kind of major reform). The majority has spoken and you can't just go and call a vote every 5 minutes when something changes.

It is worth noting that 38% of Scots voted to Leave the E.U and they had a much poorer turnout than in 2014, so Sturgeon and the SNP aren't speaking for everyone, I've seen interviews with a few Scots Indy supporters who want total independence from Britain AND the E.U...

the Scots voted to stay in the UK as part of the European union, its fundamentally changed now and the majority want to be in the EU, so they should be allowed to decide their own future. I also think that 48- 52 % is not exactly a democratic result when half the population is against leaving the EU. when most of the leavers were lied to and manipulated into voting out.

Lancebloke wrote:
Can't just demand another vote every time something happens they don't like.

A serious question: why not?
I don't really understand how the referendum process works in the UK.  

Here in the US the initiative process is different from state to state, but here in the State of Washington the citizens can have a referendum any time we want on any law that hasn't taken effect yet if we can collect 125,000 signatures. We can also call a vote to pass our own law by initiative if we can gather 250,000. Of course it's got to pass a whole bunch of constitutional hoops and hurdles, but it's still a powerful tool for democracy.  

National referendums on US international policy though...no, we've got no way to do that, and I think the rest of the world should be very thankful we don't!

Mrs Figg wrote:the Scots voted to stay in the UK as part of the European union, its fundamentally changed now and the majority want to be in the EU, so they should be allowed to decide their own future. I also think that 48- 52 % is not exactly a democratic result when half the population is against leaving the EU. when most of the leavers were lied to and manipulated into voting out.

Yeah but the 64% (as some sources claim) of young voters who eligible to vote, and would have likely backed remain, but were too lazy to vote are also at blame.

malickfan wrote:I may be wrong, but I thought the EU referendum vote was only promised after the 2015 general election when the Conservatives won a majority, if we had got a Labour government an E.U vote would probably not have happened?

Cameron first publicly mentioned the EU referendum in 2013 and it was part of the Conservative Party's general election manifesto last year.

David H wrote:A serious question: why not?
I don't really understand how the referendum process works in the UK.  

Here in the US the initiative process is different from state to state, but here in the State of Washington the citizens can have a referendum any time we want on any law that hasn't taken effect yet if we can collect 125,000 signatures. We can also call a vote to pass our own law by initiative if we can gather 250,000. Of course it's got to pass a whole bunch of constitutional hoops and hurdles, but it's still a powerful tool for democracy.  

National referendums on US international policy though...no, we've got no way to do that, and I think the rest of the world should be very thankful we don't!

Referendums are very rare in the UK and there's no established constitutional process for them. If Parliament decides to hold a referendum they decide the date, the ground rules, the threshold for victory (majority or supermajority), the eligibility (in the Scottish referendum 16-year-olds could vote), etc. All referendums are technically non-binding because no matter what was said in the law establishing the referendum, Parliament can just pass a new law repealing it. But doing so would come with political costs.

The devolved Scottish Government could theoretically hold a referendum on their own but the UK Parliament could (and probably would) ignore it. The devolved governments exist at the discretion of Westminster rather than sharing sovereignty as in a federal system.* Before Indyref 1 the Scottish and UK-wide governments came to an agreement about the terms of the referendum and Cameron promised to respect the result, though there remained no constitutional obligation to do so.

*The power-sharing government of Northern Ireland was established along rules set out in the Good Friday Agreement, which included a treaty between the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, so that government is on firmer constitutional ground than the Scottish or Welsh ones.

I could not dig; I dared not rob:
Therefore I lied to please the mob.
Now all my lies are proved untrue
And I must face the men I slew.
What tale shall serve me here among
Mine angry and defrauded young?
-Rudyard Kipling

There are liars and then there’s Boris Johnson and Michael Gove
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/25/boris-johnson-michael-gove-eu-liars

Mrs Figg wrote:Boris could have gone either way, he wrote those two articles, one for IN and one for OUT, he has no solid foundation or principles. he is a chancer and stabbed his friend Cameron in the back. if he becomes PM I will truly despair as he is everything the outers were supposedly fighting against, ie the elite, it doesn't get more elite than an old Etonian. I understand the poorest and least educated doing a protest vote against the Tories but what on earth had the EU got to do with it? the country is now split in two, the young and old, the educated Guardian reader against the tabloid readers, urban international city versus insular country. its a bad do. the young are the worst hit and its a terrible shame for them, how could OAPs do this to their grandchildren is beyond my comprehension.

The economy is fucked, TATA steel works is now fucked, ERASMUS is fucked, European travel is fucked, and we have shown ourselves to be small minded fools to the world. well done Brexiters.

Does Boris bear a resemblance to Trump?

Bluebottle wrote:

I could not dig; I dared not rob:
Therefore I lied to please the mob.
Now all my lies are proved untrue
And I must face the men I slew.
What tale shall serve me here among
Mine angry and defrauded young?
-Rudyard Kipling

There are liars and then there’s Boris Johnson and Michael Gove
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/jun/25/boris-johnson-michael-gove-eu-liars

That, ladies and gentlemen, says it all

Eldorion wrote:Referendums are very rare in the UK and there's no established constitutional process for them.

I guess that hadn't really sunk in for me till now. So Cameron really didn't have a f***ing clue what he was doing when he called for these referendums. That explains so much!

The referendum belong on the list of important tools to be used with extreme caution, along with chainsaws, heavy equipment, firearms and explosives. It looks to me like the Tories lost the instruction manual and just started pulling levers and pushing buttons.

Cameron has been punished for upholding democratic principles, both in regard to his Party internally, and the Country externally. I admire him for being so truly democratic, but I share his disappointment at the reactionary stupidity of my generation. Hurrah for the young Brittains though! They give me hope for the future...

David H wrote:I guess that hadn't really sunk in for me till now.  So Cameron really didn't have a f***ing clue what he was doing when he called for these referendums. That explains so much!

The referendum belong on the list of important tools to be used with extreme caution, along with chainsaws, heavy equipment, firearms and explosives. It looks to me like the Tories lost the instruction manual and just started pulling levers and pushing buttons.

I'd say that's accurate. Cameron seems to have assumed it would be an easy victory. I guess he figured that the same playbook that succeeded in Scotland would work again here, even though that turned what should have been a walkover into a relatively close affair.

Like I said earlier, worst miscalculation since Anthony Eden and the Suez Crisis.

Eldorion wrote:

David H wrote:I guess that hadn't really sunk in for me till now.  So Cameron really didn't have a f***ing clue what he was doing when he called for these referendums. That explains so much!

The referendum belong on the list of important tools to be used with extreme caution, along with chainsaws, heavy equipment, firearms and explosives. It looks to me like the Tories lost the instruction manual and just started pulling levers and pushing buttons.

I'd say that's accurate. Cameron seems to have assumed it would be an easy victory. I guess he figured that the same playbook that succeeded in Scotland would work again here, even though that turned what should have been a walkover into a relatively close affair.

Like I said earlier, worst miscalculation since Anthony Eden and the Suez Crisis.

Don't see it that way myself. Cameron might have been confident of remaining, but he's a more experienced and successful politician than any of us and I'm willing to believe his decision for a referendum had more to do with democratic principle than cynicism. He had all to lose, by your estimation, and nothing to gain. As I said, he is too canny a politician to have held the referendum if he only anticipated one result. I'm willing to concede higher motives to (some of) our politicians at times. Many politicians enter politics to serve, and it's not just to serve their own interests all the time. This apparent "cynicism" with all politicians and the political system to me is plainly silly and only proves to me that a lot of political pundits - who have all care and no responsibility - are more interested in just finding fault all the time and not sticking better to analysing policy and legislation. As to any pressure from his party for holding the referendum, well, Leaders of parties are also one voice in a party and have to listen to other voices, especially if there are a lot if persuasive other voices. It shows neither weakness nor stupidity (in this case), just a pragmatic acceptance that they are just one MP in a collective of equals who must respect differing opinions, especially if there is a groundswell of them. Letting "the people" have a say on such a contentious issue is only sensible. Cameron can't be blamed for people having the freedom of their conscience, and freedom to vote - and to express their ultimate stupidity... Though not the young people, thank Eru!!!

My puzzlement and amazement comes, I guess, from living in a state where referendums and voter initiatives are a part of every election, often written by the libertarian right trying to revoke taxes, and they pass as often as not. All politicians and civil servants here, from the governor on down to the people answering phones,  just take for granted that a referendum is like betting your home on one cut of the cards, and whatever the odds you'd damn well better have a plan for win or lose.

So when the EU referendum didn't go as expected, I  just naturally expected a well-oiled administrative machine to switch to plan B and Cameron to give a gracious speech saying something gracious like, "This wasn't my first choice, but I serve at the will of the people and here's the plan we've developed to smoothly and painlessly transition out of the EU with minimum drama."

Instead he announced his resignation with no plan at all, feeding the chaos and drama.  What would you think of a goalie who missed a ball in the middle of a tied game, then just walked off the field and announced his retirement in the middle of the game?

{{They don't often do that, do they?    I'm beginning to realize how much I don't know that I don't know about such things....}}

Orwell wrote:Don't see it that way myself. Cameron might have been confident of remaining, but he's a more experienced and successful politician than any of us and I'm willing to believe his decision for a referendum had more to do with democratic principle than cynicism. He had all to lose, by your estimation, and nothing to gain.

I don't think Cameron is a particularly canny politician at all, but that aside, he had a lot to gain if his gamble had paid off. He had -- or thought he had -- an opportunity to rob the Eurosceptic wing of the Tory Party of any credibility (by proving that Cameron's brand of Tory was more electable) and essentially end the debate that was causing such restlessness and creating a continual risk of a backbencher revolt. Brexit wasn't the only issue that Cameron clashed with backbenchers over -- he got a lot of pushback to his support for marriage equality as well -- but it was by far the biggest one at this point. Brexit is also the main purpose of UKIP, and had Remain won, UKIP would have lost much of its reason for being.*

EDIT: in response to what Dave said (H, not Cameron ) the referendum proved that Cameron's brand of Tory does not have greater support among voters, which meant that he would have had to face even more pressure from backbenchers to either alter his policies or step down. Either way, his ability to lead and shape the future of the Conservative Party was fatally compromised because he staked his credibility on the "new deal with Europe" he negotiated four months ago and campaigned so hard for Remain. The goal of his big gamble was to throw a bone to the Eurosceptic wing of the Tory Party while robbing them of their main talking point, but instead the reverse happened.

*Or maybe not ... the aftermath of the Scottish referendum proved that even when Cameron's side won, it didn't end the conversation, but he'd already publicly promised the EU referendum by then.

Orwell wrote:As I said, he is too canny a politician to have held the referendum if he only anticipated one result.

I don't know what you mean here. Why would any politician, especially a supposedly savvy one, call a referendum if they didn't think they would win it? It's not like referendums are a common lawmaking tool in the UK. The purpose of it was to end debate on a controversial topic through a show of public support. This was his goal with the Scottish referendum too; Cameron and allies have consistently tried to make the case that the referendum means Scottish independence is no longer a valid topic of discussion because the subject has been decided and closed. That was the aim with Brexit too.

Will the next Prime Ministership be a poisoned chalice? Maybe, the "leavers" we're actually just trying to pressure for a better EU deal? Now they have to make leaving beneficial... But who has a plan and the Leadership skills demanded? Boris the Populist? The man with all care and no responsibility may now to be asked to step forward and be expected to take all care and all responsibility. It is a very different world now - for Boris and his mates too.... and for young folk who were naturally moving forward and have now been asked to take a step or three backwards toward some idealised 1950...

Eldo, one can be canny, and still do what's right. Canniness should not always be seen as a synonym for for being dishonest or being tricky and clever on all scores. Cameron knew the danger. Are you suggesting he honestly did not foresee the danger to his Prime Ministership?

And I don't agree with your view of his potential gain. Nothing would change there whether positive or negative, the only change of any magnitude or importance was if he lost the vote.

And sUrely he can be forgiven for believing the Brittish voter would not be as reactionary and racist as it turned out. The leavers thought they'd lose too, btw: the honest ones at least. They fooled me too. Just saying.