Brexit matters

[geoffk]

Not real ly. The Eu offered us various different options as per the slide in this link

Slide presented by Michel Barnier, European Commission Chief Negotiator, to the Heads of State and Government at the European Council (Article 50) on 15 December 2017

Slide presented by Michel Barnier, European Commission Chief Negotiator, at the European Council (Article 50)

ec.europa.eu

PowerPoint showing various options for future relationship between UK and eu.
We decided we want to be on the right hand side of the graph.

Who are "we"? certainly not me nor almost all the people I know.

 

[RT4038]

Not "we".

'We' as in 'those negotiating on our behalf', I presume? I think it is pretty much a given that not everyone (or indeed anyone?) will agree with everything in such a complex subject of negotiation. Such is practical democracy.

 

[RT4038]

Not real ly. The Eu offered us various different options as per the slide in this link

Slide presented by Michel Barnier, European Commission Chief Negotiator, to the Heads of State and Government at the European Council (Article 50) on 15 December 2017

Slide presented by Michel Barnier, European Commission Chief Negotiator, at the European Council (Article 50)

ec.europa.eu

PowerPoint showing various options for future relationship between UK and eu.
We decided we want to be on the right hand side of the graph.

Well yes, but each of those options involving continuing to be a member of the Single Market and Customs Union no doubt came with strictures that were deemed unacceptable by our negotiators.

 

[class ep-09]

Well yes, but each of those options involving continuing to be a member of the Single Market and Customs Union no doubt came with strictures that were deemed unacceptable by our negotiators.

Unacceptable by the negotiators indeed , but it does’t mean for the society.

These options (CU and SM ) were overwhelmingly acceptable to the people , polls show ,but BoJo &Co decided to please the headbangers .

 

[najaB]

Well yes, but each of those options involving continuing to be a member of the Single Market and Customs Union no doubt came with strictures that were deemed unacceptable by our negotiators.

I don't recall being given a say in the matter...

 

[RT4038]

Unacceptable by the negotiators indeed , but it does’t mean for the society.

These options (CU and SM ) were overwhelmingly acceptable to the people , polls show ,but BoJo &Co decided to please the headbangers .

If the CU & SM (with their accompanying economic, political and social strictures) were overwhelmingly acceptable to the people then they should have overwhelmingly voted 'Remain'. But they didn't.

 

[RT4038]

I don't recall being given a say in the matter...

If you didn't realise what the referendum question really meant..... But I expect you did - it was the others.....

 

[najaB]

If the CU & SM (with their accompanying economic, political and social strictures) were overwhelmingly acceptable to the people then they should have overwhelmingly voted 'Remain'. But they didn't.

The vote in favour of leaving was 1,269,501 more than the vote in favour in remain. That means that if even 10% of Leave voters were in favour of remaining in the Customs Union and Single Market then there was a majority in favour of remaining in those structures.

If you didn't realise what the referendum question really meant..... But I expect you did...

Yes, I did. Which is why I voted to Remain.

 

[RT4038]

The vote in favour of leaving was 1,269,501 more than the vote in favour in remain. That means that if even 10% of Leave voters were in favour of remaining in the Customs Union and Single Market then there was a majority in favour of remaining in those structures.

Yes, I did. Which is why I voted to Remain.

Even if 10% of Leave voters were in favour of remaining in the CU & SM, it wouldn't have been an 'overwhelming' endorsement. (A majority, but not 'overwhelming'). However, I would suggest that voting Leave but wanting to remain in the CU& SM was a little naive to say the least, with optimism and wishful thinking of seismic proportions that the EU was going to offer some pretty hefty concessions....

I have taken part in a number of referenda in both this and another country, and without exception the question asked has been simple but the implications either way potentially huge and not all desirable for every elector. And in all of them there have been allegations of the electorate having been hoodwinked or cheated in some way or another. It is the way of the world, and of practical democracy.

Your comments on people voting Leave but wish to stay in the CU&SM are interesting - I have also been struck by the number of people who I know /have met saying that they are Brexiteers at heart but voted Remain because they foresaw the hassle leaving would entail.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Even if 10% of Leave voters were in favour of remaining in the CU & SM, it wouldn't have been an 'overwhelming' endorsement. (A majority, but not 'overwhelming').

He didn't claim it would have been "overwhelming" though. Just a majority. In the same way that the vote for Brexit itself wasn't at all "overwhelming".

However, I would suggest that voting Leave but wanting to remain in the CU& SM was a little naive to say the least, with optimism and wishful thinking of seismic proportions that the EU was going to offer some pretty hefty concessions....

Why was it naïve? Leave campaigners literally stated in interviews that it was an option

 

[najaB]

Even if 10% of Leave voters were in favour of remaining in the CU & SM, it wouldn't have been an 'overwhelming' endorsement. (A majority, but not 'overwhelming')

It would be a larger majority than the majority in favour of Brexit in the first place.

 

[RT4038]

He didn't claim it would have been "overwhelming" though. Just a majority. In the same way that the vote for Brexit itself wasn't at all "overwhelming".

Why was it naïve? Leave campaigners literally stated in interviews that it was an option

Overwhelming in post #1294 by @class ep-09 , which I replied to in #1296 and @najaB referred to in #1298.

Of course, it was an option, if the EU was to make some hefty concessions. The electorate would have to weigh up whether they thought this was likely. I would suggest taking statements by politicians at face value as being naive, yes.

 

[najaB]

Of course, it was an option, if the EU was to make some hefty concessions.

Repeatedly stating that it was entirely up to the EU to make concessions says a lot.

 

[RT4038]

It would be a larger majority than the majority in favour of Brexit in the first place.

Yes, but the 10% is hypothetical - it could be 5%, 8%, 12%, who knows?
What about the Brexiteers who voted remain to avoid the hassle of leaving - now presented with the 'fait accompli' are now in the Leave camp?
What about, what about.....

Into 'crying over spilt milk' territory now.

Repeatedly stating that it was entirely up to the EU to make concessions says a lot.

If you weren't expecting or requiring that, you would have been a Remainer or at least voted remain. Not sure what else it says? There was no point in leaving the EU and remaining in the CU & SM on the previous terms. Can't see how a technical departure from the EU, but complying with all the strictures inherent with membership of the CU & SM could possibly be the desire of anything but a tiny proportion of those who voted Leave. Any fewer strictures implies concession by the EU.

 

[najaB]

Can't see how a technical departure from the EU, but complying with all the strictures inherent with membership of the CU & SM could possibly be the desire of anything but a tiny proportion of those who voted Leave.

Ah, but it could be 5%, 8%, 12%, who knows?

The government proceeded through the Brexit negotiations as if they had an clear majority of the populace in favour of a hard Brexit when the truth was that they had anything but that.

 

[edwin_m]

Even if 10% of Leave voters were in favour of remaining in the CU & SM, it wouldn't have been an 'overwhelming' endorsement. (A majority, but not 'overwhelming'). However, I would suggest that voting Leave but wanting to remain in the CU& SM was a little naive to say the least, with optimism and wishful thinking of seismic proportions that the EU was going to offer some pretty hefty concessions....

I have taken part in a number of referenda in both this and another country, and without exception the question asked has been simple but the implications either way potentially huge and not all desirable for every elector. And in all of them there have been allegations of the electorate having been hoodwinked or cheated in some way or another. It is the way of the world, and of practical democracy.

Your comments on people voting Leave but wish to stay in the CU&SM are interesting - I have also been struck by the number of people who I know /have met saying that they are Brexiteers at heart but voted Remain because they foresaw the hassle leaving would entail.

Ah, but it could be 5%, 8%, 12%, who knows?

The government proceeded through the Brexit negotiations as if they had an clear majority of the populace in favour of a hard Brexit when the truth was that they had anything but that.

That question could have been answered very simply by putting the proposed arrangement to a further referendum.

 

[RT4038]

Ah, but it could be 5%, 8%, 12%, who knows?

The government proceeded through the Brexit negotiations as if they had an clear majority of the populace in favour of a hard Brexit when the truth was that they had anything but that.

But that is Politics, and the application of practical democracy. Our representatives are elected, and they carry out the business. We won't all like all of it, but that is the way it goes.

That question could have been answered very simply by putting the proposed arrangement to a further referendum.

Could have, but I'm not sure how that would have helped? Referendum on 31st December 2020 with question something like 'Do you accept the Trade agreement between UK and EU' ? Majority Yes then what we have now. Majority No - WTO rules from next day. Could have a few more referenda presenting similar agreements with tweaks, whilst WTO rules continue. Still no majority? Opportunity for electorate to change negotiators at 2024 General Election. Agree something different with EU. Another referendum. Still maybe not a majority. Would the country really want all that?

 

[nlogax]

Would the country really want all that?

It could have been preferable to the experiences of the last five years. Businesses have been clamouring for certainty of trade agreements, based off an alternate approach they could have had that far sooner.

 

[ainsworth74]

Could have, but I'm not sure how that would have helped? Referendum on 31st December 2020 with question something like 'Do you accept the Trade agreement between UK and EU' ? Majority Yes then what we have now. Majority No - WTO rules from next day. Could have a few more referenda presenting similar agreements with tweaks, whilst WTO rules continue. Still no majority? Opportunity for electorate to change negotiators at 2024 General Election. Agree something different with EU. Another referendum. Still maybe not a majority. Would the country really want all that?

That was far too late for such things to be taking place. Such referendums to work out what the electorate actually wanted from Brexit would have needed to happen before Article 50. Once that ball was rolling it was probably too late to really be going to ask the electorate what they actually wanted seeing as we were then into negotiating the withdrawal agreement.

 

[RT4038]

It could have been preferable to the experiences of the last five years. Businesses have been clamouring for certainty of trade agreements, based off an alternate approach they could have had that far sooner.

But the experience of the last 5 years would still have happened, and then this for another 5 years. The only way of escaping all of it would have been a decisive Remain vote at the referendum.....

That was far too late for such things to be taking place. Such referendums to work out what the electorate actually wanted from Brexit would have needed to happen before Article 50. Once that ball was rolling it was probably too late to really be going to ask the electorate what they actually wanted seeing as we were then into negotiating the withdrawal agreement.

But that wasn't going to happen - it is not practicable to have that kind of referenda. Too many conflicting possibilities, and dependent on the negotiating stance of the other side. Would each counter proposal be subject to referenda too?

 

[edwin_m]

But that is Politics, and the application of practical democracy. Our representatives are elected, and they carry out the business. We won't all like all of it, but that is the way it goes.

Democracy requires a certain amount of respect for the other party and for the truth. We see with Trump what happens if that breaks down, and we saw it again in the lies told in 2016.

Could have, but I'm not sure how that would have helped? Referendum on 31st December 2020 with question something like 'Do you accept the Trade agreement between UK and EU' ? Majority Yes then what we have now. Majority No - WTO rules from next day. Could have a few more referenda presenting similar agreements with tweaks, whilst WTO rules continue. Still no majority? Opportunity for electorate to change negotiators at 2024 General Election. Agree something different with EU. Another referendum. Still maybe not a majority. Would the country really want all that?

The government could have decided its ultimate aim and obtained agreement in principle from the EU that it was acceptable. Then it would have been put to a referendum with the alternative being to remain. If it had passed on that basis then I for one would reluctantly have accepted it, and it would have focused the minds of the government on getting something that would attract majority support rather than just appealing to the hardline Brexiters that made the most noise. Going by what opinion polls were saying from autumn 2017 onwards, something similar to May's deal would not have passed.

 

[simonw]

Who are "we"? certainly not me nor almost all the people I know.

Ok, I should have said the UK government. I was answering the point made by the post that I quoted which wrongly claimed that what was delivered was the only option available.For the avoidance of doubt, I did not support Brexit or the option taken.

 

[simonw]

Who are "we"? certainly not me nor almost all the people I know.

See post above.

 

[najaB]

But the experience of the last 5 years would still have happened, and then this for another 5 years. The only way of escaping all of it would have been a decisive Remain vote at the referendum.

There are a number of ways this could have been avoided:

• Set the victory condition in the original referendum to be greater than a simple majority of voters. For example, in Canada the Clarity Act has established that non voters are counted as votes against
• If "Leave" won, hold a second referendum giving a choice between "hard" and "soft" Brexit
• Complete the negotiations on the post-Brexit relationship before triggering Article 50, thereby avoiding extension after extension
• Having completed the negotiation, have a three-option referendum: reject the deal but continue negotiation; reject the deal and leave without one; cancel Brexit entirely*

All of these would help avoid what has been the most damaging thing about Brexit (to UK society at least), the fact that a significant portion of the population have been made to feel (and told!) that their opinions don't matter, that they knew what they were voting for (even if that isn't what they were voting for!) and that they just need to shut up and stop remoaning.

*Edit: This should have had a fourth option: Accept the deal

 

[Journeyman]

There are a number of ways this could have been avoided:

• Set the victory condition in the original referendum to be greater than a simple majority of voters. For example, in Canada the Clarity Act has established that non voters are counted as votes against
• If "Leave" won, hold a second referendum giving a choice between "hard" and "soft" Brexit
• Complete the negotiations on the post-Brexit relationship before triggering Article 50, thereby avoiding extension after extension
• Having completed the negotiation, have a three-option referendum: reject the deal but continue negotiation; reject the deal and leave without one; cancel Brexit entirely

All of these would help avoid what has been the most damaging thing about Brexit (to UK society at least), the fact that a significant portion of the population have been made to feel (and told!) that their opinions don't matter, that they knew what they were voting for (even if that isn't what they were voting for!) and that they just need to shut up and stop remoaning.

We weren't allowed to start the negotiations until Article 50 was triggered.

 

[najaB]

We weren't allowed to start the negotiations until Article 50 was triggered.

Yes. It's been so long that I can't remember the details. Merge the third and fourth point to:

• Having completed the negotiations, have a three four-option referendum: continue with the deal, continue without the deal, extend the negotiation period, or withdraw the Article 50 invocation. (Since this is a multiple option referendum, then there might have to be run-offs, or they could have used a preference ranking vote).

And add a new third point:

• Set up a cross-party, four-nations committee to determine the UK's negotiation position

 

[edwin_m]

We weren't allowed to start the negotiations until Article 50 was triggered.

But we had the option to withdraw the Article 50 or request an extension, which would have allowed substantially the same sequence of events to take place.

The multi-option referendums would have had to be under Single Transferable Vote or some similar system.

 

[21C101]

Democracy requires a certain amount of respect for the other party

Democracy requires a demos, ie for the vast majority to share a set of common fundamental values.

Without it you end up with multiple "tribes" who vote tribally.

In both the UK and the US, there was such a common set of values, the tenets of Protestant Christianity, which were also shared enough with the other principal faiths (Catholic Christianity, Islam and Judaism) and with those of marginal or no faith to (outside Northern Ireland) form a cohesive Demos.

It is the rejection since the 1960s of those values by the "managerial" classes, and their attempt to replace it with a secular society based on secular notions of equality and human rights, which has fractured the demos and Trump and Brexit are the first tangible fruits of reaction against this. I very much doubt they will be the last.

 

[edwin_m]

Democracy requires a demos, ie for the vast majority to share a set of common fundamental values.

Without it you end up with multiple "tribes" who vote tribally.

In both the UK and the US, there was such a common set of values, the tenets of Protestant Christianity, which were also shared enough with the other principal faiths (Catholic Christianity, Islam and Judaism) and with those of marginal or no faith to (outside Northern Ireland) form a cohesive Demos.

It is the rejection since the 1960s of those values by the "managerial" classes, and their attempt to replace it with a secular society based on secular notions of equality and human rights, which has fractured the demos and Trump and Brexit are the first tangible fruits of reaction against this. I very much doubt they will be the last.

I always suspected that some Brexiters were stuck in the 1950s.

 

[najaB]

Democracy requires a demos, ie for the vast majority to share a set of common fundamental values.

Without it you end up with multiple "tribes" who vote tribally.

In both the UK and the US, there was such a common set of values, the tenets of Protestant Christianity, which were also shared enough with the other principal faiths (Catholic Christianity, Islam and Judaism) and with those of marginal or no faith to (outside Northern Ireland) form a cohesive Demos.

It is the rejection since the 1960s of those values by the "managerial" classes, and their attempt to replace it with a secular society based on secular notions of equality and human rights, which has fractured the demos and Trump and Brexit are the first tangible fruits of reaction against this. I very much doubt they will be the last.

Wow. Just wow.