Countdown to AreMaygeddon (the s.t.b. ex-PM thread)

[Replies From View]

The existence of a second referendum proves they won't/can't 'do what we want'.

Because the first referendum was too vague, yes, and doesn't pinpoint what any Leave voter wanted.

[biggytitbo]

1) Current deal
2) Different deal (to be negotiated and brought forward in a referendum)
3) No deal
4) Remain in the EU on current terms subject to future renegotiation

My guess is the results would be approx:

1) 12%
2) 20%
3) 16%
4) 52%

And you think parliament will agree on this referendum, even though it's clearly rigged?

[biggytitbo]

Because the first referendum was too vague, yes, and doesn't pinpoint what any Leave voter wanted.

Name me any other referendum ever that specified how either of the choices would be done? That's the politicians job isn't it? A referendum is designed to settle a broad matter of principle, its then up to parliament to decide how specifically the decision should be done, something our politicians have shown themselves both unable and unwilling to do.

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

That's because every country up to now has never been retarded enough to set a yes or no/binary option in a referendum on such a complex, multifaceted subject.

[Zetetic]

The vagueness isn't just about the technicalities of implementation, it's about what the 'principle' at stake is.

The Leave campaign was mostly run on things that have little to do with the EU - a mix of funding promises that are entirely within the gift of the UK (as a member state or otherwise), sending the buggers the back (but not really focused on Poles or Romanians, certainly not to the exclusions of Muslims) and, being generous, vague notions of sovereignty (that any sort of Leaving mostly seems to endanger more than anything else) in combination with waffling about trade deals (and international agreements inherently involve the surrender of sovereignty on some reading).

There's no implementation that seems to tackle the 'principles' that the campaign was run on, and there's no clear principles in the question itself. Joining the EEA meets the letter of the 'Leave the EU' choice.

[Replies From View]

Name me any other referendum ever that specified how either of the choices would be done?

Just stating what Leave meant would have been fine, no?  So people knew what they were voting for, and the politicians responsible for taking us out of the EU knew what was wanted?

No nuts and bolts of "how" needed.  Just something - anything - of the "what".  And then we wouldn't have ended up in this mess.


I know - mad stuff.  But I favour democracy rather than "JUST DO WHAT I HAVE IMAGINED THIS IS ALL ABOUT!!"

[Shoulders?-Stomach!]

Hence why some people genuinely think the referendum result meant "What we want Mr. europeans or NO Deal"

[Zetetic]

A sensible approach might have been to set up a body that would investigate what people wanted from leaving the EU, prior to issuing an Article 50 notification.

But of course, a Conservative government - whose handling of 'Brexit' is what people were voting for if they voted to Leave - has plenty of reasons not to do that (because it would mostly be domestic policy unrelated to the EU, and some racism) and plenty of reasons to rush us into a nonsense.

[biggytitbo]

That's because every country up to now has never been retarded enough to set a yes or no/binary option in a referendum on such a complex, multifaceted subject.

Well yeah, we mostly wouldn't have a referendum on subjects like that. But we did, and they all voted to have it, so its more than a little bit damaging to pretend after the fact its not legitimate.

[Replies From View]

Well yeah, we mostly wouldn't have a referendum on subjects like that. But we did, and they all voted to have it, so its more than a little bit damaging to pretend after the fact its not legitimate.

Oof you made me cringe with that one.

[Zetetic]

It's seemingly more damaging - looking at the last two years of paralysis - to pretend that it was legitimate.

[biggytitbo]

A sensible approach might have been to set up a body that would investigate what people wanted from leaving the EU, prior to issuing an Article 50 notification.

But of course, a Conservative government - whose handling of 'Brexit' is what people were voting for if they voted to Leave - has plenty of reasons not to do that (because it would mostly be domestic policy unrelated to the EU, and some racism) and plenty of reasons to rush us into a nonsense.

You can't just blame the tories though, they all had loads of debates about it for years and all parties overwhelmingly voted by 544-53 to have a referendum on the terms we did. In what sense is that not democratic? And not damaging to say, nah that thing we all agreed should happen on these terms wasn't legitimate?


I'm sure the one thing this whole debacle demonstrates is a total failure in almost every way by the entire political class.

[Zetetic]

Democracies can still vote to undertake anti-democratic acts. Surely you'd agree with this?

Posing nonsense referendums without serious consideration of what a particular results might entail is one of these things.

[Zetetic]

I'm sure the one thing this whole debacle demonstrates is a total failure in almost every way by the entire political class.

And you yourself have indicated that the referendum wasn't set seriously or earnestly.

While it's a bit funny that they then had to deal with the fallout of just enough of the Great British Public picking the prank option, the impact on domestic politics (in terms of paralysing any pushback against austerity, against punitive retractions of services and cash benefits, in terms of further endorsing racists and their racist policies) and the possibly miserableness that might still lie ahead rather takes the shine off.

Edit: Oh, and that the tossers mostly directly responsible have either cleared off for an easy retirement or continue to build their careers on lies and hatred.

[biggytitbo]

Democracies can still vote to undertake anti-democratic acts. Surely you'd agree with this?

Sure, but how does having another referendum repair the damage? You can't unshoot yourself and 2 wrongs don't make a right, if having a referendum about such complex issues was bad then, why is it ok now?

I've said right from the beginning the politicians have to sort this one out now.

Posing nonsense referendums without serious consideration of what a particular results might entail is one of these things.

You latter point there completely applies to the large majority of MPs who both voted for a referendum and then supported remain, even though only leave ever seem to get blamed for it.

[Zetetic]

I would rather not have a second referendum either, and that our representatives called time on the joke.

[biggytitbo]

I think that is basically what will happen.

[BlodwynPig]

Take this elsewhere, please. >> CaBrEXIT>>

[Huxleys Babkins]

They wouldn't need to have a position, their position could be "we'll do what you tell us".

You understand how absurd that sounds? The leader of the opposition pushing the government for a referendum, then refusing to campaign because he can't be seen to agree with any of the options in public because it will hurt him politically?

It would be nothing short of cowardice. A total dereliction of duty. He has to get off the fence.

Take this elsewhere, please. >> CaBrEXIT>>

Sorry, but the two subjects are completely interlinked now. Her entire tenure in Downing Street has been tied to Brexit.

[finnquark]

Been temporarily following all the Tory boys on twitter throughout this crisis, yer Tom Newton Dunns, yer Christopher Hopes, yer Asa Bennetts. As I mentioned in the other thread, ERG man Chris Davies says he will vote for Mrs May's deal, as not to would make a people's vote more likely. But then Tommy Newton Dunn claims some Cabinet members reckon she could lose by around 200.

[biggytitbo]

That's why I don't think he wants a referendum as he will finally have to abandon his fantasy position and make a definitive, unambiguous decision, and it would effectively have to be to renage on the first referendum and remain as he clearly couldn't support May after coming out so strongly against her and he appears to have ruled out no deal. That would be very damaging to him I think.


Corbyn would much rather an election and an attempt to try and get some minor variation on May's deal that he can sell as more in line with Labour's value whilst still 'respecting the referendum'.

[Replies From View]

That's why I don't think he wants a referendum as he will finally have to abandon his fantasy position and make a definitive, unambiguous decision, and it would effectively have to be to renage on the first referendum and remain as he clearly couldn't support May after coming out so strongly against her and he appears to have ruled out no deal. That would be very damaging to him I think.

Well hopefully he can communicate (correctly) that the first referendum was built on lies and vagueness and indicate that a second referendum is needed for clarification of next steps.

It's just basic democracy really.  Maybe some of the more stubborn leavers might still be persuaded on this basis; who knows.

[chveik]

Take this elsewhere, please. >> CaBrEXIT>>

they're all brexit threads by the time etc.

[biggytitbo]

He doesn't believe that though, it's an asinine, massively point missing, head in the sand position and I think he's a lot better than that. He's said loads of times that a lot of the concerns that lead to the vote are real and is obviously very sceptical about the EUs embedded neoliberism. The problem is May's deal leaves him nowhere else to go I think.

[BlodwynPig]

they're all brexit threads by the time etc.

I don't care, to be honest. Just want her gone and Brexit stopped.

[Replies From View]

He doesn't believe that though, it's an asinine, massively point missing, head in the sand position and I think he's a lot better than that. He's said loads of times that a lot of the concerns that lead to the vote are real and is obviously very sceptical about the EUs embedded neoliberism. The problem is May's deal leaves him nowhere else to go I think.

It's not a head in the sand position to say that the issue is more complex than people first assumed.  In lots of ways it means acknowledging the concerns and the scepticism and emphasising his initial "70% in favour" stance.

[biggytitbo]

It's not a head in the sand position to acknowledge that the issue is more complex than people first assumed.

Indeed, its a lot more complex that some dumb racists fooled by Putins lying bus. It's almost as if there is a huge structural failure of establishment politics and neoliberalism resulting in voters taking any chance they are given to rebel against a system that has totally fucked them over.

[Replies From View]

Indeed, its a lot more complex that some dumb racists fooled by Putins lying bus. It's almost as if there is a huge structural failure of establishment politics and neoliberalism resulting in voters taking any chance they are given to rebel against a system that has totally fucked them over.

And yet you have faith in that very system not taking us from the EU to a US-UK trade deal in due course.

Or you want the US-UK trade deal.


Anyway stop over-simplifying everything to the point that my brain keeps freezing.  You know that neoliberalism doesn't begin and end with the EU, so stop trolling us with it.

[Captain Z]

I think the options on the new referendum should be:

BREXIT MEANS BREXIT
JUST GET ON WITH IT
LEAVE MEANS LEAVE
HARD BREXIT NOW
WERE ARE LEAVING END OFF
WILL OF THE PEOPLE
TREASON

[olliebean]

Surely there has to be an option on it for people to vote for another referendum.