The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[The Fun Factory]

On 16/05/2022 at 22:38, Panto_Villan said:

Brexit wasn't actually a very good idea, was it?

Well it was if you wanted less regulation,  worse living standards and wellbeing, more inequality and  more ways to make money when you have money.

But you know it will save the NHS and we are taking back control.

 

Edited May 23, 2022 by The Fun Factory

[HanoiVillan]

3 hours ago, desensitized43 said:

I wasn’t suggesting a second chamber with 8 members. I was suggesting a second chamber where all the nations of the UK were represented equally, regardless of population and wealth. However many total members there would be is for discussion. If the UK is a nation of equals, then let’s be equals.

There’s a problem here where the other nations know that all the MPs of Scotland, Wales and NI could all decided to vote one way but whatever England says, goes. That can’t be right? The UK can’t survive if 3/4 of the countries feel ignored and marginalised.
 

I get that it’ll be a hard sell to the people of England given that most of the population of the UK live there and there’s definitely an argument in that scenario for some kind of Devolution to the English regions. 

There are so many problems with this idea it's hard to know where to start. You have at least correctly identified that your idea would completely go against the principle of 'one person one vote' in imposing minority rule on the UK, but your idea of devolving English regions runs up against several problems, including 1) there's no agreement on the boundaries, 2) there's no political desire to do it either among politicians or the electorates of these regions, and 3) made-up English regions will never be constitutionally similar to Wales or Scotland, still less Northern Ireland. You haven't outlined what you would do with devolved legislatures, which actually exist and are popular (in the case of Wales and Scotland) or a central component of a fragile peace deal (in Northern Ireland), but if the plan is to keep them their role would clash with your new legislature and raise the question of what purpose it is actually trying to resolve, that could not be better and more fairly resolved with more competencies being devolved to those aleady-existing, already-legitimate legislatures.

[blandy]

7 hours ago, peterw said:

That's not how it works though is it? Take away the fact that it was an advisory referendum and all that, the winner wins. Simple as. You don't see any Government elected (usually by minority) saying they'll only impose 40% or so of their manifesto on the population given that 55-60% didn't vote for them. The vagaries of first past-the-post I guess.

No, you're right, it's not. It was just my personal take that the verdict was a narrow one, with 4 percentage points difference between leave and stay in, and that the kind of leave, but only just leave decision could have been reflected in a "leave, but only just" kind of Brexit.

[LondonLax]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

No, you're right, it's not. It was just my personal take that the verdict was a narrow one, with 4 percentage points difference between leave and stay in, and that the kind of leave, but only just leave decision could have been reflected in a "leave, but only just" kind of Brexit.

The problem is that’s in a way a ‘worst of both worlds’ scenario that pleases no one. 

If you’re going to leave then going with a scenario where nothing changes, except you can no longer vote on EU matters, is of no use to Brexit voters and does nothing for remain voters either. 

[Genie]

9 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

The problem is that’s in a way a ‘worst of both worlds’ scenario that pleases no one. 

If you’re going to leave then going with a scenario where nothing changes, except you can no longer vote on EU matters, is of no use to Brexit voters and does nothing for remain voters either. 

But if it’s the best thing for the UK then it should be what is delivered.

[LondonLax]

1 hour ago, Genie said:

But if it’s the best thing for the UK then it should be what is delivered.

The best for the UK would be to stay in the EU.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, LondonLax said:

The problem is that’s in a way a ‘worst of both worlds’ scenario that pleases no one. 

And who's pleased with what we have now? Also almost no-one.

Had we done a stay in the SM version, the issues in NI right now wouldn't be there, the trucks stuck at dover wouldn't be, fishermen would be able to export their catches to the EU...loads of stuff which has really pissed people off wouldn't be a problem. All the extra customs checks and paperwork - wouldn't be needed.

[LondonLax]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

And who's pleased with what we have now? Also almost no-one.

Had we done a stay in the SM version, the issues in NI right now wouldn't be there, the trucks stuck at dover wouldn't be, fishermen would be able to export their catches to the EU...loads of stuff which has really pissed people off wouldn't be a problem. All the extra customs checks and paperwork - wouldn't be needed.

But if you are going to override the wishes of the “winners” because it’s better for the country then you’d be better off staying in the EU.

The compromise you propose does not satisfy the “winners” of the referendum, is not what the rest of the UK wanted either, and to top it off is worse than what you had. 

[blandy]

4 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

But if you are going to override the wishes of the “winners” because it’s better for the country then you’d be better off staying in the EU.

The compromise you propose does not satisfy the “winners” of the referendum, is not what the rest of the UK wanted either, and to top it off is worse than what you had. 

The "winners" wishes were not uniform. Some wanted a soft Brexit, a tiny few wanted a no deal Brexit, many didn't know what type of Brexit they wanted, they just knew they wanted one.

Anyway, we are where we are, it was just my view back in 2016 (or whenever it was the ref result was declared) and it still is now.

[Genie]

13 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

The best for the UK would be to stay in the EU.

Yes, I 100% agree. But once the decision to leave the EU was made it should have been in the way that harms the country the least. Not what will make the people who voted leave happiest. 

[LondonLax]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

The "winners" wishes were not uniform. Some wanted a soft Brexit, a tiny few wanted a no deal Brexit, many didn't know what type of Brexit they wanted, they just knew they wanted one.

Anyway, we are where we are, it was just my view back in 2016 (or whenever it was the ref result was declared) and it still is now.

I agree leave voters wanted all sorts of things from their vote, many of them contradictory, some of them ‘softer’ than others.

You’d have a hard time convincing me though that any leave voter’s ideal scenario would have been to keep all the EU rules, regulations and freedom of movement etc and the only thing they were voting for was to lose the ability of the UK to affect those regulations

[LondonLax]

2 minutes ago, Genie said:

Yes, I 100% agree. But once the decision to leave the EU was made it should have been in the way that harms the country the least. Not what will make the people who voted leave happiest. 

And obviously that would be to ignore the wishes of the voters and stay in the EU.

[tinker]

Truth is no-one knew what they was voting for and they got something that no-one wanted.

Certain politicians saw it as chance to grab the popular vote and jumped on the bandwagon stoking the Brexit fire with lies and promises they couldn't deliver on.

Worrying part is that now it's all slowly unfolding no one in the media wants to call it for the slow car crash it's turning into, it's never even mentioned.

[blandy]

20 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

You’d have a hard time convincing me though that any leave voter’s ideal scenario would have been to keep all the EU rules, regulations and freedom of movement etc and the only thing they were voting for was to lose the ability of the UK to affect those regulations

That’s not what staying in the SM would have meant, but anyway…

[Genie]

1 minute ago, blandy said:

That’s not what staying in the SM would have meant, but anyway…

It was an easy sell, we get the perks of trading but control of laws and immigration. Job done.

[villa4europe]

I think the driver thing sums it up, even if you voted for it wanting all the foreign drivers to go home there's got to be very little chance that you thought the UK government and various companies would make no attempt to put something in place in the event of it happening

They've done seemingly nothing with regards to the consequences, they've not plugged any gaps, they're completely blind to it, they've not anticipated anything 

And yet they let us vote on it, its utter madness 

Our politicians and this tory government have failed us big time, I'm not saying brexit definitley could have worked but the sheer incompetence of the tories hasn't helped 

[LondonLax]

28 minutes ago, blandy said:

That’s not what staying in the SM would have meant, but anyway…

Ah ok, I guess I misunderstood what you meant by “leave, but only just”.

I think the UK will join the single market, and in a relatively short timeframe. It could well be as soon as the next change of government. Labour will probably sell it as “an improved deal with the EU” or something.

[bickster]

49 minutes ago, tinker said:

Truth is no-one knew what they was voting for

Not this again. 48% did know exactly what they were voting for

Its absolutely incorrect to say that no-one knew

[Genie]

20 minutes ago, LondonLax said:

Ah ok, I guess I misunderstood what you meant by “leave, but only just”.

I think the UK will join the single market, and in a relatively short timeframe. It could well be as soon as the next change of government. Labour will probably sell it as “an improved deal with the EU” or something.

It’s the only solution to the NI/ROI border can see too.

[peterw]

12 hours ago, blandy said:

No, you're right, it's not. It was just my personal take that the verdict was a narrow one, with 4 percentage points difference between leave and stay in, and that the kind of leave, but only just leave decision could have been reflected in a "leave, but only just" kind of Brexit.

The mistake you're making here is to assume that we have a government led by a person of integrity who puts the state first, and makes decisions wholly based on what's best for all.

Edited May 24, 2022 by peterw