UK voters should make final Brexit decision if talks with EU collapse: poll

[Grouse]

4 hours ago, transam said:

Well anyone, including the UK gov, thought Brexit would be a breeze are daft...And anyone that wants the UK gov to buckle under to foreign threats over Brexit have no balls..

What threats?

[bristolboy]

22 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

Let me remind you that Labour were on a Leave ticket for that election. They gained 32 seats or something like that. With a final result of Tories 318, Labour 262? The hype surrounding that result was one of the biggest cases of celebrating failure I can remember.

 

 

The support, such as it was, was for a very, very soft Brexit. Nothing like what appears to be in the offing.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39665835

[melvinmelvin]

17 minutes ago, Grouse said:

I'm afraid there is every reason to back track. No matter what Cameron said, wrote or implied, Parliament is sovereign.

 

IMO, best endeavors have been used to find a solution. That solution needs to be tested.

 

Parliament should decide and that decision be subject to ratification by a super majority. This is the way to avoid civil war and a continuation of this damaging situation.

I have tried, over and over to understand your voting scheme, to no avail

as far as I can see it your proposal ensures that parliament is not sovereign

 

i'll comment on your proposal in a wee while

 

[My Thai Life]

Personally I'm not writing off a soft exit. But the final shape will depend on the Parliamentary arithmetic at the time, regardless of what happens between the negotiators.

 

But, as there's no sign of a GE on the horizon, that's just more wishful thinking. And Labour is heading for trouble again - Corbyn * "anti-semitism" = something not very marketable beyond Momentum.

 

Interestingly, the Labour manifesto for Brexit at the last election included this:

 

"No second referendum on the final deal - but giving MPs a decisive say on what happens next".

 

Overall it seems like a heads they win, tails you lose situation for remainers. 

[melvinmelvin]

35 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Please consider my suggestion. It seems to satisfy every angle?

Parliament should decide and the decision should be ratified by a referendum with a super majority 

 

otherwise the status quo ante remains.

 

To my mind, that satisfies everything.

 

***********

 

I have problems understanding this, to me it looks as you say:

 

1) uk is member of eu

2) uk national assembly decides LEAVE

3) uk arranges a referendum to ratify the LEAVE, requiring say 66% to overturn?

4) referendum concludes that 55 % concurs with national assembly

5) status quo remains, hence, uk does not leave eu

 

hows that for a sovereign national assembly?

 

[Kiwiken]

On 8/10/2018 at 12:37 AM, My Thai Life said:

100% wrong. Democracy and government by perpetual plebiscite are fundamentally different.

Rule by Public referenda very possible and easy plus cheap in a digital world. Or Representative Democracy as is practiced in most so called Democratic Countries where we leave all the decisions to an elected minority. If we used the plebiscite system properly maybe we all Would not swing like the pendulum from left to right. And extreme leaders could not gain control. The ultimate check on Government should always be the people

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

Personally I'm not writing off a soft exit. But the final shape will depend on the Parliamentary arithmetic at the time, regardless of what happens between the negotiators.

 

But, as there's no sign of a GE on the horizon, that's just more wishful thinking. And Labour is heading for trouble again - Corbyn * "anti-semitism" = something not very marketable beyond Momentum.

 

Interestingly, the Labour manifesto for Brexit at the last election included this:

 

"No second referendum on the final deal - but giving MPs a decisive say on what happens next".

 

Overall it seems like a heads they win, tails you lose situation for remainers. 

You sound like a man trying to convince himself.

 

Let’s see what the Party Conferences deliver.

[adammike]

1 hour ago, bristolboy said:

I don't think so. I haven't seen that anywhere.

Anyway, the confirmable facts, and the lack of condemnation from the Leave camp, are damning enough.

It was in a filmed interview he gave I think it  might have been a few years ago, I have seen the clip it happened.

[tebee]

Whatever happens with Brexit, nearly half the country is going to be unhappy - I can't see the various sides coming together anytime soon.

 

We risk the country becoming ungovernable.

[Grouse]

23 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

Parliament should decide and the decision should be ratified by a referendum with a super majority 

 

otherwise the status quo ante remains.

 

To my mind, that satisfies everything.

 

***********

 

I have problems understanding this, to me it looks as you say:

 

1) uk is member of eu

2) uk national assembly decides LEAVE

3) uk arranges a referendum to ratify the LEAVE, requiring say 66% to overturn?

4) referendum concludes that 55 % concurs with national assembly

5) status quo remains, hence, uk does not leave eu

 

hows that for a sovereign national assembly?

 

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying

 

Parliament decides

 

But, because this is a "constitutional" issue, the decision must be ratified by a super majority.

 

If that is not achieved, the status quo ante remains.

 

I know that Cameron (or rather his executive) said that the referendum would be decisive. It wasn't and Isn't on many levels. This was a grave error. (I'm sure there will be some arcane grizzly punishment)

 

This now needs to de done correctly. Even a 60/40 super majority would do (although 2/3 would be usual) I would go with the decision.

 

This is why we need super majorities. It must clear, blindingly obvious, futile to argue...

Edited September 1, 2018 by Grouse

[Grouse]

45 minutes ago, melvinmelvin said:

I have tried, over and over to understand your voting scheme, to no avail

as far as I can see it your proposal ensures that parliament is not sovereign

 

i'll comment on your proposal in a wee while

 

Yes, not straight forward I agree. I think for constitutional issues, ratification by a supermajority if not a legal requirement is certainly a wise move. I don't know where to look that up. Anybody know?

[Orac]

1 minute ago, Grouse said:

Yes, not straight forward I agree. I think for constitutional issues, ratification by a supermajority if not a legal requirement is certainly a wise move. I don't know where to look that up. Anybody know?

 

Parliament is sovereign so the legal requirement is whatever they decide by majority. The referendum before did not require a supermajority because the law enabling it specified it was advisory which was the argument the govt used to block amendments for supermajority and Alex Salmond's amendment requiring a majority in Scotland and other devolved regions.  A cock up in hindsight but important that the principal of parliamentary sovereignty is upheld.

[Grouse]

14 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Yes, not straight forward I agree. I think for constitutional issues, ratification by a supermajority if not a legal requirement is certainly a wise move. I don't know where to look that up. Anybody know?

http://uir.ulster.ac.uk/14252/1/GT-NonReRef.doc

 

for interest

 

[Grouse]

7 minutes ago, Orac said:

 

Parliament is sovereign so the legal requirement is whatever they decide by majority. The referendum before did not require a supermajority because the law enabling it specified it was advisory which was the argument the govt used to block amendments for supermajority and Alex Salmond's amendment requiring a majority in Scotland and other devolved regions.  A cock up in hindsight but important that the principal of parliamentary sovereignty is upheld.

Thanks!

 

To what purpose do we hold referendums (rarely) to ratify parliamentary decisions? Is it just a nicety?

[aright]

The principle of majority rule supports the rights of individuals and minority groups. The problem is, for many, they feel the rule doesn't apply if the outcome doesn't agree with the principles of the minority group they belong to. 

[Orac]

3 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Thanks!

 

To what purpose do we hold referendums (rarely) to ratify parliamentary decisions? Is it just a nicety?

 

To advise parliament on specific issues where they request guidance - they cannot ratify unless parliament specifically request it and delegate that responsibility.

[melvinmelvin]

16 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Thanks!

 

To what purpose do we hold referendums (rarely) to ratify parliamentary decisions? Is it just a nicety?

me thinks the rationale behind will vary from case to case

the brexit ref in uk was probably constituted to show the eu and the brexit tories and ukip that uk population is strongly in favour of eu

kinda failed a wee bit though

 

[melvinmelvin]

25 minutes ago, Grouse said:

http://uir.ulster.ac.uk/14252/1/GT-NonReRef.doc

 

for interest

 

thanks, interesting stuff,

will have to read again a coupla times to fully digest

 

me thinks this paper would go down well in London school of e but not so well in my alma mater

mai pen rai

 

[Orac]

21 minutes ago, aright said:

The principle of majority rule supports the rights of individuals and minority groups. The problem is, for many, they feel the rule doesn't apply if the outcome doesn't agree with the principles of the minority group they belong to. 

But this principal is not a part of UK law since it does not comply with parliamentary sovereignty. As an aside, it does not apply in the US either since the popular vote does not decide the presidency.

 

Might need some work or adjustment but that is a whole different matter.

Edited September 1, 2018 by Orac

[vogie]

28 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Thanks!

 

To what purpose do we hold referendums (rarely) to ratify parliamentary decisions? Is it just a nicety?

I think this gentleman explains it quite well.

 

 

[billd766]

12 minutes ago, vogie said:

I think this gentleman explains it quite well.

 

 

 

And he is correct.

 

She was not elected to protect British workers and British jobs. She was elected to represent the constituency that she was elected by.

[melvinmelvin]

2 hours ago, Grouse said:

I'm afraid there is every reason to back track. No matter what Cameron said, wrote or implied, Parliament is sovereign.

 

IMO, best endeavors have been used to find a solution. That solution needs to be tested.

 

Parliament should decide and that decision be subject to ratification by a super majority. This is the way to avoid civil war and a continuation of this damaging situation.

way to late to backtrack and change the whole interpretation of the referendum.

that would create mega havoc

 

I guess there are two lessons to learn from this mess;

1) do not vote Tory

2) create clear guidelines and rules re interpretation of results before arranging a ref.

 

[aright]

47 minutes ago, Orac said:

iBut this principal is not a part of UK law since it does not comply with parliamentary sovereignty. As an aside, it does not apply in the US either since the popular vote does not decide the presidency.

 

Might need some work or adjustment but that is a whole different matter.

I agree that Parliament can make, amend or cancel any law it wants to but it serves no purpose in the eye of the electorate if it ignores the will of the people as demonstrated by the triggering of Article 50 when it was obvious some MP's were voting against their own convictions. 

Edited September 1, 2018 by aright

[Grouse]

Excellent discussion today.

 

Thanks for that!

 

Good night all ....

[Orac]

I agree that Parliament can make, amend or cancel any law it wants to but it serves no purpose in the eye of the electorate if it ignores the will of the people as demonstrated by the triggering of Article 50 when it was obvious some MP's were voting against their own convictions. 

I would agree with you. But they also need to act if they feel that the will of the people is not being carried out in the way that they think it should be such as a promised ‘deal’ not be forthcoming or that people had been misled in some way.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[aright]

33 minutes ago, Orac said:

 

I would agree with you. But they also need to act if they feel that the will of the people is not being carried out in the way that they think it should be such as a promised ‘deal’ not be forthcoming or that people had been misled in some way.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

I think there are fewer questions in the UK regarding the will of the electorate …….their concerns are more about the speed of the process and the quality of the deal. On the other hand in the EU the electorates increasing concerns are about democracy, immigration, the euro and the complete disregard for peoples problems,  as evidenced by escalating votes for right wing parties and violent street demonstrations..

[billd766]

13 hours ago, melvinmelvin said:

way to late to backtrack and change the whole interpretation of the referendum.

that would create mega havoc

 

I guess there are two lessons to learn from this mess;

1) do not vote Tory

2) create clear guidelines and rules re interpretation of results before arranging a ref.

 

 

I confess to voting Tory at the last election but only to keep the Lib-Dems out.

 

The election before in 2015 I voted UKIP who came a close third from never having stood before.

 

     party                               votes

1   Tory                                 27,849

2   Lib-Dems                        12,358

3   UKIP                                  6,921

4   Labour                              5,347

5   Green                                2,630

6   Independent                    2,568                 

7   Trade Unionist 

and Socialist Coalition          118

8   Independent                         96

   

Vacant Seats: 1 Electorate: 83221 Ballot Papers Issued: 58045 Turnout: 69.74%  

 

[billd766]

13 hours ago, aright said:

I agree that Parliament can make, amend or cancel any law it wants to but it serves no purpose in the eye of the electorate if it ignores the will of the people as demonstrated by the triggering of Article 50 when it was obvious some MP's were voting against their own convictions. 

 

It doesn't matter if they were voting against their own convictions. They were NOT voted in for that purpose. They were voted in to represent the will of their constituents.

[billd766]

From the BBC news website this morning.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-45385421

Edited September 2, 2018 by billd766

[Stupooey]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

 

It doesn't matter if they were voting against their own convictions. They were NOT voted in for that purpose. They were voted in to represent the will of their constituents.

Is that the 2016 will, or the 2018 will, which would appear to be somewhat different?

Edited September 2, 2018 by Stupooey
Punctuation error