From Brexit to Rejoin - The Inflection Point.

[kwilco]

On 2/13/2023 at 7:40 AM, fvw53 said:

It illustrates the danger of referendums in which badly informed people vote based on a gut feeling / also referendums should obtain at least 60% to be credible

 

Yes - most democracies require a two thirds majority to pass a significant constitutional change.

Some countries are more used to referendums than others - e.g. Switzerland which runs them all the time. In the UK referendum is not really even part of the democratic purpose - remember too that the result of the EU referendum was even legally binding on the government.

 

with such a tiny majority, it is no wonder that Brexiteers are so sensitive to criticism - they realise by their criteria, they could lose overnight - still!

[Chomper Higgot]

3 hours ago, puchooay said:

Oh dear. You clearly have hidden agenda clouding your view and ability to comprehend what others write.

The only ‘hidden agenda’ relevant to this thread is that surrounding the Government’s secret Brexit Conference, refer to of the thread.

[puchooay]

1 hour ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The only ‘hidden agenda’ relevant to this thread is that surrounding the Government’s secret Brexit Conference, refer to of the thread.

I was quoting someone else. Their post is on this thread. Thus, making my post relevant.

[Mac Mickmanus]

2 hours ago, kwilco said:

Yes - most democracies require a two thirds majority to pass a significant constitutional change.

 

I don't think that's true.

 

 

[kwilco]

1 hour ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

I don't think that's true.

 

 

Supermajorities have been used for centuries, both in parliaments and referendums.

Historically the UK doesn’t use referendums and there are 2 kinds – ones that are binding on the government and those that aren’t

 

1 January 1973 The United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and Denmark entered the 'European Economic Community (EEC),

Then United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum was a public vote that took place on 5 June 1975, 

In that referendum in 1975 the UK electorate voted to stay in the EEC. The electorate voted ‘Yes' by 67.2% to 32.8% to stay in Europe. – a super majority.This was the first national referendum ever to be held throughout the United Kingdom, and would remain the only UK-wide referendum until the 2011

 

Many countries require supermajorities either in parliament or in a referendum to make major changes - These Acts/referendums especially constitutional ones require what is commonly referred to as a “Super-majority”

 

The first known use of a supermajority rule was over 2000 years ago in in ancient Rome.

The catholic church has used them since the 12^th century.

 

The following countries/treaties require supermajorities, mostly in reference to constitutional change – note also that many use their parliament as opposed to a referendum – as they are not  necessarily considered to be that democratic

 

The Council of the European Union uses 'Qualified majority voting' for the majority of issues brought before the institution. However, for matters of extreme importance for individual member states, unanimous voting is implemented. An example of this is Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union, whereby a member state

Australia - To pass an amendment to the Australian Constitution, a referendum is required and must achieve a "double majority":

Canada -  for most constitutional amendments

Denmark - if the government or parliament wants to cede parts of national sovereignty to an international body such as the European Union or the United Nations, it has to get a five-sixths majority

Indian Constitution requires a supermajority of two-thirds of members present and voting in each house

 

Finland - when a new legislative proposal would in some way add, alter or remove a part of the Finnish constitution, a bill requires a 2/3 majority

Japan.

New Zealand

Nigeria

Philippines

Singapore

South Korea

Spain

Taiwan

Turkey

Ukraine

United Kingdom

United States

United Nations - requires a supermajority of the fixed membership on substantive matters

 

[kwilco]

1 hour ago, puchooay said:

I was quoting someone else. Their post is on this thread. Thus, making my post relevant.

you dropped the "ir"!

[Mac Mickmanus]

23 minutes ago, kwilco said:

Supermajorities have been used for centuries, both in parliaments and referendums.

Historically the UK doesn’t use referendums and there are 2 kinds – ones that are binding on the government and those that aren’t

 

1 January 1973 The United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and Denmark entered the 'European Economic Community (EEC),

Then United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum was a public vote that took place on 5 June 1975, 

In that referendum in 1975 the UK electorate voted to stay in the EEC. The electorate voted ‘Yes' by 67.2% to 32.8% to stay in Europe. – a super majority.This was the first national referendum ever to be held throughout the United Kingdom, and would remain the only UK-wide referendum until the 2011

 

Many countries require supermajorities either in parliament or in a referendum to make major changes - These Acts/referendums especially constitutional ones require what is commonly referred to as a “Super-majority”

 

The first known use of a supermajority rule was over 2000 years ago in in ancient Rome.

The catholic church has used them since the 12^th century.

 

The following countries/treaties require supermajorities, mostly in reference to constitutional change – note also that many use their parliament as opposed to a referendum – as they are not  necessarily considered to be that democratic

 

The Council of the European Union uses 'Qualified majority voting' for the majority of issues brought before the institution. However, for matters of extreme importance for individual member states, unanimous voting is implemented. An example of this is Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union, whereby a member state

Australia - To pass an amendment to the Australian Constitution, a referendum is required and must achieve a "double majority":

Canada -  for most constitutional amendments

Denmark - if the government or parliament wants to cede parts of national sovereignty to an international body such as the European Union or the United Nations, it has to get a five-sixths majority

Indian Constitution requires a supermajority of two-thirds of members present and voting in each house

 

Finland - when a new legislative proposal would in some way add, alter or remove a part of the Finnish constitution, a bill requires a 2/3 majority

Japan.

New Zealand

Nigeria

Philippines

Singapore

South Korea

Spain

Taiwan

Turkey

Ukraine

United Kingdom

United States

United Nations - requires a supermajority of the fixed membership on substantive matters

 

Which Countries require a supermajority to pass referendums ?

[Mac Mickmanus]

1 hour ago, kwilco said:

Supermajorities have been used for centuries, both in parliaments and referendums.

Historically the UK doesn’t use referendums and there are 2 kinds – ones that are binding on the government and those that aren’t

 

1 January 1973 The United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and Denmark entered the 'European Economic Community (EEC),

Then United Kingdom European Communities membership referendum was a public vote that took place on 5 June 1975, 

In that referendum in 1975 the UK electorate voted to stay in the EEC. The electorate voted ‘Yes' by 67.2% to 32.8% to stay in Europe. – a super majority.This was the first national referendum ever to be held throughout the United Kingdom, and would remain the only UK-wide referendum until the 2011

 

Many countries require supermajorities either in parliament or in a referendum to make major changes - These Acts/referendums especially constitutional ones require what is commonly referred to as a “Super-majority”

 

The first known use of a supermajority rule was over 2000 years ago in in ancient Rome.

The catholic church has used them since the 12^th century.

 

The following countries/treaties require supermajorities, mostly in reference to constitutional change – note also that many use their parliament as opposed to a referendum – as they are not  necessarily considered to be that democratic

 

The Council of the European Union uses 'Qualified majority voting' for the majority of issues brought before the institution. However, for matters of extreme importance for individual member states, unanimous voting is implemented. An example of this is Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union, whereby a member state

Australia - To pass an amendment to the Australian Constitution, a referendum is required and must achieve a "double majority":

Canada -  for most constitutional amendments

Denmark - if the government or parliament wants to cede parts of national sovereignty to an international body such as the European Union or the United Nations, it has to get a five-sixths majority

Indian Constitution requires a supermajority of two-thirds of members present and voting in each house

 

Finland - when a new legislative proposal would in some way add, alter or remove a part of the Finnish constitution, a bill requires a 2/3 majority

Japan.

New Zealand

Nigeria

Philippines

Singapore

South Korea

Spain

Taiwan

Turkey

Ukraine

United Kingdom

United States

United Nations - requires a supermajority of the fixed membership on substantive matters

 

Did you personally write all that or was it A.I generated ?

[kwilco]

1 hour ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Did you personally write all that or was it A.I generated ?

i think you are judging others by your own limitations.

[kwilco]

2 hours ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

Which Countries require a supermajority to pass referendums ?

now you're just sealioning - a passive aggressive response from someone who doesn't have any evidence themselves to disagree.

Based on the sound of a sealion, it also resembles a young child who has found he can get an adults attention by repeatedly saying "why" every time te grown up stops speaking.

Why not actually join the discussion? If you want to know why not find out for yourself.

 

Here is a bit more on the UK position on refendums

 

"Although Acts of Parliament may permit referendums to take place, the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty means any Act of Parliament giving effect to a referendum result could be reversed by a subsequent Act of Parliament. As a result, referendums in the United Kingdom cannot be constitutionally binding, although they will usually have a persuasive political effect." - wiki

[Mac Mickmanus]

24 minutes ago, kwilco said:

i think you are judging others by your own limitations.

I asked you a question .

You didn't answer the question 

 

 

[Mac Mickmanus]

17 minutes ago, kwilco said:

now you're just sealioning - a passive aggressive response from someone who doesn't have any evidence themselves to disagree.

Based on the sound of a sealion, it also resembles a young child who has found he can get an adults attention by repeatedly saying "why" every time te grown up stops speaking.

Why not actually join the discussion? If you want to know why not find out for yourself.

 

Here is a bit more on the UK position on refendums

 

"Although Acts of Parliament may permit referendums to take place, the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty means any Act of Parliament giving effect to a referendum result could be reversed by a subsequent Act of Parliament. As a result, referendums in the United Kingdom cannot be constitutionally binding, although they will usually have a persuasive political effect." - wiki

Once again , I asked you a question and you didn't answer that question .

   I believe that you have made a false claim 

[JonnyF]

16 hours ago, kwilco said:

Another racist cliche is calling legal immigrants "illegal" - and this was a big factor that appealed to racism amongst Brexiteers.

not all Brexiteers are racists - but all racists re Brexiteers - the rest are just easily led.

Many immigrants, both legal and illegal were Caucasian. 

 

So how exactly, is that racist? Are you implying it was the Black and Asian Brits who were objecting to the white immigrants on the basis of race? 

 

You need a new schtick. Maybe you could read up on some of the issues that are relevant to the thread and then you can join in the conversation with some intelligent points? Because accusing everyone who disagrees with you about the EU of being racist isn't really working out too well for you...

 

 

[Chomper Higgot]

3 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

Many immigrants, both legal and illegal were Caucasian. 

 

So how exactly, is that racist? Are you implying it was the Black and Asian Brits who were objecting to the white immigrants on the basis of race? 

 

You need a new schtick. Maybe you could read up on some of the issues that are relevant to the thread and then you can join in the conversation with some intelligent points? Because accusing everyone who disagrees with you about the EU of being racist isn't really working out too well for you...

 

 

The imagery widely used by the Leave campaign was not one of ‘Caucasion’ immigrants.

[JonnyF]

23 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

The imagery widely used by the Leave campaign was not one of ‘Caucasion’ immigrants.

False equivalence.

 

One poster by the Leave campaign doesn't make everyone who dislikes the corrupt, federalist, technocratic nature of the EU, a racist. 

 

It's just a word people throw around when they've run out of intelligent points to make during a debate. It's basically the same as saying "I've lost the argument therefore I will insult you". Like losing a game of tennis and then screaming "you're smelly" across the net at your opponent ????. Childish in the extreme.

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

False equivalence.

 

One poster by the Leave campaign doesn't make everyone who dislikes the corrupt, federalist, technocratic nature of the EU, a racist. 

 

It's just a word people throw around when they've run out of intelligent points to make during a debate. It's basically the same as saying "I've lost the argument therefore I will insult you". Like losing a game of tennis and then screaming "you're smelly" across the net at your opponent ????. Childish in the extreme.

Strawman argument.

 

I didn’t say the racist memes employed in the Leave posters and by the Leave campaign made anyone a racist.

 

I’ve already challenged the generalized view regarding racism and Leave voters earlier in this thread.

[JonnyF]

3 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I didn’t say the racist memes employed in the Leave posters and by the Leave campaign made anyone a racist.

Excellent. 

 

Maybe we could get back on topic now, it's much more interesting than throwing inane, completely unsubstantiated insults around as others on this thread have lowered themselves to.

[RayC]

5 hours ago, JonnyF said:

False equivalence.

 

One poster by the Leave campaign doesn't make everyone who dislikes the corrupt, federalist, technocratic nature of the EU, a racist. 

 

It's just a word people throw around when they've run out of intelligent points to make during a debate. It's basically the same as saying "I've lost the argument therefore I will insult you". Like losing a game of tennis and then screaming "you're smelly" across the net at your opponent ????. Childish in the extreme.

And by the same token, a handful of individuals (allegedly) acting illegally does not make an organisation corrupt. Likewise, the idea that there should be greater integration in certain areas does not make one a federalist. 

 

Why is necessarily bad for an organisation to be technocratic?

[kwilco]

10 hours ago, JonnyF said:

Many immigrants, both legal and illegal were Caucasian. 

 

So how exactly, is that racist? Are you implying it was the Black and Asian Brits who were objecting to the white immigrants on the basis of race? 

 

You need a new schtick. Maybe you could read up on some of the issues that are relevant to the thread and then you can join in the conversation with some intelligent points? Because accusing everyone who disagrees with you about the EU of being racist isn't really working out too well for you...

 

 

You don't seem to realise that everything you post is in racist terms. and like a racist it relies on  a few well used cliches - usually trying to argue that it isn't racist.

You seem determined to avoid discussing racism as a factor of Brexit 

[Mac Mickmanus]

12 minutes ago, kwilco said:

You don't seem to realise that everything you post is in racist terms. and like a racist it relies on  a few well used cliches - usually trying to argue that it isn't racist.

You seem determined to avoid discussing racism as a factor of Brexit 

The Remainers who wanted to stay with their same race E.U citizens within the E.U , rather than leavers who had no problem  engaging with Africans and Asians outside the E.U  .

  Who are the racists ?

 

[Chomper Higgot]

4 minutes ago, Mac Mickmanus said:

The Remainers who wanted to stay with their same race E.U citizens within the E.U , rather than leavers who had no problem  engaging with Africans and Asians outside the E.U  .

  Who are the racists ?

 

The UK was trading with African and Asian nations while a member of the EU.

 

Who swallowed the lie that the Uk was not?

[Sir Dude]

There are some caveats to rejoining that may be a too harder sell to the UK public, so if the UK does get closer to Brussels again, then it will be on the sly... at least for the foreseeable future anyhow.

Examples of questions that would need answering, and you also have to remember the basket-case countries lined-up to join the EU in the next 5-10 years and how that will influence things too, are as follows:

 

If we rejoined the EU, how much would Britain pay into its budget per year?

If free movement into the UK from the EU were to be restored, what would annual net migration be?

What proportion of the global economy, and of British trade, will the EU represent in 20 years?

What would be the effect on future trade of abandoning our new, closer ties with the growing Pacific region?

What would be the economic cost of joining the eurozone?

Will the UK rejoin the Common Fisheries Policy as the UK will gain full control over their waters in 2026?

As we now have a Free Trade Agreement with the EU, what precisely would be the advantage of rejoining the Single Market and Customs Union?

Would Brussels lawmakers have priority over Parliament, and would the European Court of Justice be superior to British courts?

Would Rejoiners agree to the EU being in overall charge of our foreign and security policy?

Would Rejoiners commit to a referendum to approve the terms negotiated for a new relationship with the EU?

 

The above are examples of sensible questions that would need convincing answers... which there might be, but certainly not as simple as some think. Personally, the UK would have to give up the Pound and accept the Euro (which is hardly a tub-thumping success), accept uncontrolled immigration again (think also about the countries lined up to join the EU soon), pay ludicrous amounts into the financing black hole that is Brussels, no rebates, no foreign policy of our own, etc., etc.

The conditions of the EU allowing the UK to rejoin would simply be so bad that they would be political suicide and not acceptable... as they would be punishment terms, so as to set an example. Whichever UK party is in government might try it on the quiet, but that's a whole different thing.

 

[CG1 Blue]

On 2/13/2023 at 12:09 AM, Tish 2 said:

The people of Britain voted for Brexit solely for the reason of seemingly uncontrolled immigration.At least before Brexit the new arrivals came to work but under this pathetic attempt at a government all the dross of the world are allowed in,filling every 4star hotel (all paid for by British tax payers)and complaining about slow internet.

 It's impossible now to get pick-pocketed in Romania and Albania because they all live in London now.

Freedom of Movement was one element of the Brexit vote, but not the sole reason. 

 

People on the Remain side keep using this argument; "you voted leave to take control of your borders, now look at all the immigrants coming in!"

That's a false argument. FOM was stopped after Brexit, so the Leave campaign promise was met. 

What we have now is thousands coming over on boats illegally. That would have happened anyway, leave or remain. 

 

Yes the UK government's handling of illegal immigration is a shambles and a disgrace. But don't link this to Brexit. 

[CG1 Blue]

On 2/13/2023 at 6:28 AM, Petethefeet said:

The electorate were told a lot of lies by the government. We are paying the price now. Why would we want to leave the biggest trading block in the world. 

The government were promoting remain actually. 

[RayC]

2 hours ago, Sir Dude said:

 

All valid questions. Here's my opinion:

 

2 hours ago, Sir Dude said:

 

There are some caveats to rejoining that may be a too harder sell to the UK public, so if the UK does get closer to Brussels again, then it will be on the sly... at least for the foreseeable future anyhow.

If by 'on the sly', you mean that the elected UK government would choose to have closer ties with the EU without a referendum, then I agree.

 

2 hours ago, Sir Dude said:

Examples of questions that would need answering, and you also have to remember the basket-case countries lined-up to join the EU in the next 5-10 years and how that will influence things too, are as follows:

I would be surprised if any new states became EU members within the next 10 years. The current candidate countries are:

 

Turkiye - Been a candidate since 1999. Many existing members, notably Germany, have reservations about Turkiye joining. In addition, it is conceivable that Erdagan might not  agree to Brussels' terms.

 

Serbia - Political closeness to Russia and Putin probably does for them

 

North Macadonia - Ongoing issues with Greece will probably delay any accession.

 

Bosnia and Herzegovina - There are discussions about the nation splitting into two. I doubt that the EU would sanction entry until that issue is resolved.

 

Albania - The problems are well-documented. Imo no chance of joining anytime soon.

 

Ukraine - Possibly but obviously an awful lot of problems to overcome.

 

Moldova - Again possibly but a new candidate and a lot of investigation needed before accession. Also would antagonise Russia and Putin, so that's a problem for them.

 

2 hours ago, Sir Dude said:

 

If we rejoined the EU, how much would Britain pay into its budget per year?

Would have to be negotiated but I imagine that the terms would almost certainly be less favourable than those which we had.

 

2 hours ago, Sir Dude said:

If free movement into the UK from the EU were to be restored, what would annual net migration be?

It peaked at 300k in 2016.

 

Many factors to consider, not least, how well the UK economy is doing in general, and the state of the UK labour market in particular relative to other member states. Could be more than 300k, could be less who knows?

 

2 hours ago, Sir Dude said:

What proportion of the global economy, and of British trade, will the EU represent in 20 years?

Probably less than it does now, but almost certainly the EU will still remain (no pun intended) our biggest trading partner.

 

2 hours ago, Sir Dude said:

What would be the effect on future trade of abandoning our new, closer ties with the growing Pacific region?

In terms of trade deals, currently we don't many more (substantial) deals with the Pacific region than the EU.

 

CPTPP is a 'work in progress' and there is no guarantee that either (1) we will join and/or (2) it will succeed, so there might be nothing to abandon.

 

2 hours ago, Sir Dude said:

What would be the economic cost of joining the eurozone?

We might not have to. Yes, member states have to agree to adopt the Euro once the conditions for doing so are met, but there is a get-out clause which Sweden successfully invokes. 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sweden_and_the_euro

 

Neither the Commission or the ECB appears to be overly concerned by Sweden's reluctance to join the Eurozone.

 

2 hours ago, Sir Dude said:

Will the UK rejoin the Common Fisheries Policy as the UK will gain full control over their waters in 2026?

I imagine that we would have to.

 

2 hours ago, Sir Dude said:

As we now have a Free Trade Agreement with the EU, what precisely would be the advantage of rejoining the Single Market and Customs Union?

The 'Single Market' covers the free movement of services and capital as well as goods. Financial services are one area where the  Brexiter's mantra, 'they need us more, etc' may ring true for the time being at least. In the short term, the EU is reliant on London's financial market for certain services e.g. settling the majority of Euro-denominated derivative transactions, however the Commission is trying to get activities such as these moved within the Eurozone. It's true that this has always been a goal of the ECB, but when we were an EU member the Commission did not become involved as that would have meant discriminating against a member state, however they have no such qualms now.

 

I think - I'm not certain - that there is something in the Withdrawal Agreement about service provisions remaining as they were until 2024(?). After that agreement runs out, the gloves may come off. Given that services account for +/-80% of the UK's GDP there could be greater problems ahead.

 

I think that you only need to look at the problems on the island of Ireland, or ask a small business who has EU customers and/or suppliers to get an idea of the benefit of being within a Customs Union.

 

2 hours ago, Sir Dude said:

Would Brussels lawmakers have priority over Parliament, and would the European Court of Justice be superior to British courts?

Presumably yes in both cases.

 

2 hours ago, Sir Dude said:

Would Rejoiners agree to the EU being in overall charge of our foreign and security policy?

The question is not relevant as individual member states are responsible for their own foreign and security policies.

 

2 hours ago, Sir Dude said:

Would Rejoiners commit to a referendum to approve the terms negotiated for a new relationship with the EU?

The Brexit deal was not subject to a referendum, so why should the terms for rejoining be subject to one?

 

2 hours ago, Sir Dude said:

 

The conditions of the EU allowing the UK to rejoin would simply be so bad that they would be political suicide and not acceptable... as they would be punishment terms, so as to set an example.

 

If the EU wanted the UK to rejoin, why would it make the terms so onerous that no UK government could agree to them?

 

If a UK government felt that it couldn't refuse the deal whatever the conditions, that would simply be an admission that Brexit had been a complete failure.

[kwilco]

On 2/13/2023 at 12:05 AM, wombat said:

UK regained its sovereignty...

That was not a bad Idea.

That never existed, never happened and was never lost. - I've never heard a Brexiteer explain exactly what they meN by that.

[Chelseafan]

On 2/13/2023 at 2:17 AM, JonnyF said:

Good. 

 

It would never happen anyway, but if the talk ever gained traction then the worse the deal, the less likely it would be to happen. Hopefully, they would make rejoining dependent on Macron becoming both UK PM and UK Head of State, with Eva Kaili as Mayor of London. Given their arrogance, I wouldn't put it past them.

I'd rather take Kalli than Khan. At least Kalli is good eye-candy when she screws us over...

 

[Chomper Higgot]

10 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

Freedom of Movement was one element of the Brexit vote, but not the sole reason. 

 

People on the Remain side keep using this argument; "you voted leave to take control of your borders, now look at all the immigrants coming in!"

That's a false argument. FOM was stopped after Brexit, so the Leave campaign promise was met. 

What we have now is thousands coming over on boats illegally. That would have happened anyway, leave or remain. 

 

Yes the UK government's handling of illegal immigration is a shambles and a disgrace. But don't link this to Brexit. 

Except Leave and Farage in particular, made use of non EU migration which produced a swing towards Leave.

 

Non EU immigration was a central issue in the Leave campaign.

 

[JonnyF]

I see Sturgeon has resigned . More great news for the UK, another divisive voice has failed.

 

This will certainly lead to far less noise regarding the UK rejoining the EU. Less noise about Brexit breaking up the UK etc. 

 

What a great few weeks. Ardern gone. Sturgeon gone. Hopefully Macron will be the next ultra authoritarian #bekind leftist to go. Sturgeon ultimately brought down by her extremist left wing views about male rapists being put into female prisons because they've changed their "identity". What a way to go. Perfect. Delicious in fact.

[JonnyF]

34 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Non EU immigration was a central issue in the Leave campaign.

Was it? Why would you say that?