Page 78 of 130 FirstFirst ... 69707172737475767778798081828384858687 ... LastLast
Results 1,156 to 1,170 of 1937

Thread: The battle of Brexit!

  1. #1156
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    10,513
    Quote Originally Posted by zara View Post
    I wouldn't say there's no chance of remain, the bookies have a 2nd referendum at even odds today, though I agree it's pretty unlikely.

    Although we are leaving Europe we don't have to go far. A few years in the wildnerness and then negoitate some kind of Norway style deal to re-introduce free movement. The young are very pro-EU.
    Interesting, so its the middle path

  2. #1157
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    08 May 06
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    756
    I wonder how many of the pro-Brexit crowd on WAB would be squealing for a second vote, had similar legal arguments been made in an alternate universe with a "join the EU" referendum?

  3. #1158
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    10,513
    They tried to enter the Euro mechanism in the early 90s but pulled out shortly after. Didn't need a referendum. That attempt at joining the EU cost the pound 20% of its value. Took time to recover but eventually it did.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 03 Jan 19, at 11:01.

  4. #1159
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    15 Dec 06
    Posts
    1,152
    This whole Brexit drama just goes to show that the recent generations of Brits have forgotten why they went into the EU in the first place. It was so eloquently explained by Sir Humphrey Appleby (PBUH) way back in the 80's.

    Sir Humphrey: Minister, Britain has had the same foreign policy objective for at least the last five hundred years: to create a disunited Europe. In that cause we have fought with the Dutch against the Spanish, with the Germans against the French, with the French and Italians against the Germans, and with the French against the Germans and Italians. Divide and rule, you see. Why should we change now, when it's worked so well?

    Hacker: That's all ancient history, surely?

    Sir Humphrey: Yes, and current policy. We had to break the whole thing [the EEC] up, so we had to get inside. We tried to break it up from the outside, but that wouldn't work. Now that we're inside we can make a complete pig's breakfast of the whole thing — set the Germans against the French, the French against the Italians, the Italians against the Dutch... The Foreign Office is terribly pleased; it's just like old times.

    Hacker: But surely we're all committed to the European ideal?

    Sir Humphrey: [chuckles] Really, Minister.

    Hacker: If not, why are we pushing for an increase in the membership?

    Sir Humphrey: Well, for the same reason. It's just like the United Nations, in fact; the more members it has, the more arguments it can stir up, the more futile and impotent it becomes.

    Hacker: What appalling cynicism.

    Sir Humphrey: Yes... We call it diplomacy, Minister.
    It seems somewhere down the line the Brits swallowed the kool-aid and started believing they were actually Europeans and lost sight of their goal.

  5. #1160
    Rickshaw Professional Senior Contributor Pedicabby's Avatar
    Join Date
    05 Feb 07
    Location
    Location Location
    Posts
    995
    That is one of my favourite episodes of that show.

  6. #1161
    Senior Contributor Monash's Avatar
    Join Date
    01 Mar 10
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    1,656
    Quote Originally Posted by Goatboy View Post
    I wonder how many of the pro-Brexit crowd on WAB would be squealing for a second vote, had similar legal arguments been made in an alternate universe with a "join the EU" referendum?
    I suspect most fair minded voters on either side of the argument would (or should) be open to the idea of a 2nd vote given the same circumstances I.e. the close nature of the Brexit vote and the allegations of covert funding of one side of the campaign by a hostile foreign government.

    In that parallel world a strong/clearly decisive yes (or no) vote on joining the EU would put the outcome beyond dispute, even allowing for some degree of interference. In the real world the win for the 'Leave' campaign was neither strong or clearly decisive. So if the tables were turned and a marginal win for the hypothetical 'join' campaign was found to have been influenced by third parties then I think the ethical decision on both sides would be to hold a 2nd, more closely monitored vote - with the support of leaders on both sides.

    It would be the only way to confirm the legitimacy of the voters decision.
    Last edited by Monash; 04 Jan 19, at 05:32.
    If you are emotionally invested in 'believing' something is true you have lost the ability to tell if it is true.

  7. #1162
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    10,513
    Quote Originally Posted by Monash View Post
    I suspect most fair minded voters on either side of the argument would (or should) be open to the idea of a 2nd vote given the same circumstances I.e. the close nature of the Brexit vote and the allegations of covert funding of one side of the campaign by a hostile foreign government.

    In that parallel world a strong/clearly decisive yes (or no) vote on joining the EU would put the outcome beyond dispute, even allowing for some degree of interference. In the real world the win for the 'Leave' campaign was neither strong or clearly decisive. So if the tables were turned and a marginal win for the hypothetical 'join' campaign was found to have been influenced by third parties then I think the ethical decision on both sides would be to hold a 2nd, more closely monitored vote - with the support of leaders on both sides.

    It would be the only way to confirm the legitimacy of the voters decision.
    The way this brexit charade was conducted is an utter joke. It's like they had an online poll or something.

    For something as important as this they should have taken more care.

    For example, in India to amend the constitution requires a special majority in both houses. Special means 2/3 majority. A simple majority or half does not count.

    If the upper house does not pass it then the matter ends there.

    If the bill is to change federal provisions it further needs to be ratified by legislatures by half the states. Here a simple majority is enough.

    THOSE are the checks and balances that build legitimacy for important changes.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 04 Jan 19, at 15:55.

  8. #1163
    Senior Contributor Bigfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 07
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    9,643
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    The way this brexit charade was conducted is an utter joke. It's like they had an online poll or something.

    For something as important as this they should have taken more care.

    For example, in India to amend the constitution requires a special majority in both houses. Special means 2/3 majority. A simple majority or half does not count.

    If the upper house does not pass it then the matter ends there.

    If the bill is to change federal provisions it further needs to be ratified by legislatures by half the states. Here a simple majority is enough.

    THOSE are the checks and balances that build legitimacy for important changes.
    You are comparing apples to hot air balloons. Both are round and colourful, but that is where the similarity ends.

    Britain is not structured around a constitution the way your nation or mine is. Parliament is supreme. There was and is no necessity to change the constitution to join or leave the EU, at least, not in the way that you are thinking. A mere act pf Parliament does the trick. In fact, there was no need to have a vote. That was just politics. The vote doesn't have any legal standing. Legally Parliament has to decide to leave the EU & legally Parliament can choose to ignore the vote. Of course, that would have political consequences.

    The irony in this situation is that one of the key complaints of the Brexiteers is that EU membership undermines the sovereignty of Parliament, yet they know that there is an overwhelming majority in Parliament to stay in the EU.


    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

  9. #1164
    Senior Contributor Bigfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 07
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    9,643
    dbl
    Last edited by Bigfella; 05 Jan 19, at 00:01.


    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

  10. #1165
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    10,513
    My point via analogy is a move as major as this cannot be decided on the basis of a simple majority.

    No legal basis but politically no party is going to go against the referendum which means it is defacto legal.

    And so this useless exercise will continue to be waged regardless

  11. #1166
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    08 Sep 09
    Location
    Barcelona
    Posts
    1,407
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    Interesting, so its the middle path

    Hopefully. My bet is that May gets her deal passed once it becomes evident that the alternative is crashing out on no deal which no one sensible wants.

    Another referendum would be great, as 156 of the last 160 polls have shown a remain victory, but pushing too hard for one could result in a crash out so safer to take Mays deal in my opinion.

  12. #1167
    Senior Contributor Bigfella's Avatar
    Join Date
    12 Jan 07
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    9,643
    Quote Originally Posted by Double Edge View Post
    My point via analogy is a move as major as this cannot be decided on the basis of a simple majority.
    My point via legality is that a move this big can be decided without even needing a vote. Bigger decisions have been made without one. In fact, virtually every decision ever taken in the UK has been decided without one.

    The fact there was a vote makes this one of the most consultative decision making processes in British history. That is more than enough to make the decision.

    No legal basis but politically no party is going to go against the referendum which means it is defacto legal.
    And? The people were asked. They spoke. It was a more democratic process than the one that decides Parliament. The smart thing to do would be not to have held the vote, but spilled milk & all that.

    And so this useless exercise will continue to be waged regardless.
    It will limp along until the UK is out of the EU or another vote is held.


    Win nervously lose tragically - Reds C C

  13. #1168
    Turbanator Senior Contributor Double Edge's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 Sep 10
    Location
    Bangalore
    Posts
    10,513
    Quote Originally Posted by Bigfella View Post
    My point via legality is that a move this big can be decided without even needing a vote. Bigger decisions have been made without one. In fact, virtually every decision ever taken in the UK has been decided without one.

    The fact there was a vote makes this one of the most consultative decision making processes in British history. That is more than enough to make the decision.
    And what about legitimacy of a 2% margin ?


    And? The people were asked. They spoke. It was a more democratic process than the one that decides Parliament. The smart thing to do would be not to have held the vote, but spilled milk & all that.
    and they should have taken more care. My slam is the process not the result.

    Deciding parliament isn't such a big deal. Policy does not change to the extent that will happen here

    This is like moving house. Deciding Parliament is like a renovation.


    It will limp along until the UK is out of the EU or another vote is held.
    Can't have another vote. If it ends up with a similar margin and the other way is just as ludicrous.
    Last edited by Double Edge; 05 Jan 19, at 12:55.

  14. #1169
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    12 Aug 08
    Location
    UK/Europe
    Posts
    5,559


    Well I know Ramsgate harbour quite well and the Goodwin sands tend to drift into it. At low tides you sometimes get sandbanks in the outer part of the old harbour. You can tie your yacht up and scrape and antifoul it if you hurry before the tide floats you off again. It will need 24/7 dredging to get ferries through the commercial port as they had the last time when a company called Sally ran a service from there. They were some Scandanavian company I think because they apparently did a Smorgasboard eat all you want deal and people would just go on a day trip for the Smorgasboard alone (plus french wine and cheese etc) that became part of local folklore almost. At one time I believe there was even a hovercraft service from the bay just south of Ramsgate harbour. All went bust. The sands were still filling the harbour last time I was there. Not the wisest idea.
    Last edited by snapper; 05 Jan 19, at 21:05.

  15. #1170
    Senior Contributor
    Join Date
    08 May 06
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    756
    Quote Originally Posted by Monash View Post
    I suspect most fair minded voters on either side of the argument would (or should) be open to the idea of a 2nd vote given the same circumstances I.e. the close nature of the Brexit vote and the allegations of covert funding of one side of the campaign by a hostile foreign government.
    Perhaps the most relevant issue in this case would be if those fair-minded voters actually voted fair-mindedly when it counted. I'm more skeptical of democracy lately, but luckily for my liberal brain, there aren't any viable political substitutes.


    In that parallel world a strong/clearly decisive yes (or no) vote on joining the EU would put the outcome beyond dispute, even allowing for some degree of interference. In the real world the win for the 'Leave' campaign was neither strong or clearly decisive. So if the tables were turned and a marginal win for the hypothetical 'join' campaign was found to have been influenced by third parties then I think the ethical decision on both sides would be to hold a 2nd, more closely monitored vote - with the support of leaders on both sides.

    It would be the only way to confirm the legitimacy of the voters decision.

    A simple majority referendum as a means of charting an utterly different direction for a nation? I find this ridiculous. Simple majority is no mandate at all, you're right. Tiny margins aren't acceptable in a world when 1% of the vote can be swayed by something as trivial as a political candidates's bad hair day. At least make it 55% for Christ sakes.

    The Brexit vote was shameful, as is the blind obedience for the "leave cause" -- an almost religious "faith" in the cause. A mandate is essential. 51% aint it.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Post Brexit-EU planning
    By troung in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 01 Sep 19,, 20:17
  2. Brexit
    By tankie in forum International Politics
    Replies: 1230
    Last Post: 07 Jan 17,, 06:38
  3. IEA Brexit Prize
    By snapper in forum Europe and Russia
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 17 Jul 13,, 14:29
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10 Nov 06,, 08:37

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •