Brexit negotiations
- Thread starter Scott-Copywriter
- Start date
- Original Poster
- #2,603
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43250035
It worries me that were still in the ambiguous "big speech" phase with almost a year to go. I'm sure there have been about a dozen of these speeches which are supposedly going to clarify everything, but they rarely do. They're just repeated statements of the obvious.
I still think the major issue May, Davis and the government are failing to acknowledge is that the deal they want is not "in the best interests" of the UK and the EU.
Yes, it probably is in the best economic interests of both sides. But there's a lot more to it than that. The EU simply cannot undermine the major point of EU and single market membership, regardless of the economic benefits. Doing that would risk the collapse of the EU itself, which is a far greater danger to avoid.
What would it say if a country could leave and then gain very similar trade benefits without any of the responsibilities? What if the UK did get a "deep and comprehensive" trade deal, almost on par with the single market, without having to pay into the budget, accept free movement, abide by regulations or accept ECJ jurisdiction?
And why would the EU-27, that have to accept these responsibilities to gain those benefits, even consider it for a second?
The funny thing is that if we had remained in the EU, and a different country left and gained the type of deal we want, it would be the Brexiteers in this country who would be up in arms about it. We'd be the first country to use it as a weapon in the fight for leaving as well. We'd be furious at the idea of paying into the budget and accepting EU law, whilst another country can leave and gain most of the same benefits. The right-wing papers would be foaming at the mouth.
What the UK wants is pure fantasy, and there are very obvious and understandable reasons why it is.
It worries me that were still in the ambiguous "big speech" phase with almost a year to go. I'm sure there have been about a dozen of these speeches which are supposedly going to clarify everything, but they rarely do. They're just repeated statements of the obvious.
I still think the major issue May, Davis and the government are failing to acknowledge is that the deal they want is not "in the best interests" of the UK and the EU.
Yes, it probably is in the best economic interests of both sides. But there's a lot more to it than that. The EU simply cannot undermine the major point of EU and single market membership, regardless of the economic benefits. Doing that would risk the collapse of the EU itself, which is a far greater danger to avoid.
What would it say if a country could leave and then gain very similar trade benefits without any of the responsibilities? What if the UK did get a "deep and comprehensive" trade deal, almost on par with the single market, without having to pay into the budget, accept free movement, abide by regulations or accept ECJ jurisdiction?
And why would the EU-27, that have to accept these responsibilities to gain those benefits, even consider it for a second?
The funny thing is that if we had remained in the EU, and a different country left and gained the type of deal we want, it would be the Brexiteers in this country who would be up in arms about it. We'd be the first country to use it as a weapon in the fight for leaving as well. We'd be furious at the idea of paying into the budget and accepting EU law, whilst another country can leave and gain most of the same benefits. The right-wing papers would be foaming at the mouth.
What the UK wants is pure fantasy, and there are very obvious and understandable reasons why it is.
Upvote
0
Cannot say you are wrong @Scott-Copywriter.
Several times in the past few months I've seen suggestions that Brexit should be cancelled and a new general election called where parties can lay out their views and ideas to the electorate based on current information.
Its an attractive idea. God only knows what position the two main parties would take, fairly confident of the SNP position only.
Its just perhaps unlikely as an idea. Workable, but unlikely.
Several times in the past few months I've seen suggestions that Brexit should be cancelled and a new general election called where parties can lay out their views and ideas to the electorate based on current information.
Its an attractive idea. God only knows what position the two main parties would take, fairly confident of the SNP position only.
Its just perhaps unlikely as an idea. Workable, but unlikely.
Upvote
0
You cannot run a GE on a single issue. I could never under any circumstances whatsoever vote for a particular party. I would rather gouge my eyes out. So if that party were the only one to campaign on my preferred EU option,. I could not vote for my preferred EU option. The only way to do that would be another referendum on the single issue, but this time, done with honest and absolute information, and a, or several, question(s) about the future.
Upvote
0
No matter what "side" you're on... the Brexit result should not be cancelled. We live in a democracy and cancelling results sets a very dangerous tone.
What are we going to do if 52% don't like a general election outcome in the future? Cancel that? Make it the best of three?
You can't go on in that manner, at the end of the day, the Leave vote "won" by 1.3 million votes. Equally, nearly every region outside of London (in England and wales) voted to Leave.
Everybody knew the "rules" before the election, as a nation we need to progress now
Upvote
0
You want to remind UKIP who got 4 million votes not so long back that they cannot run a GE on a single issue? They sort of pounded one issue so much that the Conservatives
gave a referendum on that issue. So were UKIP successful?
Of course most have multiple issues, it makes sense - you want to be in power or have major impact for 5 years its a good idea to have policies on things that matter to different people. A parent of school age or below children may well see education as important, someone without kids but with a lot of travelling may see infrastructure as important and so on.
Upvote
0
Generally over 50% of those who vote don't agree on who gets in. Which is why the party who gets to govern is usually the one with most seats.
Getting over 50% of the popular vote luckily is not required, its uncommon.
As I said, its unlikely. Its not impossible.
Is leaving the EU on 29th March 2019 with no deal a better prospect currently? So far, and quite possibly for a decade to come, we have no deal.
Upvote
0
You are ignoring the fact that the referendum was advisory. GE results are mandatory.
The correct democratic position is that MP's should have taken into account the result of the referendum, while not being bound by it, to decide which way they believe they should vote in the best interests of their constituents.
Upvote
0
They did.
Well, mine did. I don't know what method yours used to decide which way to vote when it came up in parliament.
As I recall it was an overwhelming majority of MPs voting in parliament after the referendum.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38833883
498 votes to 114.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #2,611
Sort of.
It's crazy to think that, during the referendum campaign, those on the remain side were warning that leaving the EU would mean leaving the single market and customs union too. Whereas those on the leave side were suggesting that Brexit does not mean "threatening our place in the single market" (as Dan Hannan put it).
Nigel Farage even spoke highly of the Norway model on more than one occasion.
We should certainly leave the EU, as that's what the public has voted for. But beyond that, there's little by way of a mandate on what to do next.
I think there should have been (and still should be) a referendum on the post-Brexit arrangement. Either stay in the single market and customs union, or leave both along with the EU. It's equally important as the question of EU membership itself.
What I think would be even better is a preferential referendum based on the AV system with four options:
- Stay in the single market and customs union
- Stay in the single market only
- Stay in the customs union only
- Leave everything
So voters rank the options by order of preference, then the last placed options are eliminated with the votes re-allocated until one option has a 50%+ majority. It would be pretty conclusive, whatever the result.
Without that, we don't really have a clue exactly what the majority of the public wants as the post-Brexit solution. The current path we're taking is based on a huge assumption that, in my view, is probably incorrect.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #2,613
It's the only viable solution for such a referendum, otherwise the remain-leaning vote will be split across too many options.
For example, if all the ultra-brexiteers voted to leave everything, and a far greater majority voted to stay part of something, but their votes were split across SM-only, CU-only, and SM/CU, the ultra-brexiteers could win even though the vast majority of the public want closer ties.
Those three options are broadly similar, but differ in the details. Particularly when it comes to the single market and customs union vs the single market only, as the only major difference there is the ability to negotiate our own trade agreements.
I think if we had a preferential vote based on those four options, where everyone's order of preference is taken into account, it would produce a very conclusive result that captures public sentiment accurately.
People may not like AV for electing MPs, but it would work well in this case.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #2,615
Well I actually think instant-runoff voting (aka AV) is far superior to first-past-the-post.
Most countries don't use FPTP, and some of those that do, such as the United States, only have, practically speaking, a two-party system where it's more effective.
The majority though use IRV, RV, two-round or similar methods.
It's also interesting to note that every major political party in the UK uses some form of preferential or multi-round voting system to elect party leaders. Even the Conservatives.
As for why the UK rejected the idea, who knows. But it was a frankly terrible campaign and biased too, as people are far more likely to vote for (and support) the system that gives their own party the best chance of winning or retaining power.
Anyway, in this case it would be the only viable solution due to the remain-leaning side having more options to split the vote. The only way to make FPTP fair would be to only have two options: single market and customs union, or leave everything. That does a worse job of trying to understand exactly what the majority of the public want. It puts fewer options on the table just to cater to the voting system.
IRV would also ensure that the winning solution ultimately has greater support than the losing solution across the electorate.
Other systems would be equally useful too, such as a normal runoff or two-round method. IRV is just easier and avoids the need for multiple ballots.
Upvote
0
The voters rejected the alternative voting system a few years ago for 2 reasons. It helped the Lib Dems who were roundly hated by everyone for joining the coalition and abandoning every principle they ever might have been thought to have had. Tuition fees, anyone? Plus the actual system proposed was not much better than FPTP.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #2,619
...Okay?
It's irrelevant as that was a vote on the AV system for general elections. It has nothing to do with an independent referendum. People rejected AV for GEs but still use very similar methods to elect their party leaders.
To put all the options on the table, it would have to be an IRV or similar preferential voting system. If the public was adamant it wanted FPTP, then it would have to be a direct choice between the single market and customs union, or neither.
If the public wanted to narrow down their options like that, then I suppose they could for whatever reason.
Upvote
0
Perhaps the public simply prefer the system they have and don't want a change.
Been a while since I was involved in selection of a party leader. Choice was of 2 people, having been narrowed down to that by MPs under the party rules.
Then the members got to vote between those two.
No second choice, simply a choice of two.
MPs may use one system, voters another.
A different party many years ago had a choice of two as well. Cannot think which system they used to get to that point as it may have changed from current recent methods.
Members voted.
Been a while since I was involved in selection of a party leader. Choice was of 2 people, having been narrowed down to that by MPs under the party rules.
Then the members got to vote between those two.
No second choice, simply a choice of two.
MPs may use one system, voters another.
A different party many years ago had a choice of two as well. Cannot think which system they used to get to that point as it may have changed from current recent methods.
Members voted.
Upvote
0
The EU27 nations, collectively, aren't "using Ireland" they are simply protecting their own interests - something the UK government is (apparently) also trying to do despite being the party to cause the difficulties in the first place by choosing to leave everything.
This hand waving about border solutions that comes from right-wingers and ukippers cannot be explained beyond perhaps a lack of understanding of the depth of feeling of those directly involved and the seriousness of the issue. Brexit at any cost?
Upvote
0
It's surprising to see these strawman arguments still being trotted out, so let's do a megapost!
*cracks knuckles*
Let's break your post down into its main points:
- Should we cancel GE results if the popular vote is against the winner?
- Everybody knew the "rules" before the referendum.
- Leave "won" by 1.3 million votes.
- Should referendum be best of three?
- Cancelling Brexit would be anti-democratic.
- Brexit should not be cancelled.
- As a nation we need to progress.
#2. I'd offer a gentle reminder here that the Government themselves still aren't agreed on what Brexit should end up being. Nothing was planned before the vote so could not be announced. The different Leave groups all promised different visions of Brexit utopia and, as it turns out, almost all of them were just as fantastical and unachievable as each other.
If this is the point where you'd sidestep this to say, "no, I mean the rules that if we vote to Leave, then we Leave!", then I'd bring you back to the point that, "Leaving" was undefined in its meaning and its timescale. The "rules" were extremely vague so to say "everyone knew the rules" is simply incorrect.
#3. Firstly, Leave "won" by 650,000 votes; if those fence sitters had voted the other way, then the result would have been a tie and, in the scale of things, it's arguable that this margin of error isn't significant enough to be the basis for such destructive constitutional change.
Furthermore, 17.4 million people voted Leave but 16.1 million people voted Remain and 13 million people decided that the status quo was acceptable enough to not bother going to vote, so that's 29 million already, and that's discounting the 3 million ex-pats, the 4 million EU citizens and the 1.5 million 16/17 year-olds barred from voting on something which affects their futures more than it does ours.
Did Leave "win"? Well, the referendum vote was certainly in their favour, but what it was for and if it can be described as "the will of the people" is extremely difficult to argue without being dishonest.
#4. "Should it be best of three?" Well, this and "Do we keep running them until we get the 'right' result?" are pretty disingenuous questions. It's fairly clear at this point that the vote was largely uninformed on both sides, so there's a good question about the moral legitimacy of the vote but, leaving that aside, what about now? How informed are we? I've had conversations with people who think we've already left the EU. So instead of those little anecdotes, what about the wider picture?
We have already seen damaging consequences just from the vote, and every day more information becomes available about the damage Brexit will cause in the short *and* the long term. Meanwhile the upsides to Brexit still don't seem to exist outside the realm of positive-thinking and optimism about the "Greatness of Britain".
People have much more information available to them now, and almost all of it points to Brexit being a terrible idea, so why not check with the people once more, just to be sure? Unlike a General Election, where we can change our minds every few years, this is not a decision that can be undone once executed. We've certainly learned that any further referendums must be far more descriptive in their choices. This leads nicely into...
#5. Would it be anti-democratic to cancel Brexit? Well this is a complicated point that hinges on what you think democracy is. An FT columnist recently put it quite nicely: "A referendum can be either democratic or irrevocable, but it cannot be both."
With Remain arguing for more financial analyses and further consultation of the people (i.e. a second referendum) and Leave stamping their feet demanding we "simply get on with it", which seems more democratic to you?
We voted more than once in the past to be part of the EU (and before you trot out that old "we were lied to" chestnut, yes, we knew what it was and the political reasons for joining, and it was not just as a market). You now seek to revoke that result; democracy perhaps but the key point being it can be revisited. No electorate can bind subsequent electorates.
It can be argued that joining the EU was just that, binding future electorates, but since it has turned out to be such a good thing for us, and that what is now being pursued is so damaging and unable to be undone, then it's clear that Brexit is definitely binding future electorates, and reducing the rights of our citizens in the process!
The key point here is that we have a system of representative democracy; we vote for representatives whom we trust to act in our best interests, even if those actions sometimes go against our wishes. If we feel they have acted against our wishes to our detriment, we can vote them out in the General Election. We do not operate a direct democracy. No referendum in this country can be anything other than advisory.
The referendum was advisory - a small detail to consider perhaps - but with that information the government is then advised and must make policy decisions, as is their duty, in the best interests of the country. At this point there is no reasonable argument that any part of Brexit is in the best interests of the country, so would it be anti-democratic to cancel Brexit? Not really...
#6. and #7. Leavers, Brexiteers and 'Brextremists' would have us believe that Brexit is "the will of the people". That argument really doesn't hold up. There are plenty of solid, evidence-backed reasons to abandon Brexit, and dozens more backed by common sense and reason. If we do not abandon it completely, then we should for at least a decade or so until our Government can either execute it properly, or get a more reasonable consensus from the general public. As #7 says, we should progress as a nation, but Brexit absolutely cannot be described as progress; it's moving backwards, and until the Brexiteers can provide convincing evidence otherwise, you will not persuade Remainers to join you in such a damaging course of action, no matter how much you consider it to be "talking the country down".
tl;dr: Abandoning Brexit isn't anti-democratic as it's not really the will of the people, but if that's really what bothers you then it's also not anti-democratic to double check with everyone and then abandon it as a bad idea without significant consensus otherwise.
The government have shown they are uninformed, unable to reasonably negotiate on our behalf and are continuing with the hardest Brexit available - a course of action that is really only the desire of an extremely small minority of the country.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
I heard recently that a mock referendum of thousands of schoolchildren 2 days before the actual referendum voted 79% in favour of remain.
There is also strong evidence that anyone who properly studied the issues overwhelmingly voted remain.
Upvote
0
Perhaps the leave voters were ignorant. Perhaps the remain voters were.
About all we can say is that there were many millions voting each. Would be very surprised if only one side included some ignorant people. Take any big issue with millions of people choosing a particular side and you'll get some who take the time to investigate.
Upvote
0
And identifiable by their inability to put forward a coherent argument. Usually resorting to invective.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
I did not say all. However all the leave voters I have met have had pretty wacky reasons for voting leave.
I gave a personal example earlier in this thread. Just before the referendum I attended a public meeting where speakers representing different viewpoints spoke for and against leave and remain. Those who were undecided at the beginning of the meeting were 100% in favour of remain at the end. Unfortunately the vast number of voters did not bother to hear the issues.
Because the vote was so illogical there has been a lot of research into voters attitudes. The old A, B, C, D etc classifications of the population are being turned upside down. While not related to the ref. vote directly people with no friends beyond their own 36 mile radius are more likely to live in leave voting areas. I have met a fair number of people in Cornwall who have never been outside the county.
Upvote
0
- Original Poster
- #2,633
I think a lot of it comes down to whether people like or dislike the EU.
If people simply don't like the EU and the permutations of being a member, not much else matters.
What makes me think this is that pro-Brexit arguments were (and still are) rarely based on strong suggestions of the UK becoming a better and more prosperous country. Rarely do you see Brexiteers pulling their hair out in frustration at remainers not comprehending how much wealthier and better the UK would be for everyone in their day-to-day lives if we leave.
The argument on the leave side actually tends to lean much more towards "it's not going to be that bad" with repeated suggestions of trying to view Brexit as an opportunity. "Making a success of it" is not so much about accelerated growth, more jobs, better wages and improved living standards. It's more about leaving the EU unscathed. It's very clear that even pro-leave politicians are trying to manage expectations.
What this tells me is what I've thought all along: most leave supporters, even the pro-leave politicians, expect some damage. They just think it's a price worth paying to leave a political system that doesn't sit right with them at all.
Then you have another section of more "optimistic" leave supporters that don't think leaving the EU is going to make any difference to our quality of life either way. When people have that point of view, it's easy to understand why they voted leave. To them, it was a way to get rid of everything they dislike about being in the EU without any trade-off.
When people just don't like the EU, and are either willing to accept some damage to leave, or don't think any damage will occur at all, it's no surprise that the arguments for remaining in the EU (which were largely based on maintaining the benefits we currently enjoy) end up falling flat.
Upvote
0
T
The Byre
Benefits? Well, let's see -
1. You and your children and all generations thereafter have the right to live, study and work in any one of 28 countries.
2. 70% of the food on your table comes from or via the rest-27.
3. c.a. 45% of all UK exports go to the rest 27.
4. There are a multitude of work and environmental regulations that have made the UK a cleaner and healthier place to live and work.
5. We have access to dozens of scientific, security and manufacturing and other progressive and helpful institutions, bodies and research initiatives.
6. Goods move freely across boarders, without carnets and other paperwork. Food can move without having to be inspected at the boarders.
Those are the main things that spring to my mind. No doubt someone working in a service industry could list far more, as that is our main export and that is the one area that is going to be excluded from any trade deal.
1. You and your children and all generations thereafter have the right to live, study and work in any one of 28 countries.
2. 70% of the food on your table comes from or via the rest-27.
3. c.a. 45% of all UK exports go to the rest 27.
4. There are a multitude of work and environmental regulations that have made the UK a cleaner and healthier place to live and work.
5. We have access to dozens of scientific, security and manufacturing and other progressive and helpful institutions, bodies and research initiatives.
6. Goods move freely across boarders, without carnets and other paperwork. Food can move without having to be inspected at the boarders.
Those are the main things that spring to my mind. No doubt someone working in a service industry could list far more, as that is our main export and that is the one area that is going to be excluded from any trade deal.
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
I think we all know the benefits of staying. Its the benefits of leaving we are waiting for Mr D and KM-Tiger to tell us about.
Upvote
0
Anti-'dumping' (previously known as 'selling at a good price').
Is one area where they like to stick their oar in to other people's business!
Is one area where they like to stick their oar in to other people's business!
Upvote
0
D
Deleted member 59730
You'll have to clarify this for me. Do you agree that every country in the world with lower standards than ours, the EU's, should be allowed to dump their excess in the UK?
How about hormone boosted beef, chlorine washed chicken, sub-standard steel, etc.?
Upvote
0
Does America use chlorine washed chicken? What particular health issues has the land of the lawsuit found regarding people becoming ill from such produce?
Does the UK / EU have hormone boosted beef?
Have no clue what sub standard steel is. You are aware steel is not one product?
Its a bit like 'water' or 'fuel' or 'cloth'.
The steel for a particular project will have specifications it has to meet. Steel that is made for a different purpose shouldn't be used for that but it isn't sub standard. Just different.
You want tool steel, weathering steel, Eglin steel etc?
Upvote
0
Latest Articles
-
Whose Job Was It? What Two Threads Say About Accountants and FeesShould Your Bookkeeper Tell You Your Accountant Is Too Expensive? There's a polite argument...- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 7 min read
-
Guilty until proven authorised: fighting a false counterfeit reportA UKBF member posted something that will make the stomach drop for anyone who sells on a...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 12 min read
-
Growth Britain: what's actually in it for the smallest businesses?John Healey gave his first big speech as chancellor this morning, standing in front of a row of...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 7 min read
-
AI can do the typing. It can't sign the accounts.Back in January, a UKBF member called @Byzantium put up a complaint that'll sound familiar to a...- Lord Moore
- Updated:
- 6 min read
-
90,000 jobs are heading your way. Your rates bill might get there firstIf you run a business in Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds or Bristol, you were probably told some...
- Ozzy
- Updated:
- 8 min read