Brexit might not happen after all

[dullard]

IMO Brexit was a stupid move for Great Britain and for the world as a whole, but Parliament is the elected representative of the people and the people have spoken on this.

A far more appealable solution would be to have a revote. I have not seen anything the limits the number of such votes or says they are permanent and irrevocable.

They really should just have a second referendum. Why am I the only one who thinks this a reasonable thing to do?

There is no law that forbids a revote. But, revotes basically destroy the concept of a democracy. Why go ahead with the results with any election if you can just turn around and get another result tomorrow with a different group of people who bothered to show up? And if not tommorow, then the day after tomorrow. A much more palatable solution can be found looking at that specific vote. It was a non-binding referendum, meaning it has no legal merit. You can therefore build a compelling case to either (a) ignore it or to (b) have a binding referendum. That isn't a revote, as voting for a binding Brexit is a fundamentally different thing. Democracy, parliament, and the will of the people can all be salvaged.

In my opinion, Cameron and parliament dropped the ball on this one. One does not give children a vote between drinking arsenic and jumping off a tall building without a parachute. Why? Because the result of the vote would be catastrophic in either way. That type of vote should never take place. That is where the representatives need to step up and provide reasonable options with acceptable results. Then have the public vote on that. Heck, if you really want a vote on Brexit, then define what Brexit is BEFORE the vote. How will it happen, when will it happen, what will replace it? Then vote.

 

[SP33Demon]

Interesting article this morning on, I think, the NYT website. I'd link but I'm on my phone, shouldn't be too hard to find. Essentially said that Brexit is still a done deal, this just changes how involved Parliament can be in the negotiating strategy.

Yep, it's still a done deal. Parliament isn't going to undercut the will of the people.

 

[Kwatt]

Didn't Parliament vote and decide to let the people vote? If another public vote is held will that be the final vote? Or is it a "2 outta 3" or maybe "3 outta 5" kinda vote? Never mind just keep voting until you vote the right way...


.

 

[Zorba]

Perhaps. But it kind of sounds like you're talking out both sides of your mouth.

The founding fathers wrote the federal constitution, which in its original form only had direct election of the House. There are no federal ballot initiatives. Which I agree with, which is what I original said.

Direct democracy does make much more since at the local level than a federal level. But voting to raise sales tax to build a stadium is much more straight forward than voting on massive treaties. I agree with you there are way too many ballot initiatives in the US, even though they are only on a state/local level.

 

[Sunburn74]

There is no law that forbids a revote. But, revotes basically destroy the concept of a democracy. Why go ahead with the results with any election if you can just turn around and get another result tomorrow with a different group of people who bothered to show up? And if not tommorow, then the day after tomorrow.

I agree with most of what you said but want to say that to me there is no difference between voting tomorrow vs voting again in 1 year vs voting in 50 years or voting in 100 years. These are just arbitrary waiting periods and there is no magic cutoffs for an acceptable waiting period for a re-vote. Re-voting is something people do all the time and the re-vote does not in anyway undermine the validity of the first vote (look at prohibition in the US for example. We voted for it en masse then took it away en masse almost as quickly). If something arises that seems to indicate the people strongly feel differently about an issue, the issue should go to vote in my opinion, regardless of the timing of such arisal (in fact with prohibition we clearly waited too long!).

 

[werepossum]

I give it no better than a 10% chance of actually happening. It's one thing to give people the illusion of self-determination, quite another to allow them to actually have it. The UK is already much farther down the path of serfdom than are we and I can't see that changing.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

If they vote for the population will blame them for the results. If they vote against the population will blame them for the results and for not listening.

If the referendum was redone the remain camp would probably have an easy victory. But the government had said no second referendum would be held, so a stalemate in parliament is probably the only way to get one.

 

[K1052]

Interesting article this morning on, I think, the NYT website. I'd link but I'm on my phone, shouldn't be too hard to find. Essentially said that Brexit is still a done deal, this just changes how involved Parliament can be in the negotiating strategy.

Sitting in London at the moment the brits I know seem to think a new election will be held then see what happens. I think the court made the right decision in that parliament should not be allowed to abdicate their responsibility.

 

[WelshBloke]

There won't be a new referenda.
Teresa Maybe will probably win this decision on appeal to the Supreme Court.
If it does go to Parliament (which it should) they will vote in favour of triggering A50.

If Teresa Maybe loses this appeal will she then appeal to the European Court? That would be most excellent!

 

[Root13]

Hope it is true)

 

[dullard]

I agree with most of what you said but want to say that to me there is no difference between voting tomorrow vs voting again in 1 year vs voting in 50 years or voting in 100 years. These are just arbitrary waiting periods and there is no magic cutoffs for an acceptable waiting period for a re-vote. Re-voting is something people do all the time and the re-vote does not in anyway undermine the validity of the first vote (look at prohibition in the US for example. We voted for it en masse then took it away en masse almost as quickly). If something arises that seems to indicate the people strongly feel differently about an issue, the issue should go to vote in my opinion, regardless of the timing of such arisal (in fact with prohibition we clearly waited too long!).

I have no problem with new votes when new generations, or new information, or something new and quite relevant comes up. But I was referring to people who basically said that the first vote didn't go our way, do-over. Democratic votes need to have some form of "stickiness" or permanency otherwise there is no reason for a democracy. I see no fundamental change that wasn't known before the Brexit vote. Thus, I see no reason to have a revote yet.

People forget that prohibition actually worked in a way. Applejack was nearly killed off and beer popularity rose from its ashes. But prohibition is a good example to use for Brexit because the 18th amendment is also too short and lacks details so no one knew exactly what prohibition meant. What is an intoxicating liquor? Why can we still drink anything we want even in prohibition? Why are there no penalties? The 18th amendment, like the Brexit vote, was ill-conceived, way to short for anyone to know how it will be implemented, and poorly worded.

By the time the 21st amendment came along there were laws that defined "intoxicating liquors" which was essentially everything with even a trace amount of alcohol (by law not by the amendment). There were now laws that defined the penalties. People didn't like the implementation. A wine drinker could have easily supported prohibition, thinking that wine isn't a liquor. So a revote with new information (such as to now 0.6% alcohol was considered to be an intoxicating liquor) makes sense.

 

[werepossum]

I have no problem with new votes when new generations, or new information, or something new and quite relevant comes up. But I was referring to people who basically said that the first vote didn't go our way, do-over. Democratic votes need to have some form of "stickiness" or permanency otherwise there is no reason for a democracy. I see no fundamental change that wasn't known before the Brexit vote. Thus, I see no reason to have a revote yet.

People forget that prohibition actually worked in a way. Applejack was nearly killed off and beer popularity rose from its ashes. But prohibition is a good example to use for Brexit because the 18th amendment is also too short and lacks details so no one knew exactly what prohibition meant. What is an intoxicating liquor? Why can we still drink anything we want even in prohibition? Why are there no penalties? The 18th amendment, like the Brexit vote, was ill-conceived, way to short for anyone to know how it will be implemented, and poorly worded.

By the time the 21st amendment came along there were laws that defined "intoxicating liquors" which was essentially everything with even a trace amount of alcohol (by law not by the amendment). There were now laws that defined the penalties. People didn't like the implementation. A wine drinker could have easily supported prohibition, thinking that wine isn't a liquor. So a revote with new information (such as to now 0.6% alcohol was considered to be an intoxicating liquor) makes sense.

All that is predicated on your assumption that people who don't believe as you believe are stupid because of that difference, with the underlying assumption that if they only understood, then they would believe as do you.

 

[agent00f]

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2016/11/uk-brexit-pass-parliament-approval-161103101737902.html


apparently the Parliament has to approve Brexit and the current bunch will certainly not. Hopefully they block it.

May is basically dead if this happens, so she's going to fight this battle with all she's got.

 

[agent00f]

There won't be a new referenda.
Teresa Maybe will probably win this decision on appeal to the Supreme Court.
If it does go to Parliament (which it should) they will vote in favour of triggering A50.

If Teresa Maybe loses this appeal will she then appeal to the European Court? That would be most excellent!

I think you have that backwards.

 

[UglyCasanova]

There is no law that forbids a revote. But, revotes basically destroy the concept of a democracy. Why go ahead with the results with any election if you can just turn around and get another result tomorrow with a different group of people who bothered to show up? And if not tommorow, then the day after tomorrow. A much more palatable solution can be found looking at that specific vote. It was a non-binding referendum, meaning it has no legal merit. You can therefore build a compelling case to either (a) ignore it or to (b) have a binding referendum. That isn't a revote, as voting for a binding Brexit is a fundamentally different thing. Democracy, parliament, and the will of the people can all be salvaged.

In my opinion, Cameron and parliament dropped the ball on this one. One does not give children a vote between drinking arsenic and jumping off a tall building without a parachute. Why? Because the result of the vote would be catastrophic in either way. That type of vote should never take place. That is where the representatives need to step up and provide reasonable options with acceptable results. Then have the public vote on that. Heck, if you really want a vote on Brexit, then define what Brexit is BEFORE the vote. How will it happen, when will it happen, what will replace it? Then vote.

Reasonable and acceptable to who? This is a prime example of exactly when a vote from the public should take place. The voters responded and they voted to leave the EU, it shouldn't be up to the powers that be to say no. I realize the implications of leaving and it might not be pretty, but U.K. Citizens took a vote on their sovereignty and how they wanted to be governed.

 

[sdifox]

Reasonable and acceptable to who? This is a prime example of exactly when a vote from the public should take place. The voters responded and they voted to leave the EU, it shouldn't be up to the powers that be to say no. I realize the implications of leaving and it might not be pretty, but U.K. Citizens took a vote on their sovereignty and how they wanted to be governed.

Except now there is a lot of buyer remorse. Apparently there were fuckers thought voting leave as protest vote was a good idea. Retards.

 

[Sunburn74]

I see no fundamental change that wasn't known before the Brexit vote. Thus, I see no reason to have a revote yet.

Reasonable and acceptable to who? This is a prime example of exactly when a vote from the public should take place. The voters responded and they voted to leave the EU, it shouldn't be up to the powers that be to say no. I realize the implications of leaving and it might not be pretty, but U.K. Citizens took a vote on their sovereignty and how they wanted to be governed.

Yes but the pound lost 20% of its value overnight and is at risk of losing more (imagine if overnight you lose 20% of your retirement savings?!). Furthermore a lot of people cast protest votes without the intention to win and a significant portion of britain's labor force are only able to work there there currently because of EU free travel laws (doctors in england for example are 26% non-british) which would go away (plus a lot of British citizens live in europe and they would have to move back which a lot of them don't want to have to do). Brexit in many ways is a total accident; this is what happens when people think voting is a bloody joke! However, why compound the error by actually going through with what people don't want?! Its insane!

Just revote. There is new information that is worthy of a revote
1) the number of people who were protest voters is quite high and the referendum doesn't really reflect what they want
2) the actual impact it would have on britain was clearly underestimated and unknown in many ways to the people who would vote, and may bring legitimate harm (imagine losing 25% of your cardiac surgeons or neuro surgeons and so on)
3) the actual difficulty entailed with leaving is clearly different than people expected (the EU plans to make it a messy high cost divorce to set a precedent for others)

Never let the same mistake beat you twice.

 

[WelshBloke]

I think you have that backwards.

Nope.

There won't be enough MPs willing to vote against the result of the referendum stop stop A50.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

It will just mean that the MPs will have to vote on it. Thing is that we know their opinions almost all lay with voting to remain, however this is still a democracy and these people are still elected, and they know that and they know they have to represent the will of the people otherwise they face serious backlash and likely being replaced with those who will execute the will of the people.

For example, the referendum itself had to be agreed upon by MPs to begin with, and while most favour remain they still called it anyway 6:1 which is heavily in favour of democracy despite their beliefs. So I fully expect they'll mostly (not all) fall in line with what the public want and vote to honor the referendum results.

P.S Trump is going to win, and that's a profoundly good thing. Obama and his "Britain is at the back of the queue" nonsense vs Trumps rational capitalistic view of securing great mutually beneficial trade deals other world class markets. Don't worry lads we're slowly turning this ship around I think we stand a good chance of narrowly avoid communism.

 

[agent00f]

Nope.

There won't be enough MPs willing to vote against the result of the referendum stop stop A50.

The conservative majority in parliament is very slim and there are probably enough worried about the impact of financial repercussions they're going to remain if it came down to it. If May were so confident about her control over the party she wouldn't be worried about the court.

Curiously I don't think that why most of the papers there are vehemently against a mp vote. The people who own them are more worried that forcing a vote might splinter the party.

 

[dullard]

Just revote. There is new information that is worthy of a revote
1) the number of people who were protest voters is quite high and the referendum doesn't really reflect what they want
2) the actual impact it would have on britain was clearly underestimated and unknown in many ways to the people who would vote, and may bring legitimate harm (imagine losing 25% of your cardiac surgeons or neuro surgeons and so on)
3) the actual difficulty entailed with leaving is clearly different than people expected (the EU plans to make it a messy high cost divorce to set a precedent for others)

Anyone with any brain knew those were going to happen well before the Brexit vote. Just because people with vested interests argued differently doesn't mean that you should listen to them.

Maybe if you want to protest next time, don't burn down your country. Cutting off your nose to spite your face doesn't work.

 

[baydude]

The House of Lords has passed the Brexit bill, paving the way for the government to trigger Article 50 so the UK can leave the EU.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-39262081

 

[sdifox]

And the Scots want to stay in EU... Maybe GB will finally be over.

 

[agent00f]

Nope.

There won't be enough MPs willing to vote against the result of the referendum stop stop A50.

Just wanted to acknowledge you were correct on this matter.

 

[mxnerd]

Wales & Northern Ireland next?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...tish-independence-demand-speech-a7627861.html