EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[Bromley boy]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-eighth_Amendment_of_the_Constitution_Bill_2008_(Ireland)

Yes all this is saying is what I already knew. The treaty was proposed, rejected and the treaty was then proposed again. Asking again and again until the “right” answer was produced.

Can you not see how that is undemocratic?

The following comment in the Guardian, written at the time, sums it up very well.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/dec/13/eu-ireland-lisbon-treaty

Imagine if, following the election of Barack Obama by 52.9% of American voters, the Republican party, which got just 45.7% of votes, demanded another election. Imagine if the Republicans described Obama's victory as a "triumph of ignorance" – brought about by an "unspeakable" and "ignorant" mass of people who should have been "swatted away by the forces of the establishment" – and insisted on holding a second election so that, this time, the voters could "get it right".

There would be uproar, outrage, widespread disgust at such elite disdain for the democratic process. Well, now you know how the Irish people must feel. In June this year, 53.4% of Irish voters rejected the Lisbon treaty, against 46.6% who supported it (giving the "No" camp a "sweeping victory" similar to Obama's). Yet now the Irish will be asked to vote again. EU officials' behind-doors deal to force a second referendum in Irelandreveals their utter contempt for Irish voters, and for democracy itself. It is an historic sucker punch against the sovereignty of the people.

 

[najaB]

Can you not see how that is undemocratic?

So, what would the 'democratic' solution have been? To ram the treaty through despite objections from the public or to ask once and then walk away because there were some objections?

 

[AM9]

True but then most remainers also didn’t have a clue what they were voting for - most don’t know the first thing about the EU and in particular don’t realise quite how much control this sprawling bureaucracy, which originated as a trading block, now has over our daily lives.

I would hesitate to say 'most remainers' as a counterbalance presumption to the leavers' reasons for voting. Almost everybody in the UK of voting age and who had a pulse had experienced what living in an EU member state was like and could discriminate between continuing it or changing it to something about which they had no reliable information. Some of the remainers would have no idea of how a 'sprawling bureaucracy' would affect their lives and of course some did who didn't see it as a problem given that the Lisbon and Maastrict treaties were made 9 and 24 years before the vote. Some of course were quite comfortable with the actual direction and magnitude of EU integration rather than that portrayed by the Daily Mail/Telegraph/leave candidate/(insert your own fake news publication) spin on reality.
So an argument that 'most' remain votes came from voters who just didn't understand what they were voting for based on actual experience and available facts* is in any way comparable with the lack of information aimed at potential leave voters is specious to say the least.

* EU regulations, EU directives, UK implementations of directives and EU standards etc..

 

[Bromley boy]

So, what would the 'democratic' solution have been? To ram the treaty through despite objections from the public or to ask once and then walk away because there were some objections?

Walking away sounds good to me. How about accepting the answer that has been given rather than arrogantly expecting a rerun of the vote.

Of course that wasn’t acceptable to the EU on its quest for ever closer integration. The arrogance of this approach is simply staggering.

Of course this version of “democracy” is well known to the EU and is now imitated by those remainers who wish to keep rerunning the referendum until the right answer is produced!

I would ask any remainers on here, do you believe the EU in its current form is what the electorate voted for in the original 1975 referendum to join the EC?

 

[najaB]

Walking away sounds good to me. How about accepting the answer that has been given rather than arrogantly expecting a rerun of the vote.

But it wasn't a rerun of the vote. It was a new vote for a new treaty that didn't contain the provisions which had been found objectionable. That's how negotiation works - offer, counter-offer, repeat, agreement.

 

[Moonshot]

Walking away sounds good to me. How about accepting the answer that has been given rather than arrogantly expecting a rerun of the vote.

Of course that wasn’t acceptable to the EU on its quest for ever closer integration. The arrogance of this approach is simply staggering.

Of course this version of “democracy” is well known to the EU and is now imitated by those remainers who wish to keep rerunning the referendum until the right answer is produced!

I would ask any remainers on here, do you believe the EU in its current form is what the electorate voted for in the original 1975 referendum to join the EC?

I pretty much mentioned that in my last post.....it seems to me that the EEC of 1975 is still very much alive.....but has had various bolt ons in the last 40 years . of which the UK has a veto right in some cases. We can argue all day and all night about the right and wrongs of it today but I still believe we would be better inside the tent spitting out than outside the tent spitting in. You would have to wonder what a catalyst would be if Nissan decided to shut the car plant in the North east and re locate it to somewhere like Poland.

 

[Bromley boy]

I would hesitate to say 'most remainers' as a counterbalance presumption to the leavers' reasons for voting. Almost everybody in the UK of voting age and who had a pulse had experienced what living in an EU member state was like and could discriminate between continuing it or changing it to something about which they had no reliable information. Some of the remainers would have no idea of how a 'sprawling bureaucracy' would affect their lives and of course some did who didn't see it as a problem given that the Lisbon and Maastrict treaties were made 9 and 24 years before the vote. Some of course were quite comfortable with the actual direction and magnitude of EU integration rather than that portrayed by the Daily Mail/Telegraph/leave candidate/(insert your own fake news publication) spin on reality.
So an argument that 'most' remain votes came from voters who just didn't understand what they were voting for based on actual experience and available facts* is in any way comparable with the lack of information aimed at potential leave voters is specious to say the least.

* EU regulations, EU directives, UK implementations of directives and EU standards etc..

I suppose my point is that the vast majority of the electorate does not follow politics - that seems alien to those of us commenting on these pages because we take an interest in such matters. We are in a tiny minority.

It therefore follows that most remainers voted to retain the status quo without any in depth knowledge of how the EU works and how it affects their daily lives.

There appears to be an assumption that remain voters are more knowledgeable than leave voters - I do not agree with that assumption. It’s fair to say the majority of voters on both sides wouldn’t have had much in depth knowledge of the EU.

Leave voters were given plenty of facts - ironically by the doom-mongers in the remain camp in the run up to the election. Remember the threats of a “punishment budget”?!

 

[najaB]

I would ask any remainers on here, do you believe the EU in its current form is what the electorate voted for in the original 1975 referendum to join the EC?

Is the UK in it's current state the same as it was in 1975? Is the world, in it's current form, the same as it was in 1975?

 

[najaB]

There appears to be an assumption that remain voters are more knowledgeable than leave voters - I do not agree with that assumption.

I also don't agree with it. However, in my opinion there is more of an onus on the person who is advocating a change to fully understand the implications of that change than there is for the person who wants to keep things the same for now.

 

[Bromley boy]

But it wasn't a rerun of the vote. It was a new vote for a new treaty that didn't contain the provisions which had been found objectionable. That's how negotiation works - offer, counter-offer, repeat, agreement.

But this is exactly the point - the Irish referendum was supposed to be a yes/no result. “No” should mean exactly that - tweaking things and representing the question makes a mockery of the process.

Any negotiation should surely include an ability to walk away from the deal if that is desired, otherwise it isn’t really a negotiation at all.

Were the EU at any stage prepared to say “let’s abandon this proposed reform” - of course not, they were determined to get it through by hook or by crook.

 

[Moonshot]

Well that is exactly it, a lot of people who voted leave didn't have a clue what they were voting for.

totally agree - oddly enough my partner voted Leave , and whilst I love her to bits, I cant say she is super intelligent with a good grasp on current affairs .....her vision is somewhat clouded by the fact she works in an area with a high percentage of Eastern Euro migrants and ner do wells

 

[EM2]

Yes all this is saying is what I already knew. The treaty was proposed, rejected and the treaty was then proposed again. Asking again and again until the “right” answer was produced.

Can you not see how that is undemocratic?

The following comment in the Guardian, written at the time, sums it up very well.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/dec/13/eu-ireland-lisbon-treaty

I'll revisit this later because I'm on my phone right now, but suffice to say that I was living in Ireland at the time and know exactly how the Treaty was ratified.

 

[Bromley boy]

Is the UK in it's current state the same as it was in 1975? Is the world, in it's current form, the same as it was in 1975?

But do you think it’s right that something the U.K. voted to join in 1975 should be able to change so fundamentally without any further direct votes being put to the population?

We signed up to join a trading block. We now find ourselves members of a bureaucracy that legislates over virtually our entire lives.

 

[Bromley boy]

totally agree - oddly enough my partner voted Leave , and whilst I love her to bits, I cant say she is super intelligent with a good grasp on current affairs .....her vision is somewhat clouded by the fact she works in an area with a high percentage of Eastern Euro migrants and ner do wells

Blimey, I wouldn’t show her that post.

 

[EM2]

But do you think it’s right that something the U.K. voted to join in 1975 should be able to change so fundamentally without any further direct votes being put to the population?

Yes. That's what we vote Parliaments in for.

 

[fowler9]

I value the national identity of living in a country that has been formed over millennia.

And you want to keep it at one particular point in recent history which we can never go back to and is irrelevant today.

 

[Bromley boy]

We can argue all day and all night about the right and wrongs of it today but I still believe we would be better inside the tent spitting out than outside the tent spitting in. You would have to wonder what a catalyst would be if Nissan decided to shut the car plant in the North east and re locate it to somewhere like Poland.

That’s a fair view to come to. Obviously I am on the other side of the fence but I can certainly respect that viewpoint. I certainly share your concern at the economic uncertainty of BREXIT.

Nobody on either side, however knowledgeable and educated they may be, really knows how things will end up. All anyone can do is go with their gut feel.

 

[Moonshot]

Blimey, I wouldn’t show her that post.

I just did......looks like my Saturday night legover has just gone down the swanny !!

 

[Bromley boy]

Yes. That's what we vote Parliaments in for.

So, on that basis, presumably you believe the 1975 referendum shouldn’t have been held?
In that case, I’m sure you’ll agree, it’s lucky we’ve been able to reverse it .

 

[Moonshot]

That’s a fair view to come to. Obviously I am on the other side of the fence but I can certainly respect that viewpoint. I certainly share your concern at the economic uncertainty of BREXIT.

Nobody on either side, however knowledgeable and educated they may be, really knows how things will end up. All anyone can do is go with their gut feel.

personally I wish the referendum had never happened at all......with hindsight of course. I was astonished last night when I happened to be watching a fly on the wall documentary about an employment agency in Bognor which had relied on Eastern Europeans to fill low paid agency jobs in the hospitality sector. Owned by 2 ladies, one of them had actually voted to leave the EU.

 

[najaB]

Were the EU at any stage prepared to say “let’s abandon this proposed reform” - of course not, they were determined to get it through by hook or by crook.

If it became clear that a member state wasn't willing to negotiate on a key proposal then they would have had no choice but to do so.

 

[Moonshot]

If it became clear that a member state wasn't willing to negotiate on a key proposal then they would have had no choice but to do so.

A veto vote ?

 

[Bromley boy]

And you want to keep it at one particular point in recent history which we can never go back to and is irrelevant today.

I certainly don't.

I just have enough faith in this country to trust that we will be ok despite what the EU bully boys may say.

If you think about it the EU is a flash in the pan compared to the centuries long development of the UK and other European countries, which are culturally and economically fundamentally different. The original concept of a trading block was fine but a federal European superstate, which the project is moving towards, will never work.

Take the single currency - it is doing a pretty good job of wrecking the economies of Spain and Greece, who cannot regulate their own economies by reducing interest rates or devaluing.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

If it became clear that a member state wasn't willing to negotiate on a key proposal then they would have had no choice but to do so.

DISCLAIMER: Things could've changed since I last read up on the issue, so I might be wrong yet again.

Such will not be the nature of any trade deals the UK has with the EU. Every member state (bar Britain of course) must agree to any trade deals if I am not mistaken. This is further complicates the process because while Germany might make a good amount of money selling their cars to us, as well as Spain relishing sun tourists who'll never get 40-degree weather on Crosby beach, some countries just couldn't care less about our needs, and in fact it may be against their interests to vote in favour of any new deals. This is one reason why I dislike the EU's structure, because not every trade deal will suit a country's own interest, hence why I'd rather every country, whether in or out, should be able to negotiate it's own deals.

But even considering that I am wrong and there is no unanimous agreement required, when it comes to any trade deals at all, I'd be surprised if this was done in the given time period. Let's be honest, Article 50 was pretty much designed to screw anybody over who wanted to leave the union, because two years is just not enough time to set up a trade deal with a bloc that will have to cater to 27 different countries with different needs. Not to mention, a year has already nearly been wasted and very little has come about it. It took Canada eight years to get the deal it has now, so I don't expect Britain to be given any sort of deal that is a decent compromise in the next two years.

 

[fowler9]

I certainly don't.

I just have enough faith in this country to trust that we will be ok despite what the EU bully boys may say.

If you think about it the EU is a flash in the pan compared to the centuries long development of the UK and other European countries, which are culturally and economically fundamentally different. The original concept of a trading block was fine but a federal European superstate, which the project is moving towards, will never work.

Take the single currency - it is doing a pretty good job of wrecking the economies of Spain and Greece, who cannot regulate their own economies by reducing interest rates or devaluing.

In all fairness mate I doubted you did, some do. I was chatting to the bloke I sit next to in work the other day about some issue or other related to Europe and he said "You know, you'd think they would be grateful for all the amazing things this country has done for the world", you know, because Brits are somehow genetically and socially exceptional in some way which is clearly and demonstrably ridiculous. There are a lot of people who think we should get our own way because we are somehow better than everyone else. The popular press of course helps with this kind of thinking.

 

[najaB]

... hence why I'd rather every country, whether in or out, should be able to negotiate it's own deals...

That's a complete non-starter in a customs union.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

That's a complete non-starter in a customs union.

There's always bound to be a catch.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

Take the single currency - it is doing a pretty good job of wrecking the economies of Spain and Greece, who cannot regulate their own economies by reducing interest rates or devaluing.

Though it is now enshrined into EU laws that countries joining have to join the Euro, the idea of a single currency could be a separate issue altogether. The idea of a single currency isn't inherently bad though, it'd be much easier for cross-border travelers and tourists not having to get their money exchanged, and it can help in certain cross-border projects.

The problem is, it doesn't work when every country has different interest rates, and has different economic strength and stability. For example, several countries could be doing very well economically, but all it takes is just one to mess things up for everyone. If Australia used the Pound Sterling, then it would be affected by the pound's drop after the result despite having nothing to do with it.

Furthermore, every country taking part loses it's power to control it's own economy, and this wouldn't be an issue if it shared economic interests with other countries. Fact is though it doesn't. If Spain would need to increase or decrease interest rates, then it has no power to do so, and even if the rates were reduced for them, it would have an impact on Germany who aren't struggling anywhere near as much.

So ultimately, I would say that a single currency is a separate, though related in this case, issue to the European Union. Even a lot who voted Remain didn't support the idea of adopting the Euro. Imagine if we voted Leave while under that? The drop would drastically affect every other country, and we couldn't increase or decrease our interest rates to try and ease things up anymore.

 

[Bromley boy]

In all fairness mate I doubted you did, some do. I was chatting to the bloke I sit next to in work the other day about some issue or other related to Europe and he said "You know, you'd think they would be grateful for all the amazing things this country has done for the world", you know, because Brits are somehow genetically and socially exceptional in some way which is clearly and demonstrably ridiculous. There are a lot of people who think we should get our own way because we are somehow better than everyone else. The popular press of course helps with this kind of thinking.

Yep I think there’s a middle ground to be occupied here. I think sometimes we go too far the other way in this country and are almost ashamed of our history.

It’s possible to be a proud Brit without being a racist or a xenophobic. Nationalism tends to be associated with jack boots and swastikas but it doesn’t have to mean that - it’s possible to be proud of the U.K. and its history without also believing we Brit’s are somehow better than others.

 

[Bromley boy]

Though it is now enshrined into EU laws that countries joining have to join the Euro, the idea of a single currency could be a separate issue altogether. The idea of a single currency isn't inherently bad though, it'd be much easier for cross-border travelers and tourists not having to get their money exchanged, and it can help in certain cross-border projects.

The problem is, it doesn't work when every country has different interest rates, and has different economic strength and stability. For example, several countries could be doing very well economically, but all it takes is just one to mess things up for everyone. If Australia used the Pound Sterling, then it would be affected by the pound's drop after the result despite having nothing to do with it.

Furthermore, every country taking part loses it's power to control it's own economy, and this wouldn't be an issue if it shared economic interests with other countries. Fact is though it doesn't. If Spain would need to increase or decrease interest rates, then it has no power to do so, and even if the rates were reduced for them, it would have an impact on Germany who aren't struggling anywhere near as much.

So ultimately, I would say that a single currency is a separate, though related in this case, issue to the European Union. Even a lot who voted Remain didn't support the idea of adopting the Euro. Imagine if we voted Leave while under that? The drop would drastically affect every other country, and we couldn't increase or decrease our interest rates to try and ease things up anymore.

Yes agreed.

My overall view is that the EU would be fine as a trading block but does not work as a the current political project aiming for ever closer political and economic integration. The member countries are all too different both economically and culturally.