Corbyn sacks former leadership rival over Brexit claims

[northwichcat]

If Remain had won, you can bet any Leavers asking for a second referendum would be ridiculed and vilified.

If Turkey had joined the EU and freedom of movement included Turkey I would be surprised if the likes of Farage hadn't demanded a new referendum despite Leave implying Turkey could join the EU at any time in their campaign.

 

[northwichcat]

It really does not matter anyway. The vote was split on ideological grounds rather than practical ones.

People who voted Leave basically voted that way to stick two fingers up at the “metropolitan elite”.

Since the referendum (in which I voted Remain), whenever I’ve taken a journey through a deprived area like Medway or Teesside or South Wales, I’ve thought to myself: “Jeez, what a forgotten-about dump. I bet they voted Leave here”. And I’ve always been right. Generally, if a place is a dive, the vote was to Leave.

The Leave vote was predominantly white, lower class, less likely to have a degree and more likely to have low incomes.

It was a great big “F you” to people who for too long haven’t given a toss about white working class people. Me included.

Agreed. I think if David Cameron and George Osborne had taken back seats rather than campaigning for Remain or if the Greens had led the Remain campaign it would have made a huge difference. Going back to Corbyn I think he said something like he was 60-40 in favour of remaining at one point, that was probably one of the most sensible things anyone said in the whole campaign, no-one sensible would think the EU is perfect or that there are no disadvantages of leaving but the way people on both sides were talking it sounded like the EU is either perfect or evil.

 

[Bromley boy]

Osborne said he would hike income tax, he didn't say it was official Conservative Party policy that income tax would be hiked in the even of us voting to leave. Within a few weeks of the leave vote he was removed from his post.

But the fact remains this was deliberate scare mongering by the then chancellor intended to frighten people into voting the “right” way. It’s there in black and white and I don’t see how you can credibly deny it.

Please try and show a little objectivity. You have fixated in excruciating detail on the £350m claim made by leave yet are apparently unwilling acknowledge that similar tactics were used by remain.

The other point deliberately missed by remainers is that savings realised by leaving will be realised on an ongoing basis in years to come. It should be obvious to anyone that the process of brexit is enormous and there will be transient costs associated with it in the short term.

 

[Bromley boy]

If Turkey had joined the EU and freedom of movement included Turkey I would be surprised if the likes of Farage hadn't demanded a new referendum despite Leave implying Turkey could join the EU at any time in their campaign.

THe possibility of this happening (however remote in the short term) is another excellent reason to jump off the sinking ship of the EU.

 

[Domh245]

The other point deliberately missed by remainers is that savings realised by leaving might be realised on an ongoing basis in years to come

Fixed that for you. Any savings from the 'membership fee' will soon be wasted away to cover things that the EU funded, as well as any impacts from lost trade etc.

 

[edwin_m]

What consequences of being outside the EU are apparent in 2018 that weren’t in 2016? None, because nobody really knows what the eventual consequences will be.

And that's exactly the problem. We still don't know what the deal will be and with only 52% supporting whatever form of Leave in 2016, it's quite likely that when the details of Leave become clear less than half the voters will support it. So a second referendum is necessary for democracy, once the details of the deal are known.

If Remain had won, you can bet any Leavers asking for a second referendum would be ridiculed and vilified.

Probably so, because by calling the referendum without a clear definition of the terms of leaving Cameron split society right down the middle. In my view the only hope of mending this is to have another vote to give the chosen option (remain or leave) a clear democratic mandate.

It really does not matter anyway. The vote was split on ideological grounds rather than practical ones.

People who voted Leave basically voted that way to stick two fingers up at the “metropolitan elite”.

Since the referendum (in which I voted Remain), whenever I’ve taken a journey through a deprived area like Medway or Teesside or South Wales, I’ve thought to myself: “Jeez, what a forgotten-about dump. I bet they voted Leave here”. And I’ve always been right. Generally, if a place is a dive, the vote was to Leave.

The Leave vote was predominantly white, lower class, less likely to have a degree and more likely to have low incomes.

It was a great big “F you” to people who for too long haven’t given a toss about white working class people. Me included.

Ironically, EU membership has benefited the deprived parts of South Wales (we have middling and wealthy areas too) with lots of funding for various projects.

And the fact the vote wasn't about the EU at all is another reason the result should not be treated as sacred. The neglect of most of England outside the south-east is the responsibility of successive Westminster governments of different parties over many decades, compounded by a policy of excessive austerity from 2010 onwards which hit those regions worst. It has nothing at all to do with the EU, which has actually tried to redress the balance. People may argue that as we contribute more to the EU than the EU invests in the UK the government could continue that investment after leaving - but the past track record of Westminster governments suggests they won't do that, and even if one does its successor might not. This is one of several ways in which the EU tries to hold its member governments to international norms and check the drift to extremism of either left or right, both of which are a risk in Britain today.

I have mixed feelings about Osborne in this respect. He initiated austerity which he knew would get the Tories elected but was also almost certainly clever enough to know was the wrong policy for the country. And he had a lot to do with the 2015 electoral strategy which wiped out the Lib Dems and with them the excuse Cameron was counting on not to have the referendum he had foolishly promised. But he did start trying to rebalance investment towards the regions, though possibly just for electoral reasons.

 

[northwichcat]

But the fact remains this was deliberate scare mongering by the then chancellor intended to frighten people into voting the “right” way. It’s there in black and white and I don’t see how you can credibly deny it.

Please try and show a little objectivity. You have fixated in excruciating detail on the £350m claim made by leave yet are apparently unwilling acknowledge that similar tactics were used by remain.

OK I'll accept there was one big lie told by the Remain side - that was that David Cameron said he wouldn't resign if Leave won. We all knew his position would be untenable if Leave won and that he was just saying it because he didn't want people to vote Leave just to get rid of him, so it's a lot more understandable than the £350m for the NHS claim. Osborne said what he would do but he was sacked before he could do it but despite that Philip Hammond has come much closer to delivering what Osborne promised then you're willing to admit, does it really matter that he tried to increase NI receipts instead of Income Tax receipts or that the amount he's put aside for Brexit is only £3.7bn so far when he's said more money may still need to be put aside at a later date?

The other point deliberately missed by remainers is that savings realised by leaving will be realised on an ongoing basis in years to come. It should be obvious to anyone that the process of brexit is enormous and there will be transient costs associated with it in the short term.

Which is one reason I voted remain, it's quite frankly ludicrous that we are spending billions on leaving the EU when the proposed benefits are unproven and we haven't properly recovered from the recession 10 years ago. It was a completely inappropriate time to call a vote on the EU, not just because of that but because the referendum was prior to most European countries holding their elections, it would have made a huge difference to the EU if Ms La Penn had been elected president of France or if Ms Markel was no longer German Chancellor.

 

[Bromley boy]

And that's exactly the problem. We still don't know what the deal will be and with only 52% supporting whatever form of Leave in 2016, it's quite likely that when the details of Leave become clear less than half the voters will support it. So a second referendum is necessary for democracy, once the details of the deal are known.

But regardless of the deal struck the true consequences of Brexit won’t be known for years, possibly decades. We need to leave and if things change in the years and decades to come perhaps consider rejoining then.

Can you not also see that it would be impossible to negotiate on the basis that a bad deal would prevent brexit. It would be sheer stupidity.

In my view the only hope of mending this is to have another vote to give the chosen option (remain or leave) a clear democratic mandate.

We have voted to leave the EU and we are now doing so. What it is you think needs to be mended? Leaving already has a Democratic mandate from the first referendum.

Another vote!? And if you get the wrong result again, no doubt you’ll be calling for another vote and another one until the “right” result is obtained.

How democratic!

And the fact the vote wasn't about the EU at all is another reason the result should not be treated as sacred.

You mean the vote asking whether or not we wish the UK to remain in the EU? I think you find it had something to do with it...

 

[northwichcat]

Leaving already has a Democratic mandate from the first referendum.

So did we vote for a Norway style deal, a Switzerland style deal, a Canada style deal or no deal? Can you not accept if some of those voting leave wanted a Norway style deal they wouldn't be happy to leave with no deal, or that those who want no deal wouldn't be happy to leave with a Norway style deal? Even though I voted remain and the Norway deal is closest to what I voted for, I'm not sure it's the right kind of deal as in some ways it removes advantages being in the EU and retains disadvantages of being in the EU.

 

[edwin_m]

Can you not also see that it would be impossible to negotiate on the basis that a bad deal would prevent brexit. It would be sheer stupidity.

The EU is negotiating from the point of view of protecting the interests of the remaining member states (and rightly so from their point of view). The UK has had to concede on practically every point, and whether there is another vote or not makes no difference to the line they will take.

We need to leave and if things change in the years and decades to come perhaps consider rejoining then.

When we would be unlikely to retain the various opt-outs that we enjoy at present.

 

[Bromley boy]

It was a completely inappropriate time to call a vote on the EU,

That’s because the promise to hold the vote was in the last Tory manifesto, intended as a ploy to shut Farage up. It therefore had to be called at some point.

When would an appropriate time to hold a referendum be?

So did we vote for a Norway style deal, a Switzerland style deal, a Canada style deal or no deal? Can you not accept if some of those voting leave wanted a Norway style deal they wouldn't be happy to leave with no deal, or that those who want no deal wouldn't be happy to leave with a Norway style deal? Even though I voted remain and the Norway deal is closest to what I voted for, I'm not sure it's the right kind of deal as in some ways it removes advantages being in the EU and retains disadvantages of being in the EU.

But it would be impossible to have framed a question on the final deal or based on what the final consequences of leaving are going to be because they are currently unknown and unknowable.

Yes leavers probably all have their own idea of what Brexit should be, but that arguments goes both ways as most remainers are not all happy with the EU, and many believe aspects of the relationship should be changed or renegotiated.

A remain vote also isn’t a vote for the “status quo” as the last 40 years have shown, the mid 70s remain vote was for a totally different beast than the EU in its current form.

So if we are going to start discounting leave votes on the basis that leave voters want different things, we had better also discount an equal number of remain votes and we will be left with the same result.

The people who want another referendum on the terms of Brexit (which would be meaningless in any case as we still won’t know what the effects will be for many years) just want to remain in the EU at all costs and are trying to frustrate the expressed will of the electorate.

 

[northwichcat]

That’s because the promise to hold the vote was in the last Tory manifesto, intended as a ploy to shut Farage up. It therefore had to be called at some point.

When would an appropriate time to hold a referendum be?

When the country's books were balanced and we had a budget surplus - anytime in the late 90s/early 00s would have been fine. I've no idea when we'll next have a budget surplus.

But it would be impossible to have framed a question on the final deal or based on what the final consequences of leaving are going to be because they are currently unknown and unknowable.

A remain vote also isn’t a vote for the “status quo” as the last 40 years have shown, the mid 70s remain vote was for a totally different beast than the EU in its current form.

So if we are going to start discounting leave votes on the basis that leave voters want different things, we had better also discount an equal number of remain votes and we will be left with the same result.

The people who want another referendum on the terms of Brexit (which would be meaningless in any case as we still won’t know what the effects will be for many years) just want to remain in the EU at all costs and are trying to frustrate the expressed will of the electorate

Re-read what you're saying both here and in this thread. You want the result of the referendum to be acted on so the public get what they want but there's not enough information to indicate what type of Brexit the public want, hence a second referendum would get that information. What you're scared of is the fact you have no idea what the result of such a referendum might be, if the majority of the public want a Norway style deal and the government can't deliver it then they can't just say let's go for hard Brexit instead as they won't have a mandate for hard Brexit, especially if under 48% in a second referendum want hard Brexit.

 

[northwichcat]

When we would be unlikely to retain the various opt-outs that we enjoy at present.

Indeed, as Scotland discovered when they looked in to what would happen if Scotland was to become independent and then join the EU.

 

[dosxuk]

But it would be impossible to have framed a question on the final deal or based on what the final consequences of leaving are going to be because they are currently unknown and unknowable.

The thing is that the leave side(s) never even came up with a plan for people to vote for. With the Scottish referendum, the Scottish executive came up with a plan, and presented an analysis as to the effects of that plan. Leave did nothing, and just held on to the same old red-tape/bendy-bananas and immigrants-are-stealing-all-your-jobs-and-benefits/omg-turkey arguments that have motivated people for years. Anyway, it's not like that they wanted to suggest a plan anyway, as it would have split their vote and guaranteed a remain win, the free-market, the EU restricts us too much big business lot were never going to vote for the close-the-borders / kick-out-all-the-immigrants that a lot of the poorly paid working class would like, and vice versa.

Even if the effects can't be known at the stage of the referendum, they should have used the time between the referendum and enacting Article 50 to actually go out and do the work to look at what is the best option for the whole country, not just the Tory donators and voters in a handful of marginal seats. Those reports the DExEU did/didn't/might have/did commision should have been completed, published and debated long before Theresa signed off on the job. The fact that now, a year before we leave, and we still don't know what the Government's favoured option for our departure is, is just farcical, and an embarrasment.

Anyway, the only worse campaign in history than the Leave campaign was that run by the Remain team, who completely forgot they were supposed to be talking about the good points of EU membership and instead went on a doom-laden, you-can't-believe-what-they're-saying tactic which would never work. Even Gove claiming experts were not worth listening too didn't make them think that maybe there's a better option than just rolling out more bad news, instead they tried to scare us that house prices might become more affordable. It was the blooming Government running this campaign, they could have single-handedly defeated the "leaving the EU will get us back our blue passports" argument by announcing they were going to change the colour of passports to blue, within the EU rules.

 

[Bromley boy]

You want the result of the referendum to be acted on so the public get what they want but there's not enough information to indicate what type of Brexit the public want, hence a second referendum would get that information. What you're scared of is the fact you have no idea what the result of such a referendum might be, if the majority of the public want a Norway style deal and the government can't deliver it then they can't just say let's go for hard Brexit instead as they won't have a mandate for hard Brexit, especially if under 48% in a second referendum want hard Brexit

It makes no sense to say “they don’t have a mandate for a hard/soft Brexit”. Of course they have neither.

Quite simply the government has a mandate to withdraw the country from the EU. Quite how this is done is to be determined by them, just as with all other detailed areas of policy.

I’d suggest the average leave voter would at a minimum expect withdrawal from the EU and the common market with the various free movements. As I said above, people were not voting for things to remain the same and a de jure withdrawal which retains the constraints of common market membership would seem to go completely against the spirit of withdrawing in the first place.

What frustrates me about the calls for a further vote is that the people asking for it don’t want information on what kind of Brexit people want, they actually just want to frustrate the process and prevent it from happening.

I’m not scared at all largely because:

1. I think it’s now settled that there won’t in fact be a second referendum before we withdraw;

2. Even if there were another vote, it’s far from clear that the public would vote for a soft Brexit. They might vote for the hardest possible exit! As someone who wishes to remain/for a soft version of Brexit, you should therefore be very careful what you wish for!

We seem to have spent a lot of this thread re running the Brexit campaign, and we are two years too late for that. I’d suggest you should now simply accept the result of the vote didn’t go your way and move on from it.

 

[northwichcat]

I’d suggest the average leave voter would at a minimum expect withdrawal from the EU and the common market with the various free movements. As I said above, people were not voting for things to remain the same and a de jure withdrawal which retains the constraints of common market membership would seem to go completely against the spirit of withdrawing in the first place.

What frustrates me about the calls for a further vote is that the people asking for it don’t want information on what kind of Brexit people want, they actually just want to frustrate the process and prevent it from happening.

And what frustrates me (and even a number of people who voted leave) is a few hardcore Brexiteers claim they think we voted to leave the single market full stop, that we didn't vote for a transitional period etc. I'd suggest the majority of leave voters couldn't care less about the single market unless being in the single market means we have to accept the continuation of freedom of movement.

I think it’s now settled that there won’t in fact be a second referendum before we withdraw;

Given the current government doesn't have a majority and we haven't left the EU I don't think you can say anything is guaranteed to happen or not happen.

Even if there were another vote, it’s far from clear that the public would vote for a soft Brexit. They might vote for the hardest possible exit! As someone who wishes to remain/for a soft version of Brexit, you should therefore be very careful what you wish for!

You'll note in an earlier post I said I don't see the point of a Norway style deal as it means we lose many advantages of being in the EU but retain many disadvantages. I've also said in the actual Brexit thread (before you hijacked this one to tell us about your anti-EU views again) that the end solution may well be one the majority of the country isn't happy with, if the majority of voters think the Brexit deal is worse than being in the EU then why should it be forced through?

 

[WelshBluebird]

THe possibility of this happening (however remote in the short term) is another excellent reason to jump off the sinking ship of the EU.

You realise that us leaving actually increases the chance of that happening?
We had a VERY strong position in the EU that we could have used to block such a change.

I’d suggest the average leave voter would at a minimum expect withdrawal from the EU and the common market with the various free movements.

Based on what exactly?
Considering in the lead up to the referendum, quite a few prominent figures on the leave side said that "no one is talking about leaving the single market"?

If Remain had won, you can bet any Leavers asking for a second referendum would be ridiculed and vilified.

A certain prominent Leaver was saying a 52% - 48% result should get a second referendum BEFORE the vote even happened (of course under the assumption that leave would be on the losing side, not the winning one). So why can't we hold him to what he said back then?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Now Jeremy's leader no dissent is allowed. If I thought he'd understand its meaning I'd recommend a reading of 'Animal Farm.'

Seems a bit harsh. Owen Smith spoke out very publicly against what currently appear to be the agreed position of the Labour Party on Brexit, and usually in the UK that would be a sacking offence for a member of the cabinet or shadow cabinet (The exceptions tend to be when the party leader is too weak to be in a position to sack people). Personally, I think that's regrettable, and I'd far prefer it if political culture in the UK allowed politicians to speak out to a greater extent when they disagreed with their own party. But politics in the UK isn't like that, and you probably can't blame Jeremy Corbyn for acting in accordance with usual political practice in the UK.

Personally I have a lot of sympathy with Owen Smith and do generally agree with him. I find myself in the odd position where if I was in Owen Smith's position, I'd probably have spoken up in much the same way that he did. But, given how politics in the UK works, I'd also have expected to be sacked for doing so.

 

[edwin_m]

Seems a bit harsh. Owen Smith spoke out very publicly against what currently appear to be the agreed position of the Labour Party on Brexit, and usually in the UK that would be a sacking offence for a member of the cabinet or shadow cabinet (The exceptions tend to be when the party leader is too weak to be in a position to sack people).

As in the Tory party at present...

 

[Bromley boy]

I'd suggest the majority of leave voters couldn't care less about the single market unless being in the single market means we have to accept the continuation of freedom of movement.

But accepting freedom of movement is a condition of remaining in the single market, as we keep being told by the EU. So we certainly need to leave.

Given the current government doesn't have a majority and we haven't left the EU I don't think you can say anything is guaranteed to happen or not happen.

But there is no further election until after we leave, the leader of the opposition also wants us to withdraw from the EU (even more than the PM does) and seems to spending more time denying that his party is one bit stinking cess pit of anti semitism than actually behaving as a functioning opposition.

I think what you need to accept is the following:

1. The country elected a government that had an “in out” referendum on continued EU membership as part of its mandate which would then be acted upon;

2. Leave won that referendum;

3. The final Brexit deal once negotiated by the government is going to be voted on in parliament;

4. You are of course entitled to vote for parties wishing to rejoin the EU at future elections, and indeed could form your own political party and try to get people to vote for you.

Assuming you’ve participated in the above elections you’ve had your say on the matter, just as I have had mine. You can’t ask for any more than that. That’s just the way democracy works.

It’s ridiculous to be asking for a further referendum at a point in the proceedings where we still won’t have left and still won’t know what the consequences of doing so will be.

I've also said in the actual Brexit thread (before you hijacked this one to tell us about your anti-EU views again) that the end solution may well be one the majority of the country isn't happy with, if the majority of voters think the Brexit deal is worse than being in the EU then why should it be forced through?

I didn’t hijack it but I couldn’t let the biased anti Brexit statements in the OP to unchallenged!

The end solution of a binary vote will always be one the majority aren’t happy with. Even if we had remained, the majority of remainders also express concern that “the EU is far from perfect, lots of disadvantages” etc. Most remainders I know only voted remain because they are scared property prices may fall.

I note you ignored my question earlier so I’ll repeat it: since you are evidently unhappy with an in/out referendum, why do you believe it’s acceptable to be in the EU in the first place, since that membership was also determined by a binary in/out referendum?

If you accept the 1970s vote, you should acccept the 2016 vote, even if you don’t like the result. It’s hypocritical not to.

Personally I’d far rather be outside the EU even at the expense of some economic growth* because I value national identity and wish to continue living in a self determining democracy.

*even though it’s by no means certain that we will be economically worse off.

 

[Bromley boy]

You realise that us leaving actually increases the chance of that happening?
We had a VERY strong position in the EU that we could have used to block such a change.

Ha! Because the U.K. has such a great track record of influencing what is done by Brussels doesn’t it. It’s naive in the extreme to suggest we would have been able to prevent that happening.

I couldn’t care less what happens to the EU after we have left. I hope the whole sorry mess either reforms or falls apart, as I suspect it will in the long term. I expect the unemployed masses in Spain and Greece share my sentiments.

Based on what exactly?
Considering in the lead up to the referendum, quite a few prominent figures on the leave side said that "no one is talking about leaving the single market"?

Well for one thing we know a great many leave voters have concerns about immigration so it follows that they are anti free movement of people. As the EU keeps telling us you can’t have one without the other.

A certain prominent Leaver was saying a 52% - 48% result should get a second referendum BEFORE the vote even happened (of course under the assumption that leave would be on the losing side, not the winning one). So why can't we hold him to what he said back then?

Again I find these statements laughable. If the vote had gone the other way you’d have absolutely no interest in revisiting it and any leavers wishing for a re run would be ridiculed, pilloried and laughed at.

Personally I had already made my peace with the fact that the referendum was the last opportunity to reject the U.K.’s slide towards becoming part of an EU superstate run by Brussels. If the result had gone the other way I was prepared to accept it.

 

[northwichcat]

But accepting freedom of movement is a condition of remaining in the single market, as we keep being told by the EU. So we certainly need to leave.

No it's not. Norway chose freedom of movement over paying contributions to the EU for being in the single market.

But there is no further election until after we leave, the leader of the opposition also wants us to withdraw from the EU (even more than the PM does) and seems to spending more time denying that his party is one bit stinking cess pit of anti semitism than actually behaving as a functioning opposition.

In 2015 it was said the next election would be 2020, yet we had one in 2017 when there was a hung parliament. No party having a majority significantly increases the chance of an early election and there's certainly no guarantee Corbyn will remain Labour leader long term for the precise reasons you mention.

It’s ridiculous to be asking for a further referendum at a point in the proceedings where we still won’t have left and still won’t know what the consequences of doing so will be.

It's more ridiculous for anyone to claim they know what type of Brexit the British people want or even if they still want Brexit if the claims the Leave campaign can't be delivered. As has been said Leave didn't offer any specific type of Brexit, we can't have the advantages of a Norway style deal if we have hard Brexit and we can't have the advantages of hard Brexit if we settle for a Norway style deal.

If you accept the 1970s vote, you should acccept the 2016 vote, even if you don’t like the result. It’s hypocritical not to.

I wasn't born, never mind old enough to vote when the 1970s vote happened. What people like yourself probably realise is there's a lot of angry young people who want to remain but weren't old enough to vote in 2016, while a significant number of those who voted leave won't live to see Brexit happen. That's why you want the 2016 vote to be the final ever vote on the EU.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The end solution of a binary vote will always be one the majority aren’t happy with. Even if we had remained, the majority of remainders also express concern that “the EU is far from perfect, lots of disadvantages” etc. Most remainders I know only voted remain because they are scared property prices may fall.

Interesting how different groups of people see different things The majority of remainers I know (including myself) - so far as I can tell - voted remain because of a sense that the UK's place is as part of an international community, that where you are born shouldn't impact your worth as a human being, and that we should be using whatever institutions are there to work with other countries, not trying to isolate ourselves. And I would say that most of that group were perfectly comfortable with the idea that we share some sovereignty for the sake of the common good (Indeed, I suspect that some of those people might well have become more sympathetic to the idea of leaving the EU if the Leave campaign in 2016 hadn't come across as so xenophobic in nature). A smaller, but still significant, number, voted remain because of a belief that EU membership is better for trade and for our economy as a whole. I can't think of anyone in my circle of contacts who gave me any sense of being motivated by property prices.

I note you ignored my question earlier so I’ll repeat it: since you are evidently unhappy with an in/out referendum, why do you believe it’s acceptable to be in the EU in the first place, since that membership was also determined by a binary in/out referendum?

If you accept the 1970s vote, you should acccept the 2016 vote, even if you don’t like the result. It’s hypocritical not to.

I can't speak for jcollins whom you were addressing that question to, but it seems to me that one obvious answer is, if you believe (as I do) that referenda are not a sensible way of Governing the country. We have representative democracy for a reason: To balance the need to give people a say in their futures with the need for political and economic decisions to be made by people who have some competence to make those decisions, and who are able to be guided by expert/professional opinion on what the impacts of those decisions would be - to a far greater extent than is true of the average voter. I'm too young to have much detailed knowledge of the circumstances around the 1970s vote, but my suspicion would be that the decision to have that vote would have been just as flawed as the decision to have the 2016 vote - because the decision to enter the Common Market should have been taken based on professional advice by the democratically elected Government of the day, not based on asking millions of people who would have had virtually no idea of precisely what the then EEC involved.

 

[northwichcat]

I can't speak for jcollins whom you were addressing that question to, but it seems to me that one obvious answer is, if you believe (as I do) that referenda are not a sensible way of Governing the country. We have representative democracy for a reason: To balance the need to give people a say in their futures with the need for political and economic decisions to be made by people who have some competence to make those decisions, and who are able to be guided by expert/professional opinion on what the impacts of those decisions would be - to a far greater extent than is true of the average voter. I'm too young to have much detailed knowledge of the circumstances around the 1970s vote, but my suspicion would be that the decision to have that vote would have been just as flawed as the decision to have the 2016 vote - because the decision to enter the Common Market should have been taken based on professional advice by the democratically elected Government of the day, not based on asking millions of people who would have had virtually no idea of precisely what the then EEC involved.

I also don't think most people understood what the consequences of remaining or leaving would be. The referendum was to advise the government of public opinion, even after it happened they didn't have a 'mandate from the public' to do anything, especially considering what information was and wasn't circulated to the voting public ahead of the referendum and I'm not just saying that because leave won. For instance, we were told by some the chance of Turkey joining the EU was extremely small so if remain had won and Turkey then joined the EU, claims of having a mandate from the public to remain would have been invalid.

Bromley Boy claims both the Conservatives and Labour support Brexit, yet when the Conservatives were backing staying in the EU they won enough seats to have a majority government but when they said they were to take us out of the EU as per the 'mandate from public' they lost their majority. The EU must be very low down on the list of priorities for the voting public.

 

[Bromley boy]

No it's not. Norway chose freedom of movement over paying contributions to the EU for being in the single market.

It’s been made abundantly clear that we can’t cherrypick. I’m open minded on what the final arrangements are but it’s difficult to see a scenario where it is beneficial to retain the disadvantages without the advantages, and without a seat at the table, so to speak. We are probably agreed on that point.

In 2015 it was said the next election would be 2020, yet we had one in 2017 when there was a hung parliament. No party having a majority significantly increases the chance of an early election and there's certainly no guarantee Corbyn will remain Labour leader long term for the precise reasons you mention.

I’m keeping my fingers crossed he remains for the medium term. Luckily there are lots of extreme left wingers who joined the Labour Party specifically to elect him and are hell bent on keeping him in power. Unless he himself decides to throw the towel in I can’t see him leaving until after the next election.

It's more ridiculous for anyone to claim they know what type of Brexit the British people want or even if they still want Brexit if the claims the Leave campaign can't be delivered. As has been said Leave didn't offer any specific type of Brexit, we can't have the advantages of a Norway style deal if we have hard Brexit and we can't have the advantages of hard Brexit if we settle for a Norway style deal.

The only claim of the leave campaign that mattered was leaving the EU. The detailed policy is now to be worked out by the government. If remain had won and we had continued with things as they currently, we would have continued with a situation many remainers were also unhappy with. That is the nature of a binary in out/vote.

You still aren’t addressing my previous point that our current membership of the EU was determined by an in\out referendum. In that referendum nobody voting “in” was voting for the EU in its current form. If that is acceptable to you, and evidently it is, why can’t you accept that a leave vote in 2016 is equally valid, even though the precise nature of what the deal will look like is currently unknown.

In truth you are quite happy with referenda so long as the result goes the way you want it to.

I wasn't born, never mind old enough to vote when the 1970s vote happened. What people like yourself probably realise is there's a lot of angry young people who want to remain but weren't old enough to vote in 2016, while a significant number of those who voted leave won't live to see Brexit happen. That's why you want the 2016 vote to be the final ever vote on the EU.

Tough!

We have an ageing population. Most of the older people who voted have contributed far more to this country than a load of clueless, whining teenagers and 20-somethings. Surely to goodness you aren’t ageist enough to suggest that older people deserve less of a voice in democracy?

And who are “people like me”? I’m in my early 30s and wasn’t born in the 1970s either, for goodness sake!

I’ve never said it should be the final vote on the EU. As I have stated several times, if things change in the future and it is beneficial to the UK to rejoin, maybe another referendum will be held at that point.

On the contrary, it is you who is apparently suggesting the 2016 referendum should never have been called and is apparently fine with the 1970s referendum being the final ever vote on the EU!

 

[AlterEgo]

Good to see the Brexit butthurt wagon rolls on.

Remain lost, for crying out loud.

By all means campaign to rejoin or whatever - that's part of what a functioning democracy is about. The actual act of voting is not the acid test of whether a democracy is functioning. A strong civil society which tolerates individual freedoms and accepts the opinions of minority and majority voters as sincere and legitimate, is the test of a healthy democracy.

At the moment we don't have a healthy civil society. A large part of the problem is the fact that the moderate left won the cultural war in this country up until the mid-2000s, very decisively. The moderate left now expect to win the political war "for good" as well, but they are surprised at being defeated by people they trampled during the cultural war. Dissent is not tolerated and people who dissent are labelled as hateful or bigoted. At worst, these people are criminalised.

Until we accept that other people may have views which are wholly disagreeable to our own, yet equally sincere, we won't have a healthy civil society.

A strong sub-reason for people voting leave was the erosion of Englishness as a national identity, replaced by the civic identity of "British values" (none of which are uniquely British, like "being nice", and "fair play" btw). It's difficult to know what it is to be English any more.

There are a lot of people who reject the very recent idea of "British values" and we should do well not to forget that.

 

[Bromley boy]

I know (including myself) - so far as I can tell - voted remain because of a sense that the UK's place is as part of an international community, that where you are born shouldn't impact your worth as a human being, and that we should be using whatever institutions are there to work with other countries, not trying to isolate ourselves. And I would say that most of that group were perfectly comfortable with the idea that we share some sovereignty for the sake of the common good (Indeed, I suspect that some of those people might well have become more sympathetic to the idea of leaving the EU if the Leave campaign in 2016 hadn't come across as so xenophobic in nature). A smaller, but still significant, number, voted remain because of a belief that EU membership is better for trade and for our economy as a whole. I can't think of anyone in my circle of contacts who gave me any sense of being motivated by property prices.

There are certainly different groups on both sides of the camp.

On the leave side there were certainly quite a few “little englander” xenophobes. But equally many of us take an internationalist approach, perhaps not dissimilar to your own view, and see the protectionist EU as a constraining rather than a liberating force. I certainly don’t view Brexit as isolationist. On the contrary I would like the UK to have a free hand to trade more freely with the rest of the world and the commonwealth than it is currently able to.

In my circle of contacts I’m one of the few leave voters, but in also one of the few that voted for ideological reasons rather than because they feared the economic consequences of brexit (every remainer I know!).

I have no issue with a mutually beneficial trading agreement which is essentially what the EU started life as. However I have a major problem with what it has become, a federalist bureaucracy which now operates in its own interests rather than in the interests of its member states. The mess Southern Europe is in is good evidence of that (and probably getting off topic of this thread).

For that reason I’m not sure I share your optimism that dilution of sovereignty stemming from EU membership is for the common good as much as it is for the EU’s good (in the sense of the institution itself, rather than the collection of member states).

I can't speak for jcollins whom you were addressing that question to, but it seems to me that one obvious answer is, if you believe (as I do) that referenda are not a sensible way of Governing the country. We have representative democracy for a reason: To balance the need to give people a say in their futures with the need for political and economic decisions to be made by people who have some competence to make those decisions, and who are able to be guided by expert/professional opinion on what the impacts of those decisions would be - to a far greater extent than is true of the average voter. I'm too young to have much detailed knowledge of the circumstances around the 1970s vote, but my suspicion would be that the decision to have that vote would have been just as flawed as the decision to have the 2016 vote - because the decision to enter the Common Market should have been taken based on professional advice by the democratically elected Government of the day, not based on asking millions of people who would have had virtually no idea of precisely what the then EEC involved.

I generally agree with you on this. Government by plebiscite is not something that should be used ordinarily. However for certain major constitutional matters which do not have a “right answer” it is appropriate: Scottish independence; electoral reform; abolishing the monarchy (didnt Australia have one of these around the turn of the century?); and EU membership are about the only scenarios I can see where it would be appropriate.

All other matters should be handled by government in parliament elected by GE in the usual way.

It is a value judgement about how you determine which matters should be subject to a referendum and which should not. I would argue the referendum in 2016 was appropriate because:

1. Membership was previously subjected to such a vote and the EU no longer represents what was voted for then;
2. The government can’t decide whether we are better off in or out because there is no “right answer”. Even if the U.K. were economically better off by remaining in the EU many people (myself included) would consider it worse off for other ideological reasons. It’s not just an economic matter.

I’d even argue that membership of the EC it’s its original form had clear economic benefits but few negatives to go with it, so the government could have legitimately taken the decision to join off its own bat. So perhaps the 1970s referendum was less justified than the 2016 one, where the question of continued membership throws up as many constitutional questions as it does economic.

 

[Bromley boy]

I also don't think most people understood what the consequences of remaining or leaving would be.

And that’s precisely my point.

Nobody knows what the consequences will be on either side. It is an ideological question to which there is no right answer.

This is why we needed to have an in out referendum .

The EU must be very low down on the list of priorities for the voting public.

This is a disingenuous and factually incorrect statement.

The 2016 referendum saw 70%+ turnout and I believe the most votes cast at any political vote in U.K. history.

 

[Domh245]

This is a disingenuous and factually incorrect statement.

The 2016 referendum saw 70%+ turnout and I believe the most votes cast at any political vote in U.K. history.

I do find it difficult to believe that the majority of the voting public care that much about the EU compared to domestic matters. Like I've said before, I doubt that when people were voting in the EU referendum they were thinking about democratic imbalance, unfavourable EU directives and the like, they were voting as if it were a General Election between 'Status Quo' and 'Change', and the prevailing feeling was 'Change'. That isn't to say that there aren't people who are anti-EU for firmly held and valid beliefs like yourself, but I find it difficult to believe that all of the other 17,410,741 are like that.

When listening to things like "Today in Parliament" it feels like there is something Brexit related nearly every day, and whilst there may well be a anti-EU sentiment amongst the population, I doubt that sentiment is as strong as (eg) a pro-NHS sentiment, or similar. If we look back to the 2017 election, the Tory manifesto and campaign seemed very Brexit focused with little more than lip service being paid to domestic issues, whilst Labour focused more on domestic issues and came out better for it. It'll be nice once this whole thing is over to go back to focusing more of parliament's effort onto Domestic issues

 

[northwichcat]

The 2016 referendum saw 70%+ turnout and I believe the most votes cast at any political vote in U.K. history.

I do find it difficult to believe that the majority of the voting public care that much about the EU compared to domestic matters. Like I've said before, I doubt that when people were voting in the EU referendum they were thinking about democratic imbalance, unfavourable EU directives and the like, they were voting as if it were a General Election between 'Status Quo' and 'Change', and the prevailing feeling was 'Change'. That isn't to say that there aren't people who are anti-EU for firmly held and valid beliefs like yourself, but I find it difficult to believe that all of the other 17,410,741 are like that.

If we look at the 2017 General Election result there was a turnout of just under 70% and almost 58% voted for parties other than the Conservatives, so you could say the public want to get the Conservatives out of government, more than they want to leave the EU. However, who they do they want in government instead of the Conservatives? More people voted to keep the Conservatives in to government than to put the Labour party in to government and a lot of people were unhappy that the Lib Dems ended up on the government benches as the third biggest party in the 2010 election, so it's fair to conclude that overall there's no conclusion which everyone will feel is the most democratic one.

I think it would be the same if we had a vote on the type of Brexit we want, the winning form of Brexit would get fewer votes than remaining in the EU got in the previous referendum which is why Brexiteers don't want another referendum of any kind on leaving the EU.

And that’s precisely my point.

Nobody knows what the consequences will be on either side. It is an ideological question to which there is no right answer.

This is why we needed to have an in out referendum .

If that's your argument surely you also think we should have another referendum x years after leaving so that if we end up worse off as a result of being outside the EU then we have a chance of rejoining. Not that leaving and rejoining would be a good option due to the expense and the EU being unlikely to offer us the opt outs we currently have a founder member, given new members don't get the opt outs and the EU doesn't want countries walking out every time they are unhappy with something.