Brexit

Jmarshall

Member
Mar 28, 2018
106
88
180
The EU isn't trying to sabotage the UK's attempts to make trade deals with other countries. The issue is these trade deals aren't ready and we are heavily reliant on trade with the EU. We need a couple of years at least to make a trade deal with the EU and finalise other arrangements. They will grant this as part of a transition period, if we agree to remain bound to their customs rules until the border situation between Ireland and Northern Ireland is sorted out. However, while we are bound by these rules, we will be unable to implement trade deals with countries outside the EU.
The border issues between NI and the republic, will never be resolved, this is why the Backstop is raising such ire, the EU and May have agreed to a mechanism that has no objective resolution, but some sort of analysis where both parties agreed the issue is resolved. As the EU has already said they believe there are no technical solutions to the border, I fail to see how this will change during the two years of the Withdrawal agreement, which means that NI must remain in the Customs Union and some form of the single market. This in turn puts the future negotiations down that path anyway, as it would mean the UK would have to be detached from one of it constituent parts to arrange separate trade deals outside the EU.
 

sahlberg

Gold Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,606
1,811
350
Moore Park Beach
What became the USA had, at most, 250 some odd years of culturally independent colonial history before the Civil War, and that alone was enough to literally tear this nation apart before it was forged back together in our bloodiest war. Our local cultural identities are cherished, but our national identity is American.

European nations have millenia of cultural history that can't just be flushed down the toilet in a span of 50 years. Brussels, and by extension Germany, should not be dictating laws and regulations to other obstensibly 'equal' EU members. The EU should have never progressed beyond free trade and mutual defense treaties IMO.
This is such a good post.

I like to think the difference is
* Someone in France is French first and European second.
* Someone in Alabama is American first and Alamabian second.

That is why one federation works and the other will never work.
 
Last edited:

highrider

Member
Dec 18, 2010
8,339
1,094
660
51
washington d.c.
I’m not in favor of The European Union for a variety of reasons. As an American of English and Irish decent I have no vote in the matter, but I personally would rather The UK remained a sovereign nation because I think it better preserves the culture, one that I take great personal pride in and is a core part of my identity.
 

AfricanKing

Gold Member
Jul 16, 2017
1,282
934
350
I’m not in favor of The European Union for a variety of reasons. As an American of English and Irish decent I have no vote in the matter, but I personally would rather The UK remained a sovereign nation because I think it better preserves the culture, one that I take great personal pride in and is a core part of my identity.
What makes you think the UK is not Sovereign ? , Statistically speaking we have only lost an EU vote at 2% since 1999. That's pretty good odds and shows that the overwhelmingly laws passed in the EU have had full UK backing
 
Last edited:

Makariel

Gold Member
Jan 14, 2018
1,505
1,274
350

Even Bercow has enough of this :p

I like to think the difference is
* Someone in France is French first and European second.
* Someone in Alabama is American first and Alamabian second.

That is why one federation works and the other will never work.
USA is a bit older than the EU, the EU is also not a Federation or United States of Europe*, so not a good comparison. France has much larger autonomy than Alabama had for hundreds of years and that won't change anytime soon. There is no Alabama nationality, but there is of course French nationality. Ok, with the exit of the UK the voting block shifts by removing one big chunk of resistance to a further federalisation of the EU, so Europhiles rejoice? I still don't think turning the EU into a Federation will happen, rather a consolidation (thanks to the UK the EU expanded way too quickly towards the East IMO) and discussion on what the EU is supposed to look like in 20 years and beyond.

* regardless of what Europhobes fear and Europhiles wish for ;)
 

FireFly

Member
Aug 5, 2007
391
22
860
It should be stated that the Article 50 process has never been implemented before and its process is a thing that is being created as the event moves on. As part of that creation the EU explicitly argued against allowing negotiations on any trade deal while the UK was member of the EU (hence the WA), this is not an explicit requirement of Article 50, but the EU putting pressure on the UK to win the upper hand in future negotiations.

It should also be stated that former "Brexit Secretary" David Davis was fully against this logic and wanted to argue the case for negotiating the Trade deal along side the exit arrangements, it was May who overruled him and accepted the EU's position, her first (deliberate??) mistake of many.
Well, the future relationship was discussed after the first phase of the negotiations were over in 2017, and in April 2018 Davis predicated we would see a trade deal before the end of the article 50 process:

https://openeurope.org.uk/daily-shakeup/uk-can-finalise-trade-treaty-with-eu-before-brexit-says-david-davis/

I think the statement on the future relationship ended up as a vague political statement, because of the lack of progress on the Irish border issue.
 

sahlberg

Gold Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,606
1,811
350
Moore Park Beach
I still don't think turning the EU into a Federation will happen, rather a consolidation (thanks to the UK the EU expanded way too quickly towards the East IMO) and discussion on what the EU is supposed to look like in 20 years and beyond.
I don't think it will either at least not in the near term. Even if there are a bunch of people that actually want it to become one.

What I wanted to point to is that in order for a federation to work they would first need to erase all concepts of nationality and culture/pride in Europe.
I.e. all Italians that are proud to be Italian and proud of their culture. That will have to be largely erased.
Same for the French. The national identity must be erased in order for a federation to become successful.
Is that a price people are willing to pay?

I don't think people in europe actually want that. I don't think they want to give up their identity and culture.
Thus a proper Federation that folks like GuyV and others push for would be a hard sale to people.
 

Yoshi

Member
May 4, 2005
13,118
1,731
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
I don't think it will either at least not in the near term. Even if there are a bunch of people that actually want it to become one.

What I wanted to point to is that in order for a federation to work they would first need to erase all concepts of nationality and culture/pride in Europe.
I.e. all Italians that are proud to be Italian and proud of their culture. That will have to be largely erased.
Same for the French. The national identity must be erased in order for a federation to become successful.
Is that a price people are willing to pay?

I don't think people in europe actually want that. I don't think they want to give up their identity and culture.
Thus a proper Federation that folks like GuyV and others push for would be a hard sale to people.
Though I am warry of national pride, neither national identity nor pride have to be given up (for that reason; national pride is pretty stupid though and should be given up) to form "United States of Europe". A European identity is one of diversity. The EU contains very distinct countries with cultural differences, but these differences are not things that separate EU citizens (or should serve that cause), but should be seen as opportunities to employ various perspectives for a common good. Having common social security systems, common economical systems, common ecologocial standards and building common cultural traits does not preclude preserving and communicating individual cultural traits.

Of course, if United States of Europe were to be founded at one point, in the very long run, differences may be reduced and a common European culture would settle over the years, but if you look at federal states within the EU already, local cultural traits are not given up just because of national identity. It goes as far as lively discussions between pretty close cities Düsseldorf and Cologne on what carnival should be like.
 

danielberg

Member
Jun 20, 2018
2,016
2,167
240
Though I am warry of national pride, neither national identity nor pride have to be given up (for that reason; national pride is pretty stupid though and should be given up) to form "United States of Europe". A European identity is one of diversity. The EU contains very distinct countries with cultural differences, but these differences are not things that separate EU citizens (or should serve that cause), but should be seen as opportunities to employ various perspectives for a common good. Having common social security systems, common economical systems, common ecologocial standards and building common cultural traits does not preclude preserving and communicating individual cultural traits.

Of course, if United States of Europe were to be founded at one point, in the very long run, differences may be reduced and a common European culture would settle over the years, but if you look at federal states within the EU already, local cultural traits are not given up just because of national identity. It goes as far as lively discussions between pretty close cities Düsseldorf and Cologne on what carnival should be like.
Most people on the right want a actual united europe because its the only way to stay relevant.. but they want it under a leadership that actually listens and can be held accountable.
Its not that people dont want a unite states of europe most actually do, the issue is that the EU is deliberately trying to dilute and destroy the individual cultures to achieve it, because they think that is the only way it can be pulled off and any other supposed way has pesky nationalism and patriotism block a united states of Europe.
The funny/sad thing is they are totally wrong, if they announced today in public to all Europeans that they will block immigration until the people already here have integrated, kick ngos and open society foundation out of europe, only let in as many as are actually integrating, change the rules so people directly vote for a party or "president of europe" (not the guy verhofstad tier bullshit four eyes under the table negotiation model) they would literally have a historic majority vote and the united states of europe in a matter of one decade.
 
Last edited:

Yoshi

Member
May 4, 2005
13,118
1,731
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
@danielberg You know, the EU has been governed by the right for over a decade now. And we do directly vote for parties. At least here in Germany we do (I do not know exactly for all other countries, but it is the same in Austria). Blocking all immigration is not a merely conservative, but an extremist position, which certainly is not the major road block for the EU. If they were to adopt that stance, it would go against the principles of all but far right extremists, so how would that have a unifying effect?
 

danielberg

Member
Jun 20, 2018
2,016
2,167
240
@danielberg You know, the EU has been governed by the right for over a decade now.
You are delusional if you think the CDU was right for the last decade.

And we do directly vote for parties. At least here in Germany we do (I do not know exactly for all other countries, but it is the same in Austria).
Yes we vote for parties in our countries not on EU level, the eu just picks out people who they want from several coalition parties, look up how guy verhofstad got power in the EU.

Blocking all immigration is not a merely conservative, but an extremist position, which certainly is not the major road block for the EU. If they were to adopt that stance, it would go against the principles of all but far right extremists, so how would that have a unifying effect?
Blocking immigration or reducing it after a huge influx of immigrants so they can be integrated instead of feeding forming parallel societies with a constant supply of new arrivals is not a "extreme" positions its a position of common sense.
 

Yoshi

Member
May 4, 2005
13,118
1,731
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
You are delusional if you think the CDU was right for the last decade.
The CDU (and of course the EVP, since we are talking EU here) has always been right leaning. Not far-right bordering illegality like AfD. But comfortably right-wing.

Blocking immigration is a right extremist position, there's no way around it. Legitimate asylum reasons? Fuck off. Highly qualified, needed by a company in the country? Fuck off. This is not conservative, this is certainly not centrist, this is downright right extremism.
 

Makariel

Gold Member
Jan 14, 2018
1,505
1,274
350
You are delusional if you think the CDU was right for the last decade.
They are centre-right I'd say.
Yes we vote for parties in our countries not on EU level, the eu just picks out people who they want from several coalition parties, look up how guy verhofstad got power in the EU.
The EU doesn't pick anything, your countries' political parties decide who is up for election to being sent to the EU. You could run yourself for MEP if you wish, you just need to find enough people who would vote for you. A guy like Verhofstad got into power because he was elected as MEP by the Belgian people. A guy like Farage got into power because he was elected as MEP by the British people. Fun fact: while the UKIP never gained much ground in the UK elections thanks to the first-past-the-pole voting system (they have now one seat in the House of Commons, that's it), the more democratic (hehe) EU voting system allowed UKIP to actually get a growing number of seats in nearly every EU election they ran in. Hence they are currently the strongest UK contingent with 24 seats, ahead of Labour and Conservatives with 20 and 19 each. When a country elects its majority of MEP from a anti-EU-party the results are as to be expected. One of the few pleasures when looking at the Brexit is that Farage will lose his seat where he could for the past decade collect taxfree tax money for doing bugger all.

EU election is in May this year:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/en/your-meps/european_elections.html

Go vote!
 

danielberg

Member
Jun 20, 2018
2,016
2,167
240
The CDU (and of course the EVP, since we are talking EU here) has always been right leaning.
Why? because they say so? because they have been that long ago in the past? Are you kidding me?
If you think merkel inviting everyone into europe, basically ending deportations and cussing out countries that want borders and actually controlled immigration is right leaning then well.. that just like your opinion man.
Hell the CDU the CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC UNION recently had one of their fuck up politicians state that he can imagine a Muslim German chancellor in the near future, again the christian democratic union.
First large scale import and invite done while asking no one and now this comment from a formerly right and christian party... well at least no one can claim the cdu isnt consequential.

Blocking immigration is a right extremist position, there's no way around it.
Whatever lets you sleep at night.
 

danielberg

Member
Jun 20, 2018
2,016
2,167
240
They are centre-right I'd say.

The EU doesn't pick anything, your countries' political parties decide who is up for election to being sent to the EU. You could run yourself for MEP if you wish, you just need to find enough people who would vote for you. A guy like Verhofstad got into power because he was elected as MEP by the Belgian people.
EU election is in May this year:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/en/your-meps/european_elections.html

Go vote!
Everyone knows how its supposed to work and now you should look up how it actually works and has worked with guy verhofstad.
Also yeah no shit i will vote because at least it can reduce the pool of people that the eu likes and picks out of the parties.
 
Last edited:

Makariel

Gold Member
Jan 14, 2018
1,505
1,274
350
Everyone knows how its supposed to work and now you should look up how it actually works and has worked with guy verhofstad.
Also yeah no shit i will vote because at least it can reduce the pool of people that the eu likes and picks out of the parties (despite that others in the same eu party coalition have a faaar larger support in the population via votes but politics the eu doesnt like).
You talk about the EU as if it has its own will. The EU is just made of whatever people we elect and send to the European parliament. Also, "how it actually works" is going into conspiracy theory territory. If you claim the elections are rigged can you provide evidence, since I did look but couldn't find what nefarious scheme would have happened with Verhofestadt or however his name is?
 

Yoshi

Member
May 4, 2005
13,118
1,731
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
Why? because they say so? because they have been that long ago in the past? Are you kidding me?
If you think merkel inviting everyone into europe, basically ending deportations and cussing out countries that want borders and actually controlled immigration is right leaning then well.. that just like your opinion man.
Because conservativism is the same thing as xenophobia, so the only issue relevant to determine whether a party is conservative is their stance on immigration... Which by the way was a highly contested decision by Merkel within her own party.
Hell the CDU the CHRISTIAN DEMOCRATIC UNION recently had one of their fuck up politicians state that he can imagine a Muslim German chancellor in the near future, again the christian democratic union.
First large scale import and invite done while asking no one and now this comment from a formerly right and christian party... well at least no one can claim the cdu isnt consequential.
The CDU is a party in the christian tradition and does treat christianity preferential, but it is still a secular party in the sense that you can be in the party without being a christian yourself and of course can be a candidate for the party in elections. So how is it controversial, even for a conservative party, that in principle they could at one point have a muslim candidate running for chancellor? Even in the 50s it wasn't a formal requirement to be a christian in order to be member of the CDU/CSU.
 

Vow

Neo Member
Dec 19, 2018
46
47
100
On the new Tusk intervention. There is no good outcome. Tusk has undermined Parliamentary sovereignty in the U.K. by demanding a vote undermining the ruling by Speaker Bercow - it really is a case of capitulation to the EU’s demands and vote for a deal they have twice rejected or go out without a deal which they have rejected. No idea what will happen next.
 

Marlenus

Member
Jul 29, 2013
1,095
36
340
UK
May is demented.

'The people have spoken, no 2nd referendum' yet at the same time 'MPs must agree to my deal on the 3rd time of asking'. She is fucking nuts.

She talks about MPs voting on what they don't want yet everytime they try and get indicative votes on what direction would command a majority in the house she whips against it.

Ed Milliband was right in PMQs. May is the roadblock.
 

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
3,910
2,559
415
May is demented.

'The people have spoken, no 2nd referendum' yet at the same time 'MPs must agree to my deal on the 3rd time of asking'. She is fucking nuts.

She talks about MPs voting on what they don't want yet everytime they try and get indicative votes on what direction would command a majority in the house she whips against it.

Ed Milliband was right in PMQs. May is the roadblock.
I'll believe that once they exit. Until then I'll continue to believe this whole thing is a dog and pony show that ends with a second referendum by design.
 

Marlenus

Member
Jul 29, 2013
1,095
36
340
UK
I'll believe that once they exit. Until then I'll continue to believe this whole thing is a dog and pony show that ends with a second referendum by design.
If she won't let MPs vote to see what would garner a majority then she needs to out the question back to the people.

If she had decided after her deal was rejected the 1st time to go back to the people she could have had a next step referendum on what the red lines that govern our negotiating position should be. That would be the obvious follow on question to the leave referendum and it would give her a mandate to negotiate a specific type of Brexit. Mps would find it much harder to vote that down than the deal she has unilaterally cooked up.
 

NickFire

Member
Mar 12, 2014
3,910
2,559
415
If she won't let MPs vote to see what would garner a majority then she needs to out the question back to the people.

If she had decided after her deal was rejected the 1st time to go back to the people she could have had a next step referendum on what the red lines that govern our negotiating position should be. That would be the obvious follow on question to the leave referendum and it would give her a mandate to negotiate a specific type of Brexit. Mps would find it much harder to vote that down than the deal she has unilaterally cooked up.
She's not dumb and knows what she is doing. My pure speculation is the thought process goes like this. 1) I never wanted Brexit, and the MP's just voted down the plan I negotiated; 2) Bring the same plan back, and ask them to also vote on a no deal Brexit, which I am certain will be rejected; 3) Now that both were rejected as expected, ask for an extension; 4) When the EU says no extension without a second vote at the last possible minute, "begrudgingly" agree because all alternatives have been rejected as well.

Time will tell, but I have expected a second vote since the moment it was known a remainer was leading the negotiations. The US equivalent would be Trump agreeing to implement an open door immigration policy if the country voted for that in a referendum.
 

Marlenus

Member
Jul 29, 2013
1,095
36
340
UK
She's not dumb and knows what she is doing. My pure speculation is the thought process goes like this. 1) I never wanted Brexit, and the MP's just voted down the plan I negotiated; 2) Bring the same plan back, and ask them to also vote on a no deal Brexit, which I am certain will be rejected; 3) Now that both were rejected as expected, ask for an extension; 4) When the EU says no extension without a second vote at the last possible minute, "begrudgingly" agree because all alternatives have been rejected as well.

Time will tell, but I have expected a second vote since the moment it was known a remainer was leading the negotiations. The US equivalent would be Trump agreeing to implement an open door immigration policy if the country voted for that in a referendum.
May is party over country and that course of action would destroy the Tory party so I do not think that is her plan. I don't think she has a long term strategy other than hanging on and trying to ram her deal through.

With the number of different types of Brexit I think there has always been a need for a 2nd referendum to nail down what kind of Brexit the people want. That would make it far harder for MPs to vote down a deal if it was aligned with the result of said 2nd referendum.
 

Makariel

Gold Member
Jan 14, 2018
1,505
1,274
350

I find the whole "Anywhere but Westminster" series interesting, since it's one of the few where there is no talking head outside number 10 re-telling what some government figure just said 5 minutes earlier.
 
Nov 15, 2017
305
211
225
England
Anyone seen that petition to stop and reverse Brexit? 2.1 million signatures and the left are along foreign people to add their signature and to Google a UK post code to do so...

I'm quite scared that May will use this to call a second referendum and the results will be worse than before. I voted to leave. I didn't vote to have a referendum again and again until we said stay. Just like Ireland and the Netherlands.

It's scary how our MPs don't reflect their constituents. Mine voted against a second referendum but has done a great job of voting for everything else May wants, despite my town voting a 66% majority to leave. Backstabbing bitch voted for the extension and every pro EU amendment.

Democracy is well and truly dead in this country and when we're all fucked nobody will be accountable because the public don't vote on issues in the EU, only MEPs do and given the EU will fund as much as they need to ensure Pro EU MEPs get in then I'm pretty concerned that politicians are hijacking our country and illegally binding us to the EU.
 

Yoshi

Member
May 4, 2005
13,118
1,731
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
Anyone seen that petition to stop and reverse Brexit? 2.1 million signatures and the left are along foreign people to add their signature and to Google a UK post code to do so...

I'm quite scared that May will use this to call a second referendum and the results will be worse than before. I voted to leave. I didn't vote to have a referendum again and again until we said stay. Just like Ireland and the Netherlands.

It's scary how our MPs don't reflect their constituents. Mine voted against a second referendum but has done a great job of voting for everything else May wants, despite my town voting a 66% majority to leave. Backstabbing bitch voted for the extension and every pro EU amendment.

Democracy is well and truly dead in this country and when we're all fucked nobody will be accountable because the public don't vote on issues in the EU, only MEPs do and given the EU will fund as much as they need to ensure Pro EU MEPs get in then I'm pretty concerned that politicians are hijacking our country and illegally binding us to the EU.
17 million voted leave. 2 million signatures are a lot, but not saying much in terms of how a second referendum would work.
 

sahlberg

Gold Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,606
1,811
350
Moore Park Beach
17 million voted leave. 2 million signatures are a lot, but not saying much in terms of how a second referendum would work.
A second referendum would be a big gamble.
It would make the leavers really really upset and vocal. and they are ~50% of people?

Some of those may have changed to be remainers, but then again, EUs handling and treatment of UK might also have turned a few remainers into leavers.
It is a big and dangerous gamble.
I feel, unscientifically, that brexit support might be greater now than at the referendum. If for nothing else how EU, GuyV and Marcon has continously humiliated the brits.
But we will see.
If things gets too bad, we have a whole continent and lots of land here in the lucky country if some Poms want to really leave EU.
(You are all welcome come except our free healthcare will NOT cover dental surgery for you guys. ok?)


Will be fun to see how it will all turn out though. At this stage I would not rule out that brexit will be cancelled.
That will IMHO threaten to split/destroy the Tories and then Corbyn will pick up the pieces.
Will be fun to watch. Popcorn.
 

switchback27

Member
Jul 26, 2018
276
122
190
From an outsider's perspective with only the knowledge I have gathered from a limited Google search, wouldn't a 2nd referendum be a very bad idea politically? Isn't that equivalent to saying, "Sorry good people of Britain, you voted to Leave, but we've fucked up the process of doing so, so let's hear that voice one more time. This time we'll get it done, I swear"?
 

Yoshi

Member
May 4, 2005
13,118
1,731
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
A second referendum would be a big gamble.
It would make the leavers really really upset and vocal. and they are ~50% of people?

Some of those may have changed to be remainers, but then again, EUs handling and treatment of UK might also have turned a few remainers into leavers.
It is a big and dangerous gamble.
I feel, unscientifically, that brexit support might be greater now than at the referendum. If for nothing else how EU, GuyV and Marcon has continously humiliated the brits.
But we will see.
If things gets too bad, we have a whole continent and lots of land here in the lucky country if some Poms want to really leave EU.
(You are all welcome come except our free healthcare will NOT cover dental surgery for you guys. ok?)


Will be fun to see how it will all turn out though. At this stage I would not rule out that brexit will be cancelled.
That will IMHO threaten to split/destroy the Tories and then Corbyn will pick up the pieces.
Will be fun to watch. Popcorn.
Even though I am in favour of canceling Brexit (again, disclaimer: I am not UK citizen), I do not think it should be done without a second referendum. Doing so just on your own would be a disaster, because the roughly 50% who voted leave would be pretty mad, understandably so. Since the EU is actually pretty fair and does give UK the chance to hold a second referendum when it is clear whether May can force her deal through or not (on the basis of staying in the EU for a longer time, of course), just revoking article 50 would be a bad move.
 

hariseldon

Banned
Aug 22, 2018
2,503
3,479
285
From an outsider's perspective with only the knowledge I have gathered from a limited Google search, wouldn't a 2nd referendum be a very bad idea politically? Isn't that equivalent to saying, "Sorry good people of Britain, you voted to Leave, but we've fucked up the process of doing so, so let's hear that voice one more time. This time we'll get it done, I swear"?
Depends how it's done. If we assume that the first vote established that people want Brexit, we then have the problem of exactly how to Brexit. Parliament has shown itself incapable of making that decision. A referendum thus on exactly HOW to Brexit wouldn't be too big a problem IMO - choosing between May's deal or No Deal. A 2-part referendum with part 1 being brexit/no-brexit might be more contentious, but given we now know much more about the options than we did at the point of the referendum it's fair to say this makes some level of sense.
 

sahlberg

Gold Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,606
1,811
350
Moore Park Beach
Even though I am in favour of canceling Brexit (again, disclaimer: I am not UK citizen), I do not think it should be done without a second referendum. Doing so just on your own would be a disaster, because the roughly 50% who voted leave would be pretty mad, understandably so. Since the EU is actually pretty fair and does give UK the chance to hold a second referendum when it is clear whether May can force her deal through or not (on the basis of staying in the EU for a longer time, of course), just revoking article 50 would be a bad move.
That is actually a good question.
WHY exactly a second referendum? Because they wrong-voted first time?
There was already a referendum. They either follow through on that or they don't.

Second referendum is kind of like Sweden when they just declare referendums as advisory and non-binding until they get the right-vote.

If you allow a second referendum you are basically saying, you wrong-voted, so we will have another referendum over and over until you right-vote. And that will be the referendum that is binding.
 

mekes

Member
Jun 30, 2013
1,806
439
380
London, UK
I’m all for a second referendum as the first result was sold on lies. None of our politicians knew exactly what leaving the EU actually meant for our work forces and life in general. If there is to be a second referendum, we need a watchdog set up to oversee the talking points that both sides use, where the public can easily see who is lying to them.

There should be real punishments for lying in this case. This needs to be handled quickly to be effective. I’ve had enough of politicians lying and possible Brexit is a huge decision for the country, it’s people and the economy.
 

Yoshi

Member
May 4, 2005
13,118
1,731
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
That is actually a good question.
WHY exactly a second referendum? Because they wrong-voted first time?
There was already a referendum. They either follow through on that or they don't.

Second referendum is kind of like Sweden when they just declare referendums as advisory and non-binding until they get the right-vote.

If you allow a second referendum you are basically saying, you wrong-voted, so we will have another referendum over and over until you right-vote. And that will be the referendum that is binding.
Because they now have clearer options: No deal brexit, May deal brexit, no brexit. People who voted leave can decide whether what they understood when voting leave is properly represented by either of the two leave options.
 

sahlberg

Gold Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,606
1,811
350
Moore Park Beach
I’m all for a second referendum as the first result was sold on lies. None of our politicians knew exactly what leaving the EU actually meant for our work forces and life in general. If there is to be a second referendum, we need a watchdog set up to oversee the talking points that both sides use, where the public can easily see who is lying to them.

There should be real punishments for lying in this case. This needs to be handled quickly to be effective. I’ve had enough of politicians lying and possible Brexit is a huge decision for the country, it’s people and the economy.
So, assume there is a second referendum then you will bind yourself to accept and push for the result 100%. Even if the second referendum will end up with "leave" ?
Or this is still unfair and we need a third referendum?
 
Last edited:

sahlberg

Gold Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,606
1,811
350
Moore Park Beach
Because they now have clearer options: No deal brexit, May deal brexit, no brexit. People who voted leave can decide whether what they understood when voting leave is properly represented by either of the two leave options.
That is exactly what they say in Sweden too.
In 1980 there was a referendum that all nuclear plants would be dismantled in, I belive, 25 years. It was later changed to just be an advisory referendum and pushed down the memory hole.
Sweden still have nuclear power, and fuck the people that voted in the referendum to have it all gone a few decades ago.
 

Yoshi

Member
May 4, 2005
13,118
1,731
1,240
31
Germany
www.gaming-universe.de
That is exactly what they say in Sweden too.
In 1980 there was a referendum that all nuclear plants would be dismantled in, I belive, 25 years. It was later changed to just be an advisory referendum and pushed down the memory hole.
Sweden still have nuclear power, and fuck the people that voted in the referendum to have it all gone a few decades ago.
Did they have a second referendum on that and was there any kind of additional information in that regard? I mean, for brexit, it was very unclear what this specifically meant in terms of future relationship with the EU and there were a lot of false numbers and claims used extensively to promote brexit that are not true under either option currently on the table for Brexit. So I think it is fair - and not asking the same question - which of the three options remain, leave without a deal or leave with May's deal is preferable.
 

sahlberg

Gold Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,606
1,811
350
Moore Park Beach
Did they have a second referendum on that and was there any kind of additional information in that regard? I mean, for brexit, it was very unclear what this specifically meant in terms of future relationship with the EU and there were a lot of false numbers and claims used extensively to promote brexit that are not true under either option currently on the table for Brexit. So I think it is fair - and not asking the same question - which of the three options remain, leave without a deal or leave with May's deal is preferable.
No, no second referendum. Just stating that when time was running out that "yeah we cant do it" "anyway referendums are only advisory anyway". deal with it,.

And people dealt with it. That to say, at that time only the few far green party people were still against/ worried about/cared about nuclear power plants
so a new referendum would still effectively have been "sure, cheap and clean energy, build fucking more of them:" if there was a new referendum.

I now realize that my example was a pretty horribly poor counter-example to what I wanted to say. Hahaha. You win. I declate defeat. :)
Maybe the same thing will happen with brexit. Who knows. Will be fun to watch.
 

cormack12

Gold Member
Mar 21, 2013
2,799
1,371
745
Politicians should not be hiding behind the 'will of the people' and the referendum. Do you know what else Theresa? It's the will of the people you sort the NHS out, sort the Police out, explain why somenoe illegally streaming football gets 17 years in jail while those wielding knives get three months. Are we at the stage where we need a referendum to instuict the government to do anything with conviction?

I don't think we should have another referendum, it's pointless. Asking the general population to be aware of the benefits of being in a shared free trade economic area and the socio-economic reasons for doing so is a lost cause. The result was an amalgamation of many protests, most of which can be solved with domestic policy improvements. But ultimately as someone who voted remain, I'm done with the entire thing.

The entire problem has lost focus. Whether we're in or our, whether we leave in 12 days or 1200 days doesn't matter. Leave won the referendum on the back of a campaign fraught with lies and misdirection. However, since they have won, they have done nothing to evidence the claims they have made about how easy it's going to be to negotiate the new trade deals. Fucking hell, it's been two years and we can't even negotiate a withdrawal agreement.

Theresa May is going to go down in infamy. She will be remembered through the ages as a buffoon. But she is doing what the conservatives do well. She is getting turkeys to vote for Christmas. It will be the unpalatable choice or the unthinkable choice.
 

mekes

Member
Jun 30, 2013
1,806
439
380
London, UK
So, assume there is a second referendum then you will bind yourself to accept and push for the result 100%. Even if the second referendum will end up with "leave" ?
Or this is still unfair and we need a third referendum?
My gripes with UK leaving the EU are nearly all contained within the post that you quoted. I don’t think my hopes that I stated in my post will come to light, especially talking about the quick acting watchdog part. We could possibly have a new referendum.

The way I see it is that Brexit will always be divisive. The vote was too close. It can’t not be divisive given the huge implications for such a close vote. No amount of forum posts, protests, news articles or opinion pieces will make it any less divisive as it stands currently. One of my biggest gripes with the last referendum was the simplicity of the question, you can’t form the narrative and implications of such a huge question into “leave or stay.” Not when there are multiple forms of either on offer. But my biggest gripe was simply the lies, knowingly from those that said them or not, that certain megaphones used to the public during the last referendum.

A second, more thoughtful referendum is needed in my opinion. How many votes over Brexit have we had in parliament by this point? 15? 20? 25? What is known now about leaving the EU has wholesale changed over the last 2 years. And we still aren’t anywhere near a solution. Factor in the lies, agendas, illegal funding, party line towing and the whole thing is a mess.

If a second referendum comes back with the same result, I’d hope it contains a more detailed answer as to what the British public want. Example, leave but stay in the single market with closed borders which means continuing to fund the EU but having no say in the laws we have to abide by. It’s not just those that want to remain that are currently unhappy, those that want to leave are too, due to the implications written back one sentence. Polls have shown that leave voters are not happy with the current offers on the table. And we have a staunch remainer overseeing the whole process.
 

Makariel

Gold Member
Jan 14, 2018
1,505
1,274
350
That is actually a good question.
WHY exactly a second referendum? Because they wrong-voted first time?
You could use the exact same argument to stop any further election. Why exactly voting for a new president? Because they wrong-voted the first time? Emperor Trump can easily do another 10 years! Why vote for a new parliament? The people voted for that one a few years ago, who is really going to change their mind in a mere 3 to 4 years?
 

DunDunDunpachi

Patient MembeR
Apr 18, 2018
8,978
15,209
665
USA
dunpachi.com
You could use the exact same argument to stop any further election. Why exactly voting for a new president? Because they wrong-voted the first time? Emperor Trump can easily do another 10 years! Why vote for a new parliament? The people voted for that one a few years ago, who is really going to change their mind in a mere 3 to 4 years?
I have an even better one for ya: go ahead and vote for your new parliament, but let the old power structure cling to power and delay things for months if not years before the duly-elected parliament gets to take their seats.

US Democrats have been doing this with President's Trump cabinet appointments since he was elected.

Delay delay delay is the other side of this coin. You could feasibly delay any decision made by the will of the people merely through innocent bumbling and kicking the can down the road until the thing you were elected to do times out and you get a clean slate (legally speaking...)
 

Brizzady

Member
Jul 28, 2018
204
214
185
I love that Brexit has blown up in England's face. This has been an epically hilarious ride.
 

FireFly

Member
Aug 5, 2007
391
22
860
That is actually a good question.
WHY exactly a second referendum? Because they wrong-voted first time?
There was already a referendum. They either follow through on that or they don't.

Second referendum is kind of like Sweden when they just declare referendums as advisory and non-binding until they get the right-vote.

If you allow a second referendum you are basically saying, you wrong-voted, so we will have another referendum over and over until you right-vote. And that will be the referendum that is binding.
So, what did everyone vote for the first time?

1.) Leaving the EU as a legal entity and remaining in the single market.
2.) Leaving the EU as a legal entity and leaving the single market but remaining in the customs union.
3.) Leaving the EU as a legal entity and leaving the single market and customs union, but signing a new trade deal.
4.) Leaving the EU as a legal entity and leaving the single market and customs union, without any trade deal if necessary.
 

Breakage

Member
Mar 3, 2014
5,324
1,302
410
A lot of people voted to leave the EU because of immigration and its cultural effects. The other day, I heard that non-EU immigration has been the highest since 2004. I also recently read that in regard to EU migration, the British government could use a directive called the European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC to repatriate EU nationals after three months if they haven't found a job or can't support themselves -- but the government hasn't bothered to use it.

So why do people still think that British governments past and present actually care about controlling immigration? Or am I missing something?
 
Last edited:

Makariel

Gold Member
Jan 14, 2018
1,505
1,274
350
I have an even better one for ya: go ahead and vote for your new parliament, but let the old power structure cling to power and delay things for months if not years before the duly-elected parliament gets to take their seats.
Yes, that is how the US system works in times where cooperation or even communication across the aisle is to be avoided at all cost. Side-effect of gerrymandering I suppose? To be elected you need to appeal to more and more extreme portion of the electorate. Doesn't go against my earlier point though, that "we've voted for it once" is not the end of all arguments, democracy is about compromise (I know, I like to use dirty words). But back to the UK: the Conservatives had no problem calling a snap election in 2017 when Theresa May thought she could demolish Labour. Didn't quite turn out the way she wanted I suppose, but some of the same Conservatives that now argue against having another referendum didn't seem to have a problem with the 2017 snap election. But I guess that's the new normal, to argue for or against an issue based on party lines?

So, what did everyone vote for the first time?

1.) Leaving the EU as a legal entity and remaining in the single market.
2.) Leaving the EU as a legal entity and leaving the single market but remaining in the customs union.
3.) Leaving the EU as a legal entity and leaving the single market and customs union, but signing a new trade deal.
4.) Leaving the EU as a legal entity and leaving the single market and customs union, without any trade deal if necessary.
I would assume most who wanted leave just wanted what is now known as no-deal Brexit. I can't remember many leavers campaigning for a customs union.

That said, I would still be in favour of a second referendum now that the cards are on the table. I don't expect the result to be that different though, but at least it would remove doubt that this is the will of the people.

A lot of people voted to leave the EU because of immigration and its cultural effects. The other day, I heard that non-EU immigration has been the highest since 2004.
Aye:



So Brexiteers did win in that aspect. Congratulations :)

I also recently read that in regard to EU migration, the British government could use a directive called the European Parliament and Council Directive 2004/38/EC to repatriate EU nationals after three months if they haven't found a job or can't support themselves -- but the government hasn't bothered to use it.
That's because there are ways around it. You can stay with e.g. family members that live in the UK that have a job.

edit:

 
Last edited:

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
31,210
2,088
1,000
fuck the eu, especially after all the authoritarian shit they've been doing lately