OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[Andy_Faber]

I wholly accept the point raised by you and Geoff and apologise for any confusion caused. My point was that it is nonsense for certain Brexiteers, in this case Tricky, to continually suggest that to be opposed to Brexit is to be opposed to democracy.

I’ll not go over the 37% argument again...it’s tedious but very, very relevant and if I lived in Scotland or N. Ireland I would be particularly incensed to be accused of being anti democratic over this particular matter.

Is there anything to be learned from the Referendum? Yes, of course there is, but just like the Grenfell Tower tragedy, the powers that be have wasted months and now years failing to address them.

Unlike Tricky I don’t seek a descent into chaos but most reasonable Brexiteers must surely accept that the Referendum was always flawed.

It was like asking someone with a badly damaged leg whether they wanted their limb removed, or someone with cancer if they want heavy duty chemotherapy, without ever having the discussion regarding possible alternatives and consequences.

Personally I doubt that I will ever be anything other than opposed to Brexit simply because it seems to be a very, very bad idea for the future of our country but beyond that, people were lied to, electoral rules were allegedly broken and access to the facts was unforthcoming. The conditions for informed decision making were simply not present.

With all that in mind surely the only solution is either 1) to have another Referendum with people this time being made fully aware of all the consequences and the necessity for a result which actually does reflect a truly democratic result, i.e. the support, one way or another, of a majority of the electorate... or 2) hand the details over to our democratically elected Parliament who could then have a free vote on the content of any deal.

If ‘Leave’ won in such circumstances I for one would be unlikely to change my mind, but I would also fully accept that the result was a free and fair example of democracy in action and get on with it.

A robust defence there RA.

Its still a massively complex issue, although you mention a 'truly democratic' vote. It WAS democratic, but I'd go along with 'better informed' for sure, although 'adequately informed' is a pipedream and possibly helps your argument that the general public should never have been consulted and it should have been left to parliament.

[ramAnag]

A robust defence there RA.

Its still a massively complex issue, although you mention a 'truly democratic' vote. It WAS democratic, but I'd go along with 'better informed' for sure, although 'adequately informed' is a pipedream and possibly helps your argument that the general public should never have been consulted and it should have been left to parliament.

Sorry Andy, I know it’s repetitive...but (as distinct from General Elections)...when you have just two choices then one choice winning the support of a little over one third of the electorate can never equate to a majority which is what democracy, by definition, demands.

[Manofpride]

The thing is though there isn’t an argument! There was a vote to stay or leave. Leave won!

[Andy_Faber]

Sorry Andy, I know it’s repetitive...but (as distinct from General Elections)...when you have just two choices then one choice winning the support of a little over one third of the electorate can never equate to a majority which is what democracy, by definition, demands.

No it doesn't, not by the definition of UK parliamentary democracy. By statute, the laws of the land are decided by a parliament of elected representatives (lets leave Queenie and the Lords out of it for simplicity). Parliament voted for a referendum - so democracy prevailed. Of those who voted, most voted to leave (Brexit) - but that wasn't binding, and to appease you it wasn't even 'the will of the people' it was a 'message from the people' that parliament could/can choose to ignore if it wishes. The current democratically elected government have made it their policy to proceed with Brexit, and for that matter have decided it will happen without a vote on 'the deal' - that's STILL democracy because the electorate appointed parliament to decide and voted for the current government to 'force the issue'.

Bear in mind that the government COULD have put to the vote to ignore the referendum. That would STILL have been democracy.

Your definition, even if I agreed with it which I don't, doesn't represent parliamentary democracy in the UK.

[ramAnag]

No it doesn't, not by the definition of UK parliamentary democracy. By statute, the laws of the land are decided by a parliament of elected representatives (lets leave Queenie and the Lords out of it for simplicity). Parliament voted for a referendum - so democracy prevailed. Of those who voted, most voted to leave (Brexit) - but that wasn't binding, and to appease you it wasn't even 'the will of the people' it was a 'message from the people' that parliament could/can choose to ignore if it wishes. The current democratically elected government have made it their policy to proceed with Brexit, and for that matter have decided it will happen without a vote on 'the deal' - that's STILL democracy because the electorate appointed parliament to decide and voted for the current government to 'force the issue'.

Bear in mind that the government COULD have put to the vote to ignore the referendum. That would STILL have been democracy.

Your definition, even if I agreed with it which I don't, doesn't represent parliamentary democracy in the UK.

But we abandoned Parliamentary Democracy and - bizarrely in the circumstances - the sovereignty of Parliament as soon as Cameron stupidly settled on a Referendum to settle Tory Party infighting.

You don’t have to ‘appease’ me...we’re both, I think, thoroughly reasonable people...but you’ve just accepted that the result does not represent the ‘will of the people’, that the result ‘wasn’t binding’ and that, by implication, the only ‘message from the people’ was that there’s a huge split and the people are thoroughly confused...so why plough on regardless despite all the evidence of self inflicted harm?

As soon as Parliamentary democracy took second place to a Joe Public Referendum there had to be a proper majority - more than 50% of the electorate - for the decision to have any credibility at all as a democratic majority.

[Andy_Faber]

But we abandoned Parliamentary Democracy and - bizarrely in the circumstances - the sovereignty of Parliament as soon as Cameron stupidly settled on a Referendum to settle Tory Party infighting.

You don’t have to ‘appease’ me...we’re both, I think, thoroughly reasonable people...but you’ve just accepted that the result does not represent the ‘will of the people’, that the result ‘wasn’t binding’ and that, by implication, the only ‘message from the people’ was that there’s a huge split and the people are thoroughly confused...so why plough on regardless despite all the evidence of self inflicted harm?

As soon as Parliamentary democracy took second place to a Joe Public Referendum there had to be a proper majority - more than 50% of the electorate - for the decision to have any credibility at all as a democratic majority.

No we didn't because as the Remoaners keep pointing out 'it wasn't legally binding', parliamentary democracy stepped back into play when parliament contemplated the result and decided what to do, it could just as easily decided to ignore as accept the result. You might not like it but don't confuse your strongly held sense of fairness with any failure of democracy as UK live it.

[Geoff Parkstone]

...so why plough on regardless despite all the evidence of self inflicted harm?

Where (and what) is all this evidence? I would say that it is anecdotal and predictive guesswork, just like the perceived benefits of Brexit are, as opposed to any hard and fast evidence. One person's guess work against another's....

[ramAnag]

Where (and what) is all this evidence? I would say that it is anecdotal and predictive guesswork, just like the perceived benefits of Brexit are, as opposed to any hard and fast evidence. One person's guess work against another's....

Off the top of my head Geoff...here are just seven, in no particular order, for starters.
1) The enormous cost which wasn’t accurately identified two years ago.
2) Trade...the EU is our biggest market, do we really want to abandon it especially given the games Trump is playing.
3) The rights of ex-pats...aka British migrants to Europe.
4) The impact on Financial Services where we have been doing rather well.
5) The possible impact on car manufacturing under new WTO rules.
6) The impact upon the ‘Open Skies’ agreement in relation to UK fight schedules and British airports.
7) The impact of new border control legislation on our freedom to travel and especially in relation to the Irish border question...a whole ‘can of worms’ I remember being completely glossed over by Farage and Co. in the lead up to the Referendum.

[Geoff Parkstone]

OK, so no evidence, just presumption or long standing known impacts (UK expats in Europe). Trade and impact on financial services is supposition, who knows what the future will hold as we reposition ourselves in an increasingly globalised economy. The cost - well if you believed the estimates first floated pre referendum, then more fool you!!

#7 ireland was flagged up years ago as an issue, and other inconveniences such as queuing at border control are to be honest a trivial matter for all but the most impatient holidaymaker forced to spend an extra 30 minutes of drinking time in a line.

#5 and 6 I dont fully follow the problems, but again surely these must have been anticipated pre referendum and are hardly "newly emergent"

What I am saying here is that there doesnt appear to be anything "new" in your list, and that these factors must have been taken account of already. OK some of the costs might have been undercooked (well its an absolute certainty that they were) but so might some of the benefits. Point is that noone knows or can know if we are better off or not - the remoaners will constantly carp on about how it has to be negative, the brexiteers will point to golden new horizons of emerging markets free from EU protectionism. We just dont know, all we can do is make an educated guess. No evidence - evidence needs to be factually demonstrable

[ramAnag]

OK, so no evidence, just presumption or long standing known impacts (UK expats in Europe). Trade and impact on financial services is supposition, who knows what the future will hold as we reposition ourselves in an increasingly globalised economy. The cost - well if you believed the estimates first floated pre referendum, then more fool you!!

#7 ireland was flagged up years ago as an issue, and other inconveniences such as queuing at border control are to be honest a trivial matter for all but the most impatient holidaymaker forced to spend an extra 30 minutes of drinking time in a line.

#5 and 6 I dont fully follow the problems, but again surely these must have been anticipated pre referendum and are hardly "newly emergent"

What I am saying here is that there doesnt appear to be anything "new" in your list, and that these factors must have been taken account of already. OK some of the costs might have been undercooked (well its an absolute certainty that they were) but so might some of the benefits. Point is that noone knows or can know if we are better off or not - the remoaners will constantly carp on about how it has to be negative, the brexiteers will point to golden new horizons of emerging markets free from EU protectionism. We just dont know, all we can do is make an educated guess. No evidence - evidence needs to be factually demonstrable

Of course you have a point...there has to be a lot of guesswork involved for the likes of us...and that too is kind of the point.
No one knew what they were actually voting for and to a large extent, still don’t.
Funny how the ‘Leavers’ could be so emphatic about how much the NHS could receive each week though...rarely mentioned these days.