Brexit

[Witton Park]

But the problem is that was never on offer, because the UK prime minister said there will never be a hard border on the island of Ireland.
Now people will say there can be a technological solution to the problem, and I will ask yet again where is that detailed technogical solution published, and people will not be able to answer becasue it does not exist.
And therein lies the root of the problem.


And don't get me wrong here, I am a remainer, but in no way can I see the UK remaining in the EU. Probably a hard Brexit is the best thing. Then in 10 years we will know weather it is a land of milk and honey or a complete fiasco and the UK looks to come back in with its tail between it legs.

Pat - you aren't getting it - what are you a Doctor of if you don't mind me asking?

This is hypothetical following the logic of the 2nd ref lobby.

and you make exactly my point.

You cannot ask the electorate to decide on the detail of the arrangement as the detail they select is not necessarily going to be negotiable.

NB. Recall the Commons have only voted for 1 solution up to now. That is the Brady amendment. Apparently it isn't feasible, the EU won't agree.

So you cannot have a 2nd ref, or a ref with any detail. You have to say Leave or Remain and then carry out the result with the executive sorting out the detail.

The problem here is that the detail they have sorted out so far away from what the Leave voters voted for that it is beyond credibility in terms of delivery of the result.
It is not what was set out in the manifestos of Labour or Tory at the last GE, not what Mrs May has set out in her various set piece speeches.

Brexit isn't like Scots devolution, where you can set up the framework and then a few years on revisit and tweak domestically by juggling the competencies. This is an international treaty that has to be right, or we get stiffed.


However, I have to pull you up as well on your "it was never on offer" and quoting the UK PM.

When we had the campaign up to voting in 2016 we had all the great and the good of UK politics telling us that:
1. This was it - one vote - in or out.
2. It would mean leaving the EU in full and specifically the Single Market, Customs Union (even if rarely mentioned by name it was clear we would be controlling our own trade policy) and jurisdiction of the ECJ.
3. Article 50 would be invoked immediately by the then PM Mr Cameron and Mr Corbyn called for it on Friday morning.

and following the result even the staunchest Remainers such as Vince Cable, Yvette Cooper, Tim Farron, Anna Soubry.... confirmed the above. Whilst the LibDems changed tack, the others didn't as evidenced by the manifestos that both Labour and Tory stood on in the 2017 General Election and the numerous videos, articles and social media posts out there.

The red herring of a hard border you refer to was only raised in Autumn 2017, 18 months after the referendum result.

[DrPatrickBarry]

The red herring of a hard border you refer to was only raised in Autumn 2017, 18 months after the referendum result.

People not listening to the warnings about the N.I border, from John Major & Tony Bair amoung others, is not the same as "only raised in Autumn 2017". I have already linked an article on this thread about the Irish Goverment's creation of a working group to look at the issues related to an EU border on the island of Ireland one year before the referendum was called. I bet the UK goverment did not do the same.

https://www.ft.com/content/02694772-...d-a96ab29e3c95



Sticking one's head in the sand and saying "there is not an issue" is not the same as "there is not an issue"



My research was in mechanical engineering, but somehow I ended up in software development in the healthcare field. Incidentally that is relevant as our consultants are constantly coming back with stories from the Hospital Trusts that are having horrifing staffing problems with EU professionals leaving.

[noel]

You cannot ask the electorate to decide on the detail of the arrangement as the detail they select is not necessarily going to be negotiable.

NB. Recall the Commons have only voted for 1 solution up to now. That is the Brady amendment. Apparently it isn't feasible, the EU won't agree.

So you cannot have a 2nd ref, or a ref with any detail. You have to say Leave or Remain and then carry out the result with the executive sorting out the detail.

WP, you've made the point a few times that you can't have a referendum on details as it would be too complicated. And I agree, we can't have our negotiating team being the UK electorate.

However, when the details of any such arrangement are very complicated, as they are in this case, it makes democratic sense to say something along the lines of "is this what you want?" That way people can vote on the details that have been arranged by the executive. There are examples of referendums being used in this way.

[Muddy Retriever]

democratic sense to say something along the lines of "is this what you want?" That way people can vote on the details that have been arranged by the executive.

What options would you have?

[Witton Park]

WP, you've made the point a few times that you can't have a referendum on details as it would be too complicated. And I agree, we can't have our negotiating team being the UK electorate.

However, when the details of any such arrangement are very complicated, as they are in this case, it makes democratic sense to say something along the lines of "is this what you want?" That way people can vote on the details that have been arranged by the executive. There are examples of referendums being used in this way.

and if you legislate now for a "is this what you want?" on May's deal what if we don't want it?

[DrPatrickBarry]

What options would you have?

Personally I do not think it would be democratic if "no deal" was not on the ballot.

So it would have to be no deal, whatever west-minister agrees and remain.

I remember a few months ago an expert on constitutional law outlined a method where a three way referendum could work, it made perfect sense.

[Stagger]

Whats the point of other referendums when the losers wont abide by the motion???

This is setting a very dangerous precedent for democracy.

[DrPatrickBarry]

This is setting a very dangerous precedent for democracy.

Suppose getting a few politicians to trash out a deal that the vast majority of the population will hate is good for democracy.

[Muddy Retriever]

Suppose getting a few politicians to trash out a deal that the vast majority of the population will hate is good for democracy.

The referendum was a fundamental question about whether we wanted to stay or leave the EU, not on what terms we left it on. It would have been great to have agreed a mutually beneficially free trade deal with the EU before we left but they weren't interested. The recent BBC programme on the negotiations showing EU officials laughing that we had become their colony demonstrated their bad faith and came as little surprise to many of us. So let's just leave without a deal. We will then have the freedom to sign free trade deals with lots of different countries around the world, just like Switzerland does. I suspect when this happens and the EU countries see their massive trade surplus with us evaporating they will become a lot more receptive.

To me it is ludicrous to have another referendum when the result of the first hasn't even been enacted. As Stagger rightly points out, what's the point? Why would people who didn't respect the first outcome respect a second one?

[noel]

What options would you have?

That's where the devil is in the detail. I suggested if May and Corbyn could cobble something together they could have the choices as our deal, no deal or remain. That might work with both major parties supporting it. Clearly these are all viable options that could be enacted without another 3 years of messing about. And if you had second choice alternative vote-type thing that might work.

Cynically of course, you could set it up in a way that favoured the outcome you wanted. In the same way as May put the choice to parliament having run the clock down "vote my deal or we'll crash out in X days time".

This relates to the point I was making about people voting for different types of leave. It would clearly be unfair to have remain winning with 40% while leave type A and leave type B get 30% each.