If there is a second referendum ...

Herzlos

movilogo wrote: »

If UK leaves EU as per 2016 and then after few years people are asked again whether to join EU then it is democratic decision.

Can you point to anything that backs up the claim that an action has to have happened before asking people if it's what they want, for it to count as democracy?


If Brexit was easy to do in a way that satisfied the 52% and was easily unwound, then I'd agree we should leave and then see if we still want that. But given that Brexit will leave almost no-one happy, be hugely damaging and impossible to undo cleanly, there's a clear case for asking the public what kind of Brexit they want.


Take a fast food order, for instance. Most of the group decide they want burgers. The driver says "hey, there's a food court with 2 burger places and some other stuff, lets go there" and it turns out that the food court is closed. Would it be undemocratic for the driver to ask again which one they want? Or should they drive to a McDonalds, force everyone to order and then let them change their mind?

undetterred

Herzlos wrote: »

Can you point to anything that backs up the claim that an action has to have happened before asking people if it's what they want, for it to count as democracy?


If Brexit was easy to do in a way that satisfied the 52% and was easily unwound, then I'd agree we should leave and then see if we still want that. But given that Brexit will leave almost no-one happy, be hugely damaging and impossible to undo cleanly, there's a clear case for asking the public what kind of Brexit they want.


Take a fast food order, for instance. Most of the group decide they want burgers. The driver says "hey, there's a food court with 2 burger places and some other stuff, lets go there" and it turns out that the food court is closed. Would it be undemocratic for the driver to ask again which one they want? Or should they drive to a McDonalds, force everyone to order and then let them change their mind?

Brexit compared to burgers?

Moby

movilogo wrote: »

It is not my interpretation. You can simply ask EU what is meant by leaving EU.

EU rules are defined by EU. So, there is no point in arguing on UK's interpretation of what leave means.


Cameron said he'd pull UK out of SM if leave wins (which he didn't expect to happen though).

https://www.politico.eu/article/david-cameron-bbc-andrew-marr-ill-pull-uk-out-of-the-single-market-after-brexit-eu-referendum-vote-june-23-consequences-news/

Being in SM means obeying EU 4 freedoms. CU doesn't require that though (e.g. Turkey).

Of course the EU defines its rules......but again you are simplifying things to fit with your views. It's not a question of 'interpretation'. Norway is not in the EU but many brexiters would totally reject Norway's relationship with the EU for our model, as they pay for access to the Single Market! The EU would allow us to remain in the Customs Union but leave the Single Market....or we could have May's deal or we could leave with no deal....all these are possible!...and Movilogo how many of us were clear about the effects of the Irish problem before we voted! https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/01/04/theresa-mays-brexit-deal-bigger-threat-northern-ireland-no-deal/

Herzlos

undetterred wrote: »

Brexit compared to burgers?

Well I didn't think an analogy based around cow dung would make any sense.



Person asks group if they want a thing.
Group says say.
Person goes to do thing and realizes they can't without doing huge damage



Common sense would then dictate that Person goes back to group to explain the problem and ask if they want to proceed. The Brexiteers would rather the thing was done along with the damage, and then ask the group if they still want it, despite that being empirically too late. Because asking the group what they want is somehow anti-democratic.

Herzlos

movilogo wrote: »

It is not my interpretation. You can simply ask EU what is meant by leaving EU.

There are many ways to leave the EU, with different levels of access. Unfortunately the only ones that satisfy Mays red lines are WTO or Canada (IIRC). The EU even provided us with a handy chart of which options violated which red lines, right back at the beginning.


The UK Government could leave in a week if they could decide which of the options they wanted, but that involves deciding which chunk of the electorate to upset. Which is why I find it bizarre that there isn't a 2nd referendum because that'd shift the blame from the politicians onto the public. The only reason I don't think that's happened is that May needs to apply a lot of pressure to get Parliament to decide that her option is the only viable one. I'm pretty sure that once her deal is shot down, a 2nd referendum will be announced*.


*Or at least, Brexiteers hope it will be. If Mays deal is shot down, then we'll be looking at revoking A50. A 2nd referendum might be the only way you actually get your Brexit.

andrewf75

movilogo wrote: »

It is not my interpretation. You can simply ask EU what is meant by leaving EU.

EU rules are defined by EU. So, there is no point in arguing on UK's interpretation of what leave means.


Cameron said he'd pull UK out of SM if leave wins (which he didn't expect to happen though).

https://www.politico.eu/article/david-cameron-bbc-andrew-marr-ill-pull-uk-out-of-the-single-market-after-brexit-eu-referendum-vote-june-23-consequences-news/

Being in SM means obeying EU 4 freedoms. CU doesn't require that though (e.g. Turkey).

But the referendum wasn't about adherence to EU rules/4 freedoms, it was simply "do we want to remain a member". It was well known that there are some non-members which abide by the rules for market access to varying degrees and to discount any of them as an option is plainly dishonest. No use telling us what Cameron said, that was a warning to get us to vote remain!

It *is* your interpretation. The EU never told us we had to have all these incompatible red lines which have left us in this mess, we came up with them. They asked us what do we want and have never closed off any of the options other than pointing out that we can't have a deal which replicates single market membership but without abiding by any rules!

badgerhead

undetterred wrote: »

Idiot.....

Well cheers for that. :T

movilogo

But the referendum wasn't about adherence to EU rules/4 freedoms, it was simply "do we want to remain a member".

Tell us what is your interpretation of being in EU. That will help to understand what is meant by leaving EU.

andrewf75

movilogo wrote: »

Tell us what is your interpretation of being in EU. That will help to understand what is meant by leaving EU.

Irrelevant what my interpretation is. Membership is membership. It is very simply defined by fact not interpretation. We are (now) 100% a member. Norway and Switzerland 100% aren’t despite being in some ways more in than we are even before brexit!

I completely understand why some people don’t want to leave the EU and remain tied to it in some ways, but that *doesn’t* mean that option isn’t valid.

qwert_yuiop

Herzlos wrote: »

The UK Government could leave in a week if they could decide which of the options they wanted, but that involves deciding which chunk of the electorate to upset.

Indeed, and my money’s on the DUP here. Since Northern Ireland voted remain, they don’t even represent their homeland. Eminently suited to finding themselves swinging in the breeze at some stage. Also, haven’t they overplayed their hand just a wee bit?

*Or at least, Brexiteers hope it will be. If Mays deal is shot down, then we'll be looking at revoking A50. A 2nd referendum might be the only way you actually get your Brexit.

Or not, if remainers get the vote out