Brexit thread - what happens next

[estebanrey]

The EU is more democratic than the UK.

The EU bodies are directly elected or elected by Govts who the people of that country elected. Meanwhile the House of Lords...

The EU Commission are "appointed" not elected, much like the House Of Lords them.


The major difference is the House Of Lords don't have the power to propose legislation unlike the Commission. I would rather the people making our laws were elected rather than being a mate of someone else who was elected wouldn't you?

 

[Richeh]

"Sore losers"? You think it's that simplistic? This is a serious situation and people on all sides are worried about the future and quite rightly so. It is not unreasonable to ask for a coherent plan.

The most common response of a Leaver is "we voted for change now YOU deliver it". But the majority of people you are asking to deliver it (MPs, civil servants, business leaders etc) don't believe in it. So how is that going to work?

Leavers need to stop saying "deal with it" and "move on" and show some leadership. If you vote for a huge gamble, then you need to take responsibility for ensuring that gamble pays off and doesn't lead everyone to a very bad place.

At the moment Leavers are like back seat drivers who have moaned for so long they've finally managed to force the car down a different road. But when asked "where are we going" their response is just "shut up and drive" rather than be willing to take on the responsibility of driving.

And if moving forwards means Leavers have to win over sceptical, worried and antagonistic Remainers then "deal with it" because it comes with the territory of what you voted for.

Sorry, you think the public who voted leave should be telling the government who don't 'believe' in it how to proceed?

I thought it was the governments entire job to figure out how to proceed and place people with the vision to follow the publics vote in those roles?

I sort of see what your getting at but it really seems like an odd way to do things. By that logic, and to be honest I don't disagree, all diehard remainers who still keep flaunting all the negativity are a much greater detriment to the UK moving forward than any leave voter.

 

[estebanrey]

Most of the Leave main political figures run as soon as the result was announce and they realised what a **** up they made with no plan going forward in next couple of years.

Did they? Other than Nigel Farage quitting the UKIP leadership (which was more of a 'mission accomplished' thing ) who has "ran" away?

Boris Johnson is now Foreign Secretary and will therefore be involved in Brexit negotiations alongside David Davis. Gove and leadsom both launched immediate campaigns to become PM after Brexit too.

So who has "ran away" exactly?

 

[LOAM]

Gove and leadsom both launched immediate campaigns to become PM after Brexit too.

So who has "ran away" exactly?

Immediate campaigns, are you sure?

Leadsom and Gove were both late runners who both announced on deadline day, June 30th. Gove announced only hours before the deadline when it became apparent that Boris wanted nothing to do with it. Neither of them were at the fore front of candidates running (neither was T.May either)

 

[Sankari]

Citation needed.

I refer you to the 20th century.

 

[estebanrey]

Immediate campaigns, are you sure?

Leadsom and Gove were both late runners who both announced on deadline day, June 30th. Gove announced only hours before the deadline when it became apparent that Boris wanted nothing to do with it. Neither of them were at the fore front of candidates running (neither was T.May either)

Missing the point in favour of relative pedantry...sigh

Do you believe launching a bid to become PM shortly after the Brexit vote can be labelled as "running away" from the fallout of the vote?

 

[Darujhistan]

Neither of them were at the fore front of candidates running (neither was T.May either)


Utter nonsense, Mrs May was ALWAYS running. She was always at the forefront as the leading 'remain' candidate. Everyone knew that if DC lost and resigned that she would run, and that was months before the ref result was known.

 

[Cern]

Sorry, you think the public who voted leave should be telling the government who don't 'believe' in it how to proceed?

I thought it was the governments entire job to figure out how to proceed and place people with the vision to follow the publics vote in those roles?

I sort of see what your getting at but it really seems like an odd way to do things. By that logic, and to be honest I don't disagree, all diehard remainers who still keep flaunting all the negativity are a much greater detriment to the UK moving forward than any leave voter.

The Referendum has forced a government who didn't have Brexit in their manifesto to implement it. None of the main opposition parties, (with the exception of UKIP of course) have Brexit in their manifestos. There is also little stomach for Brexit amongst the civil servants and business leaders who will need to do the bulk of the negotiation and planning work to implement Brexit. And you expect success? You can't just dump something of this magnitude on a country and then say "sort it out".

Which is why Brexit needed to be a proper political movement with a manifesto of clear objectives. Instead we got a one-shot referendum that was a snap shot of public opinion on one day, influenced by all manner of factors not directly related to the matter at hand (a substantial protest vote being a significant one of them).

If the majority of the British population truly believe that leaving the EU is the best way forward then they should have voted overwhelmingly for a party like UKIP and made it happen that way. A single referendum on something of this magnitude is so deeply flawed as a decision making tool that the sheer idiocy of it will only come home to roost many many years from now.

 

[LOAM]

Missing the point in favour of relative pedantry...sigh

Do you believe launching a bid to become PM shortly after the Brexit vote can be labelled as "running away" from the fallout of the vote?

The point being, you said Gove and Leadsom both launched immediate campaigns for the leadership in response to bayo000 saying that most of the leave campaigners ran for the hills.

The fact remains they both left it to the very last minute before throwing their names in to the hat. Not the actions of someone who was keen to take command and move forward, more the actions of someone who wanted someone else to do it.

Do I believe launching a bid to become PM shortly after the brexit vote as "running away" from the fallout of the vote, in the context of Gove and Leadsom I think they both hoped initially that Cameron would be the sacrificial goat, then they hoped Boris would do it and only when it became apparent that there were no leavers actually running did they put their names forward (Gove even said in his nomination speech that he didn't want to be PM).

Neither of them were at the fore front of candidates running (neither was T.May either)


Utter nonsense, Mrs May was ALWAYS running. She was always at the forefront as the leading 'remain' candidate. Everyone knew that if DC lost and resigned that she would run, and that was months before the ref result was known.

I'll take your word for it.

 

[Darujhistan]

Instead we got a one-shot referendum that was a snap shot of public opinion on one day


Rubbish, it was based on years and years of peoples collective experience of the EU and the direction in which it is clearly heading.

 

[Darujhistan]

A single referendum on something of this magnitude is so deeply flawed as a decision making tool that the sheer idiocy of it will only come home to roost many many years from now.


You would not have said if you'd have won, you'd have said 'the people have spoken, that's the end of it for decades to come'.

But you didn't.

 

[PinkPig]

You would not have said if you'd have won, you'd have said 'the people have spoken, that's the end of it for decades to come'.

Unfair, since a remain win would have been the same result as not having a referendum at all.

 

[Darujhistan]

Unfair, since a remain win would have been the same result as not having a referendum at all.

It's not unfair at all.

 

[Richeh]

The Referendum has forced a government who didn't have Brexit in their manifesto to implement it. None of the main opposition parties, (with the exception of UKIP of course) have Brexit in their manifestos. There is also little stomach for Brexit amongst the civil servants and business leaders who will need to do the bulk of the negotiation and planning work to implement Brexit. And you expect success? You can't just dump something of this magnitude on a country and then say "sort it out".

Which is why Brexit needed to be a proper political movement with a manifesto of clear objectives. Instead we got a one-shot referendum that was a snap shot of public opinion on one day, influenced by all manner of factors not directly related to the matter at hand (a substantial protest vote being a significant one of them).

If the majority of the British population truly believe that leaving the EU is the best way forward then they should have voted overwhelmingly for a party like UKIP and made it happen that way. A single referendum on something of this magnitude is so deeply flawed as a decision making tool that the sheer idiocy of it will only come home to roost many many years from now.

I certainly don't disagree on the absurdity of the referendum, no minimum majority etc it was a complete joke but that was just down to **** poor management of the people who are supposed to be running the country.

Your original point I disagreed with though was you believing Leave voters now need to tell the government how to proceed as their hearts aren't in it. But the job of the goverment and the only one they have is to manage the peoples wishes.

Expecting people who wanted to see change to vote for a party like UKIP which would have entailed far more than just leaving the EU is unfair and unrealistic. We have a UK government not an EU one, they are there to meet the peoples desires, just because people weren't keen on it has absolutely no bearing now, we are moving forward.

 

[estebanrey]

The point being, you said Gove and Leadsom both launched immediate campaigns for the leadership in response to bayo000 saying that most of the leave campaigners ran for the hills.

Because they did, the result was on 24th and both Gove and Leadsom both entered the race to become the Prime Minister on the 30th, a mere 6 days after the result.

I'm sorry if you want to have a semantics debate over whether I used the word immediately incorrectly or should have used 'fairly quickly' but the point is putting your hat in the ring to become the Prime Minister who will have to steer the country through Brexit after campaigning for it less than a week beforehand can never be described as "running away".

The fact remains they both left it to the very last minute before throwing their names in to the hat. Not the actions of someone who was keen to take command and move forward, more the actions of someone who wanted someone else to do it.

You seem to be conflating two issues. I'm talking about the entire leave campaign which lasted months but you seem to only be focussing purely on the two weeks of the Tory leadership campaign.

Entering at all, knowing the job at hand, is proof enough they were committed and trying to paint out what you consider a late entry into a leadership contest somehow supports the notion they "ran away" from the Brexit aftermath is just bizarre.

If they wanted to run away they wouldn't have entered at all and gone back to back bench obscurity.

Do I believe launching a bid to become PM shortly after the brexit vote as "running away" from the fallout of the vote, in the context of Gove and Leadsom I think they both hoped initially that Cameron would be the sacrificial goat, then they hoped Boris would do it and only when it became apparent that there were no leavers actually running did they put their names forward (Gove even said in his nomination speech that he didn't want to be PM).

So people who supposedly run away, are actually are willing to stay and do things they didn't plan to make sure their vision is seen through even if it means doing it themselves.....how is that running away again?

 

[Klo]

The EU Commission are "appointed" not elected, much like the House Of Lords them.


The major difference is the House Of Lords don't have the power to propose legislation unlike the Commission. I would rather the people making our laws were elected rather than being a mate of someone else who was elected wouldn't you?

Except the elected bodies can choose to accept or reject the proposed legislation. The Commission is more equivalent to our Civil Service, who are also unelected.

 

[Judgeneo]

Except the elected bodies can choose to accept or reject the proposed legislation. The Commission is more equivalent to our Civil Service, who are also unelected.

Not really, there is a EU civil service which is equivalent to our civil service.
There isn't an exact mapping between our parliamentary process and the EU's.

Over here, elected representatives propose and vote on laws, and appointed lords review it. The elected representatives can force laws through the lords because they are only allowed to reject a certain number of times. The civil service does all the work in putting the wordings together and doing the appropriate research, and then actually implementing them.

In the EU, appointed members propose laws, and elected representatives suggest amendments and vote on the final decision. The Civil service serves a similar role to in the UK.

The key point is that the MEPs, cannot propose laws in any shape or form. they are completely beholden to the commission. Their biggest power is the power to refuse a proposal from the commission. Its a semi-democratic governance of an autocracy.

Anyway, these points and debates are now of the past.

 

[LOAM]

A single referendum on something of this magnitude is so deeply flawed as a decision making tool that the sheer idiocy of it will only come home to roost many many years from now.


You would not have said if you'd have won, you'd have said 'the people have spoken, that's the end of it for decades to come'.

But you didn't.

We quit won/lost weeks ago (I thought). In hindsight though I personally think that it was deeply flawed. There was no mainstream explanation as to what it meant to stay in or leave, both parties were more concerned with their own narrative of either scare mongering or loose truths to push an agenda. It was only after the actual vote that a lot of information became available mainstream.

Yes you could go and look for the information, I personally stopped listening to either side not long after they started and just went and did my own research to see what was what and made my mind up on that basis. I guess plenty others did the same but for many on both sides they guided by two sets of ego's having a bit of a one up jape on national TV. I sat down with some friends friends who only after the vote did they know some truths and they were genuinely gutted that they hadn't spent more time doing their own research and not listening to the TV.

Its difficult and perhaps unwise to have such an important constitutional decision made on either A or B when nobody knew what A or B was. We wouldn't even answer that type of question for something as simple as what do you want to drink in a pub, but we did on something that has decades of implications.

 

[Cern]

A single referendum on something of this magnitude is so deeply flawed as a decision making tool that the sheer idiocy of it will only come home to roost many many years from now.


You would not have said if you'd have won, you'd have said 'the people have spoken, that's the end of it for decades to come'.

But you didn't.

In my case that's not true. I have always been opposed to a referendum as a mechanism to decide this, whatever the outcome. I don't personally feel this is the right way to make decisions of such magnitude and far-reaching consequence. Referendums reduce complex issues down to simplistic, populist binary votes where often people aren't even voting on the matter at hand.

If the majority of people consistently go to the ballot box over a period of time to keep voting for a party that has a stated aim of taking the UK out of Europe, then that's true representative democracy.

But a single issue referendum distorted on both sides by negativity, lies, disinformation, half-truths, hate, fear, threats and anti-establishment protest, that's not true democracy, it's an ugly, populist, crude, sham of democracy. The political equivalent of spin the bottle.

 

[estebanrey]

Except the elected bodies can choose to accept or reject the proposed legislation. The Commission is more equivalent to our Civil Service, who are also unelected.

What this guys says....

Not really, there is a EU civil service which is equivalent to our civil service.
There isn't an exact mapping between our parliamentary process and the EU's.

Over here, elected representatives propose and vote on laws, and appointed lords review it. The elected representatives can force laws through the lords because they are only allowed to reject a certain number of times. The civil service does all the work in putting the wordings together and doing the appropriate research, and then actually implementing them.

In the EU, appointed members propose laws, and elected representatives suggest amendments and vote on the final decision. The Civil service serves a similar role to in the UK.

The key point is that the MEPs, cannot propose laws in any shape or form. they are completely beholden to the commission. Their biggest power is the power to refuse a proposal from the commission. Its a semi-democratic governance of an autocracy.