Do you want a 2nd BREXIT vote?

[broncofan]

This is going to thread hijack but if you'll all indulge me one isolated question and then right back on track. What do you think of the electoral college v. the popular vote in U.S. Presidential elections? Which is more demokratia or whatever?

Anyway, we both know the answer but this is fairly moot. Not all of the institutions in either the U.S. or Great Britain are set up to be as purely democratic as possible. There is a reason that a lot of legislation passes through elected representatives. One is that elected representatives can be more attuned to the details of the legislation and also because some issues are more complicated that what is represented in a simple yes no referendum and require intensive negotiation that can only take place in a representative body.

[flabbybody]

This is going to thread hijack but if you'll all indulge me one isolated question and then right back on track. What do you think of the electoral college v. the popular vote in U.S. Presidential elections? Which is more demokratia or whatever?

the electoral college was created so that densely populated states like New York and Massachusetts would not overwhelming influence the election of president at the detriment of small states like Virginia and Georgia.
It didn't work out that well in 2016 but whatever....there's zero chance that our United States election platform will ever be amended. ZERO
!!!Onto to the BREXIT controversy

[broncofan]

the electoral college was created so that densely populated states like New York and Massachusetts would not overwhelming influence the election of president at the detriment of small sates like Virginia and Georgia.
!!!Onto to the BREXIT controversy

I agree. I was just curious about his fidelity to a pure democracy. It's not our system. It's not Great Britain's either in my understanding. Yes a referendum is the most directly democratic means of deciding anything but it's not necessarily the most effective way to legislate.

[Forrest Hump]

This is going to thread hijack but if you'll all indulge me one isolated question and then right back on track. What do you think of the electoral college v. the popular vote in U.S. Presidential elections? Which is more demokratia or whatever?

Personally, the electoral college mechanism you have in place is just as indirect as the first-past-the-post voting method in the UK and can result in a different outcome due to tactical voting. A popular/direct voting system whereby the vox populi would vote on a presidential/prime-ministerial candidate to represent the nation is more democratic in my book.

[Forrest Hump]

the electoral college was created so that densely populated states like New York and Massachusetts would not overwhelming influence the election of president at the detriment of small states like Virginia and Georgia.
It didn't work out that well in 2016 but whatever....there's zero chance that our United States election platform will ever be amended. ZERO
!!!Onto to the BREXIT controversy

Somehow, I also think that it will never be amended. There was talk about changing the first-past-the-post system in the UK after the General Election before-last. However probably just as unlikely. Although never say never chaps!

[broncofan]

Somehow, I also think that it will never be amended. There was talk about changing the first-past-the-post system in the UK after the General Election before-last. However probably just as unlikely. Although never say never chaps!

I brought it up only to challenge the notion that the most democratic institutions are always better than less democratic ones. I was curious about your fidelity to the principle you stated but I can see you're all in. Can you see why elected representatives might not just be more practical but also might do a better job in some cases? They actually have a better sense of how government functions and what types of negotiations are feasible? I'm sure there's a reason national referenda are not self-executing in Britain and have been an exceedingly rare way to decide matters.

[Jericho]

Patronising? On the contrary, I rather see it as encouraging advice and typical of that phlegmatic British approach. Leaving the EU reopens whole areas of policy-making that have been off limits for decades.

Such as?

[Stavros]

Hard Brexit, soft Brexit? It's as if Theresa May wants it both ways and she looks destined to fail.
Now Nigel Farage is practically sounding Pro-European by suggesting another referendum to quell signs of buyer's remorse, although he may have since walked that back a bit.
Hard-line Remainers like Tony Blair prefer the word 'plebiscite', but let's face it, it appears the average Brit is having a tough time with an EU divorce.
So what do guys think? Here in the States everyone I know would want a re-do on Trump. You want another crack at the Brexit decision?

A second referendum is as bad an idea as was the first one.

Point one: The same people on the Leave side who then and since have argued that the UK should 'take back control' from what they describe as the 'Brussels bureaucracy' and return sovereignty to Parliament based their entire long-term aim to leave the EU on a decision taken away from that Parliament, as if elected MPs had no authority to make the decision in Parliament and in spite of the legal reality that only Parliament can make the decision.

Point two: the law states clearly that a referendum in the UK can only advise the government, there is nothing in law that states a government is obliged to implement the decision of any referendum into law. There may be a moral argument, but even that may be contested if the margin of victory is small, the turnout low, and the result widely different across the UK, as indeed was the case in the EU Referendum with significant majorities for Remain in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the overall margin of victory less than 5% of the total vote.

Point three: a second referendum would present the same arguments as the first one and may produce the same outcome give or take a few percentage points, but offer an opportunity for those determined to tell lies to carry on lying on the basis that the truth is irrelevant, the impression is all that matters. Since nobody actually knows what the truth is going to be, the referendum would thus become an incoherent slanging match in which both sides make as many outrageous claims as they can while smearing the reputation of each other. The fate of the UK deserves much better than a temporary festival of bullshit.

Point four: only Parliament can make the decision, it is as simple as that.
Parliament took us into the EEC in 1973, it is taking us out of the EU in 2018/19, in both cases through statutory instruments- the EU Withdrawal Bill currently in the Lords being the key item of legislation. If Parliament is given the right to vote on the 'final settlement' with the EU, if that is what it is called, that will be the last and only opportunity for Parliament to act, but can Parliament through that vote actually prevent the UK from leaving the EU if it has already passed a law stating just that? At best, a vote against the 'final settlement' can only delay exit from the EU and force the government to return to Brussels to seek an amendment to whatever has been agreed.
However, the 'final settlement' is not an agreement between the UK and the EU on the relationship the UK is going to have with the EU, but an agreement on the terms of the separation of the two. The UK and the EU can discuss what trade relations might look like after Brexit, but can only begin when Brexit has happened. The UK must first leave the EU before it can negotiate new arrangements across the board. All that can be agreed upon now are principles.

Conclusion: No second referendum is either necessary or desirable, Parliament is sovereign, it has always been the sovereign policy and law making authority in the UK and there is no reason for it to give up that authority to a menagerie of liars and frauds be they Rupert Murdoch, the Barclay Brothers, a rag-bag of Neo-Nazis, fascists and white nationalists or for that matter the Trotskyist Fourth International and their comrades in the Momentum Labour.

[Kim Jong-un]

Such as?

Given how extensive EU law is, an awful lot. Some will depend on the deal we have with the EU.

In 1997, Tony Blair campaigned to scrap VAT on domestic gas and electricity. But because of the EU, he had to settle for 5 per cent. Once the UK leaves the EU, the government could do what Blair couldn’t.

Tories and Labour have wanted to scrap the hated ‘tampon tax’ — VAT on tampons. But what is impossible inside the EU becomes possible outside. In fact, the government could scrap the hideously complex VAT system — a job creation scheme for accountants that had to be brought in when the UK joined the EU — altogether, and go back to the simple purchase tax we had before.

In the 1990s, there were endless protests along the coast against exporting live lambs and calves for slaughter in Europe. The government wanted to ban the exports, but couldn’t because of EU rules. Animal welfare groups, take note.

In 2012, Nicola Sturgeon passed a law to impose minimum alcohol pricing in Scotland, but it has not come in because the ECJ complained. She could control Scottish fisheries to revitalise Scottish fishing ports.

The last Labour government fought to have control of EU regional development funding to the UK; a money-go-round nonsense. Come Brexit, the government will be able to design funding to fit the country’s priorities. A Northern Powerhouse for instance.

The UK could also be brought closer together by introducing variable Air Passenger Duty — such as scrapping it on flights from Northern Ireland to Great Britain, or halving it from Scotland to England. Impossible in the EU, but possible outside.

There was a huge national moan when duty free for passengers travelling to Europe was abolished, because it conflicted with EU single market rules. Come Brexit, the government could bring back duty free for trips to France, Spain and Italy.

The head of the British Bankers’ Association promoted competition in banking, arguing that challenger banks should have a level playing field with large banks on prudential regulation. The government was supportive, but the barrier was the EU. It was a constant frustration to the UK’s global financial institutions that the EU would apply its rules to their operations all over the world, making them less competitive internationally. Come Brexit, it seems likely the government would be able to ensure that a UK bank or insurance company working in the US or Asia can compete with US or Asian banks on a level playing field.

Byzantine EU rules can make procurement by public authorities a tortuous quagmire. The former minister Francis Maude fought a valiant battle for major reform. But Brexit means the government can set up a more effective procurement regime, helping improve public services.

David Cameron focused his brutalising EU renegotiation on being allowed to stop paying UK child benefit payments to children who don’t live in the UK. Once the UK leaves, the government could do it in the time it takes to write the press release! The government will also be allowed to ensure that EU citizens living in the UK follow the same rules as British citizens on bringing in spouses. The government will have the freedom to set language rules for EU doctors, and to deport EU criminals.

So as you can see, many things. There are lots of things the government opposed at the time, but which we will end up keeping. It lost a battle to stop passengers getting compensation if aeroplane delays are caused by technical problems. I doubt that will change.

Then there are things a future government might want to do, but which at the moment it can’t. It is clear, for example, that the wholesale nationalisation of the train system is an infringement of the EU’s Fourth Railway Package, which requires governments to open up train services to the markets. If Corbyn were to become PM, Brexit would enable him to deliver on his pledge for example.

[peejaye]

Peejaye?

Do you really need to ask? We've had one. If the re-moaners would of won; do you think we would be asking for another referendum?
I honestly don't think there will be one although the PM we have seems to be doing her best to try and stay in it! I really don't know where we are with it all to be honest?
It's also very clear to me the only people interested in this thread are the sad Political elite who can't accept the result.
Well said Forrest Hump, I know the who three individuals are who've thumb downed your posting, it's just stupid and petty . Their "gravy train" as been derailed; & hopefully all the fucking "quangos" it fetched with it.