British Politics Thread

my stance is that (and this is a EU guideline if I remember right) if you don't hit a representative threshold you ought to have a higher standard to pass it.

f.e. a 50.1% result if only 30% vote is bull.

Yeah, that I can agree with when talking about >50% turnout. The referendum had 72.21%, which is higher than the turnout in the last 5 general elections in the UK. Are those results invalidated too?

@26300 Maybe. But the proponents of Brexit said beforehand they wouldn't accept a "Remain" victory with the same narrow margin as valid, and they spouted bullshit while shouting down anyone trying to call them on it. So even if we assume that non-voters either don't care or would have voted in the same proportion as voters (which is the assumption inherent to all voting systems I've ever heard of), there is no reason to consider the result as "the clear will of the people" (a result that narrow is anything but clear) and good reasons to doubt its legitimacy. And let's add that this vote was announced as non-binding (and tbh, a binding vote on such an important matter should specify a threshold higher than just "over half of however many voters turn out").

edited 25th Jan '17 7:54:25 AM by Khudzlin

Again, I can understand saying it's illegitimate because the vote was done on false premises and bogus information, I can understand not accepting because the other side explicitly said they wouldn't accept a result with margins like these, I specifically don't agree with "not enough people voted so we assume the non-voters wanted to vote the way that benefits us".

It's more that irreversible changes to the way things are that will strait up destroy the country should not be made based on anything but a strong mandate.

A mandate to govern and a mandate to set the entire country on fire are two different things with different requirements for them to be gotten.

What would be a strong mandate?

Cameron deliberately took an axe to the established precedent of the two-thirds rule previously used in referendums on Europe (meaning — "implement change only if you hit at least 60% of the vote with a significant turnout; what proportion of the turnout can be deemed significant may be debated, but rule of thumb is also over 60%).

What made this worse was that the only reason both Houses agreed to have the referendum run on a simple majority basis was was expressly because of the not-binding clause.

May is busy trampling over that, her party isn't stopping her, Labour is stuck dithering between being democratic and watching the cliff edge rushing up and the Supreme Court is having this as just one of the things on the Brexit pile it's having to rush to address. And, the Lords has had its teeth pulled over the years, so cannot effectively maul May's cabinet over this using legal means (although, if they decided to hit protest and face the fines, suspensions and everything else to force the Palace to step in, I'd cheer them all the way — and, when you're hoping the vestiges of authoritarian rule will step in to defend the constitution, you've hit a Godzilla Threshold).

We borked our system. Well done us. -_- We need a wipe-and-roll-back in a few areas. <_< Which May is going to block every step of the way with her stunningly impressive "voter mandate".

Heath and company used the two-thirds rule of thumb for a reason when they drew plans up to drop this alien direct democracy idea into the British constitution like a plum in a steak and ale pie. What they didn't do was draw up binding procedural rules with the then Law Lords and get it nailed to the wall, the numbties. Mainly because bedding it down properly would have been a mess of a job for a lot of constitutional lawyers, judges, legislative civil servants and a contentious House of Commons at the very least. They kicked the can down the road, and people never really touched it. Until Cameron-May combined to highlight why we bloody should have. <_<

edited 25th Jan '17 8:34:48 AM by Euodiachloris

Re: my vote: I voted against leaving.

Re: Brexiters saying ahead of time they wouldn't accept 52:48 remain: most Remainers responses were to rubbish them and say a vote to stay was a vote to stay and they should accept that. Now the positions are reversed. (For a minority of people anyway; I actually believe that most Brexiteers and Remainers alike maintained their position on the legitimacy of a 52:48 vote, but they've never been the ones making most noise.)

Re: 52:48 just not being legitimate either way: I do think that this was a rubbish referendum, carried out in a rubbish way, but it's so convenient to say 'it doesn't count' when things don't go your way that it becomes that much more important that yes, every result counts (barring evidence of actual rigging of course): make sure not to mess up the process.

Re: the messed up press: Well yes, they are horrid and massively influential. Having parliment say 'we're going to ignore the results of the referendum because the press messed up' is not going to go down well. The press is too influential remember? Given how long and the degree to which people have been suffering, you might want to avoid giving the press that sort of ammo. (Couldn't think of a good way of saying that; just let's not instigate riots, yeah?)

Re: this entire thing: Ideally I'd like them to activate Article 50, so we have 24 months to negotiate leaving and hold a referendum in about 18 months that basically says 'do you want to to cancel Article 50 (and Brexit) given what you now know? Plese note we don't have time to ask again and trying to leave a second time would result in a worse deal so either way: this is your last chance'. After all, the biggest/most common complaint people had was that there was no real information on what Brexit would mean: lots of claims on both sides, from the likely to the obviously wrong - at least there'd be more solid information. Not a lot of it, but still something more. Obviously this would burn all bridges with the EU regardless of how the second referendum went but I'd say they're sufficiently destroyed no matter what that the loss won't actually be that significant.

Thing is that can't be done, according to the Supreme Court ruling once Article 50 is invoked that's it, it can't be undone and we are committed to leaving the EU no matter what.

We need the European Court to rule on this and clarify some of the fog the Article 50 wording breathes over the whole thing, in short. -_- Wow, that's going to go down well.

edited 25th Jan '17 8:31:07 AM by Euodiachloris

Are you guys really so certain that Brexit will cause Scotland and NI to break off?

100%. No doubt about it. Troubles, here we come! -_-

Westminster is in Lalaland over this. <_<

edited 25th Jan '17 9:26:48 AM by Euodiachloris

Northern Ireland especially, because the Good Friday agreement is based on being part of the European Courts. Without them, the agreement becomes null and void.

100% on Scotland (I'm seriously considering moving to Scotland myself and voting for Independence just to retain my EU citizenship), Northern Ireland might just devolve into a bloodbath.

Now, what route is Northern Ireland likely to take? I know how damn touchy the idea of merging with the Republic is, and they aren't viable as an independent state.... Could they possibly merge with Scotland?

And it doesn't seem like polls are shifting in favor of Leave in Scotland either, though that might change after Article 50 hits.

I don't want to be alarmist but if Scotland does vote Yes, will May accept it (and enter into talks to work out how the split will work, because a unilateral and sudden split is out of the question) or will she do something more drastic? Like a crackdown that gives us the Troubles: Scotland Edition.

Would be interesting to have Scotland as an independent Commonwealth Realm though...

Actually, there was voter suppression. Not only did the referendum exclude Expats who had been living outside of the UK for too long (and who most likely would have overwhelmingly voted for remain), there was also a "problem" with delivering the voting papers abroad.

And then there is also the little problem of North-Ireland, Gibraltar and Scotland all voting with a majority for remaining. Especially the voters of Scotland feel rightfully betrayed.

Especially when the Better Together guys said that the only way for Scotland to stay in the EU was voting No.

Woah, really? if that's true I withdraw my objections.

Also the electoral register had a lot of people pulled from it not that long ago. Not everyone will have been able to reregister.

Overseas territories like the Falklands also didn't get to vote, so, it's not just the very-directly impacted Gibraltar with worries. And, Brexit directly affects all of them, even though their populations aren't technically within the EU, as such.

Again, the bulk would have voted Remain. If only to not have their defence thrown into confusion. The May government is being awfully silent about what Brexit means for them.

edited 25th Jan '17 10:41:35 AM by Euodiachloris

Gibraltar literally can't function without EU access now. I'm sure that Spain would offer Gibraltar the chance to join Spain, but the people of Gibraltar really don't want that, and a ton of people in Spain don't actually want that either.

It means Brexit.

@IF wanderer Why do you think I am so adamant about the Brexit decision being questionable? It was manipulated on every step on the way. The Leave campaign outright lied to the electorate, making promises the rescinded the minute they had won. A number of people who will have to suffer the consequences of this decision were not allowed to vote. And those people who voted for "leave" didn't even all vote for the same kind of leave, since they were told that the UK could leave the EU while keeping access to the single market.

In addition, the referendum wasn't binding, it was advisory. It is well within the right of a government to listen to 9 people and follow the advice of for of them instead of the other five.

OK, got it now. I spoke without knowing the full picture, and I was wrong. Thanks to you all for correcting me.

I was talking about the domino effect of decisions like these, and no, I wasn't a bit overblown. If anything, I understated it; see Euodiachloris, who has yet again read my mind and worded what I was thinking better than I did.

The first problem Scotland has is that Holyrood cannot hold a referendum without Westminster's permission. To hold the 2014 referendum required Westminster to issue a special measure that effectively 'suspended' their control for a very limited period of time to enable Holyrood to hold the referendum.

If Westminster refuses to do that, Holyrood cannot hold a legal referendum. I'm afraid I cannot see this current lot giving Holyrood this permission. Everyone's learned their lesson from David Cameron's actions and - unfortunately for Scotland - that includes the Scottish referendum as well as the EU referendum.

edited 25th Jan '17 3:10:31 PM by Wyldchyld