Jump to content


Consequences Of Brexit [Part 9] Read First Post Before Posting

Vaati

Let me make this perfectly clear - any personal attacks will get you a suspension. The moderating team is not going to continually issue warnings. If you cannot remain civil and post within forum rules then do not bother to contribute.

 

In addition to remoaner we are also not going to allow the use of libdums or liebore - if you cannot behave like adults and post without recourse to these childish insults then please refrain from posting. If you have a problem with this then you all know where the helpdesk is. 

Message added by Vaati

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Magilla said:

You know, you can check this stuff... right? :rolleyes:

 

There were actually lots and lots of people saying precisely that!

 

A significant proportion of the Conservative party at the time contested it, citing the closeness of the result, and subsequently voted to ignore the referendum result by voting against the legislation that enacted the assembly...

 

...including Theresa May!

 

The Conservative Party manifesto of 2005 called for a further referendum on the assembly, that included the option of abolishing it.

 

 

Even Farage himself wanted another referendum if the result was close

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Anna B said:

I think the trouble was the vote was so close, (48% /52%)

So yes, one side won, but hardly decisive in the general run of things, and that's without factoring in a margin for error.

It was a recipe for dissatisfaction and division. Particularly on a subject of such importance, where the two sides are polar opposites. And especially when much of the information we were being fed was dubious to say the least, to the point of lies and untrustworthiness.

In the general run of things 52% support for one policy such as leaving the EU is most certainly decisive.  Joe Biden has replaced arguably the most unpopular president in US history with  51.3% support. UK Governments are elected with big majorities after gaining less than 40% of the vote.  The voters for a UK party that win a big majority don't support all the policies of the Government they choose.  In any case the UK electorate had a chance to stop Brexit at the 2019 General Election.  Jo Swinson who led the Lib Dems at the time of the 2019 General Election stated she was a candidate to become Prime Minister and intended to revoke Article 50 thus cancelling Brexit if she won power. Jo Swinson had so little support she couldn't even hold on to her own parliamentary seat.  Any result other than a Tory majority at the 2019 General Election would have most likely stopped Brexit.  The time has long gone to stop complaining about the closeness of the result of the 2016 EU referendum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, West 77 said:

In the general run of things 52% support for one policy such as leaving the EU is most certainly decisive.  Joe Biden has replaced arguably the most unpopular president in US history with  51.3% support. UK Governments are elected with big majorities after gaining less than 40% of the vote.  The voters for a UK party that win a big majority don't support all the policies of the Government they choose.  In any case the UK electorate had a chance to stop Brexit at the 2019 General Election.  Jo Swinson who led the Lib Dems at the time of the 2019 General Election stated she was a candidate to become Prime Minister and intended to revoke Article 50 thus cancelling Brexit if she won power. Jo Swinson had so little support she couldn't even hold on to her own parliamentary seat.  Any result other than a Tory majority at the 2019 General Election would have most likely stopped Brexit.  The time has long gone to stop complaining about the closeness of the result of the 2016 EU referendum.

I'm not complaining about it, just saying that it's part of the reason why it was so divisive.

And I don't think you can compare it to an election, as you say a government can come to power with far less than even 50% of the vote, (which is a reason I think we should have Proportional Representation.)  

 

The Referendum was a clear cut, single issue 'in or out ' vote,  where people thought they finally had a chance to make a difference and change things. In actual fact it was about a great deal more than that, including IMO a measure of general dissatisfaction of the government which the election ballot box didn't, (and still doesn't) address for the above reasons. A vote for anything other than the two main parties is basically a wasted vote. And now there is a real danger of Labour splitting and dividing the vote still further, in which case we'll have the Tories in for ever,

 

The current (under Starmer) Labour and Conservative party are both following a Neoliberal agenda which is causing the huge wealth gap and schism in society.  The electorate have never been given a choice on this policy, and yet it affects every aspect of their lives. So their 'democratic' choice is no choice at all.   

Edited by Anna B

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Anna B said:

I'm not complaining about it, just saying that it's part of the reason why it was so divisive.

And I don't think you can compare it to an election, as you say a government can come to power with far less than even 50% of the vote, (which is a reason I think we should have Proportional Representation.)  

 

The Referendum was a clear cut, single issue 'in or out ' vote,  where people thought they finally had a chance to make a difference and change things. In actual fact it was about a great deal more than that, including IMO a measure of general dissatisfaction of the government which the election ballot box didn't, (and still doesn't) address for the above reasons. A vote for anything other than the two main parties is basically a wasted vote. And now there is a real danger of Labour splitting and dividing the vote still further, in which case we'll have the Tories in for ever,

 

The current (under Starmer) Labour and Conservative party are both following a Neoliberal agenda which is causing the huge wealth gap and schism in society.  The electorate have never been given a choice on this policy, and yet it affects every aspect of their lives. So their 'democratic' choice is no choice at all.   

They did in 2019 and 1983 and in one clear voice said "No thanks". This country isn't interested - no more than the Americans would be interested in starmer, he'd be practically communist, Boris Johnson would be a bit of a lefty compared with where the consensus is in America. That's where the votes are in this country, either way of centre, 8 elections out of 10 since the year dot. Unless we're all too stupid to "get it". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Anna B said:

The current (under Starmer) Labour and Conservative party are both following a Neoliberal agenda which is causing the huge wealth gap and schism in society.  The electorate have never been given a choice on this policy, and yet it affects every aspect of their lives. So their 'democratic' choice is no choice at all.   

That is wrong.

 

The greens and the libdems (e.g.) have long been credible-enough voting alternatives.

 

But so long as you, as a voting collective, fail to coordinate enough to end the phenomenon of safe seats under FPTP system, of course nothing is going to change. 

 

The electorate has been given that choice with every election. It's only apathy that maintains the status quo, and it is in the interest of neither the Tories nor Labour to change it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, L00b said:

That is wrong.

 

The greens and the libdems (e.g.) have long been credible-enough voting alternatives.

 

But so long as you, as a voting collective, fail to coordinate enough to end the phenomenon of safe seats under FPTP system, of course nothing is going to change. 

 

The electorate has been given that choice with every election. It's only apathy that maintains the status quo, and it is in the interest of neither the Tories nor Labour to change it.

Do you honestly think the Greens or Lib Dems are ever going to get enough votes to form a government?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, L00b said:

That is wrong.

 

The greens and the libdems (e.g.) have long been credible-enough voting alternatives.

 

But so long as you, as a voting collective, fail to coordinate enough to end the phenomenon of safe seats under FPTP system, of course nothing is going to change. 

 

The electorate has been given that choice with every election. It's only apathy that maintains the status quo, and it is in the interest of neither the Tories nor Labour to change it.

The fringe parties may influence whichever of the 2 dominant parties are in power,but will never ascend to a majority.In this sense they have a role to play.

I am not even sure that a change is desirable when you look at the battles to form an acceptable coalition of small parties such as applies in Belgium.

It seems that coalitions are inevitably short lived.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Anna B said:

Do you honestly think the Greens or Lib Dems are ever going to get enough votes to form a government?

The lib dems did form a government. It killed them, but they were part of a coalition government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, RJRB said:

The fringe parties may influence whichever of the 2 dominant parties are in power,but will never ascend to a majority.In this sense they have a role to play.

I am not even sure that a change is desirable when you look at the battles to form an acceptable coalition of small parties such as applies in Belgium.

It seems that coalitions are inevitably short lived.

Belgium is an outlier. Coalitions work just fine, and have long worked just fine, elsewhere. Germany is the opposite example in that respect.

 

But, and of course, that supposes a predisposition for consensus-led politics and, but for the degree of divergence in political beliefs and/or principles that underpin the disparity of parties involved, a common design to strive for the best interests of the entire electorate (-and other residents not entitled to vote), however diverse.

 

Never is a long time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, L00b said:

Belgium is an outlier. Coalitions work just fine, and have long worked just fine, elsewhere. Germany is the opposite example in that respect.

 

But, and of course, that supposes a predisposition for consensus-led politics and, but for the degree of divergence in political beliefs and/or principles that underpin the disparity of parties involved, a common design to strive for the best interests of the entire electorate (-and other residents not entitled to vote), however diverse.

 

Never is a long time. 

On reflection I retract much of my off the top of my head comments,because there are many European examples of working coalitions because no single party can command an overall majority.

Perhaps in some respects it is to our detriment that in Britain we usually do.

I would love to see a more consensual approach rather than continue with the confrontational politics that usually obtains.

Just to keep on thread I don’t think that Brexit will take us in that direction.Rather the opposite.

 

Edited by RJRB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/02/2021 at 13:26, Anna B said:

I'm not complaining about it, just saying that it's part of the reason why it was so divisive.

And I don't think you can compare it to an election, as you say a government can come to power with far less than even 50% of the vote, (which is a reason I think we should have Proportional Representation.)  

 

The Referendum was a clear cut, single issue 'in or out ' vote,  where people thought they finally had a chance to make a difference and change things. In actual fact it was about a great deal more than that, including IMO a measure of general dissatisfaction of the government which the election ballot box didn't, (and still doesn't) address for the above reasons. A vote for anything other than the two main parties is basically a wasted vote. And now there is a real danger of Labour splitting and dividing the vote still further, in which case we'll have the Tories in for ever,

 

The current (under Starmer) Labour and Conservative party are both following a Neoliberal agenda which is causing the huge wealth gap and schism in society.  The electorate have never been given a choice on this policy, and yet it affects every aspect of their lives. So their 'democratic' choice is no choice at all.   

Having had a quick look at Labour's policies I wouldn't describe them as neoliberal, much more social democratic. 

Having said that defining exactly where a political party stands on the spectrum depends upon the perspective of the person looking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, RJRB said:

On reflection I retract much of my off the top of my head comments,because there are many European examples of working coalitions because no single party can command an overall majority.

Perhaps in some respects it is to our detriment that in Britain we usually do.

I would love to see a more consensual approach rather than continue with the confrontational politics that usually obtains.

Just to keep on thread I don’t think that Brexit will take us in that direction.Rather the opposite.

 

Agreed. The benefits to our country would be immense, in terms of a reasonably consistent and long term approach to education, health care, infrastructure, industry, and all the other areas of public life and services which are first pulled in one direction, then another. All dependent on which party is in power. The waste of time, progress and money in such processes is enormous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.

X