I don't really agree with this. First of all we keep hearing of improprieties from the leaver side during the referendum's campaign, people are going as far as calling it illegal, delegitimizing it. But even without that, why must the referendum result be respected and implemented? it was not a binding referendum, which means the law does not require that it is followed. Sovereignty in the UK rests with the parliament, not the people. So, if there is no legal argument, what is left? The moral one? Hardly, even ignoring the previously mentioned improprieties the referendum was very close, the decision very big/complex and many people probably have changed their mind, the moral argument is weak at best and it definitely doesn't excuse not asking their opinion again. So what is left? Petty partisanship and empty democratic grandstanding on the backs of a potentially very damaging decision for the country.
I didn't agree with the initial referendum in the first place, but if one such referendum can happen, I don't see why a second can't using the same rationale. And I didn't say that I want the UK to stay, in my opinion the worst case scenario at the moment would be for the UK to revoke article 50 and re-initiate the process at a later date. It will continue this damaging standstill and further distract the EU at a time when the focus should be elsewhere. But that is not related to my questioning the logic of the referendum, or more importantly the claim that it has to be followed through.
Patron: The Mighty Katsumoto
Sukiyama's Blog
Simple explanations of Austrian Economics POV on a number of issues.
Simplified Western Philosophy
Best of Thooorin, CS:GO Analyst and Historian.
So even though you think that the referendum was a bad idea because it has no legal or moral basis you think we might as well just have another? Good argument.
You don't understand European politics. If the United Kingdom left the European Union but remained a member of the Common Market and Customs Union it would have ceded all control over its trading, commercial regulatory and migratory policies to a European Union which no longer had British representation. For as long as such terms remained, this would be an act of effective subjugation.
Last edited by Cope; August 14, 2019 at 03:15 AM.
Patron: The Mighty Katsumoto
Sukiyama's Blog
Simple explanations of Austrian Economics POV on a number of issues.
Simplified Western Philosophy
Best of Thooorin, CS:GO Analyst and Historian.
We can have a proper discussion, or you can try to attack and mock my opinions/arguments. We can't do both.
I clearly stated what, in my opinion, the worst case scenario is. It doesn't mean I can't question the logic that is employed to deny a second referendum. Even more so when contrasted with the support the initial one receives.
So it seems Boris has a trade deal already banked with the USA, interesting.
Norway is part of the EEC, while opting out of representation and a number of other EU agreements/institutions most notably the CFP. Norway just recently finished negotiations on fishing rights with the EU. Norway exerts measures of control over their borders, Norway retains control over many of its domestic policies, and Norway retains its own currency. You're likening EU's power to influence and economic weight in negotiations to subservience. That's a hyperbole, and I'm not being pedantic. Norway retains most of its autonomy just like UK.
Or what are you particularly concerned with that Britain will have very little to no control over? What is the tipping point of "subjugation?"
Patron: The Mighty Katsumoto
Sukiyama's Blog
Simple explanations of Austrian Economics POV on a number of issues.
Simplified Western Philosophy
Best of Thooorin, CS:GO Analyst and Historian.
I haven't heard the latest, but I don't think this will work out well for the UK. A couple of days ago I was watching an interesting video regarding the US and their take on Brexit and it would appear partisanship has taken its toll on this topic, like on most others. With Trump and his cabinet keen to sign a deal with the UK, on the condition of no deal with the EU and the Democrat-controlled House warning it would block a deal with the UK if a border in NI is erected, which would be a byproduct of no-deal with the EU. But even if we ignore such political divisions, it is only reasonable to assume that such a trade deal will be weighted in favour of the stronger party and the US is far, far stronger than the UK.
Last edited by Alastor; August 14, 2019 at 03:40 AM.
As per your initial argument you don't understand what the purpose of a referendum is or the notion of democratic legitimacy. Ignoring the outcome of elections that don't go your way and demanding re-runs until you get what want would destroy public trust in the democratic institutions.
Which is why I asked whether Norway is "subjugated", to draw an analogy between the two. Clearly, loss of autonomy in your eyes is present in Norway's situation as well. What exactly makes Norway subject to EU? Or if you refuse to draw an analogy between the two, what is so horrible about your hypothetical remain option? In which way does the customs union and single market undermine UK's autonomy to the point of being "subjugated"?
I'm also not sure why you referred to Norway being part of the EEA, while using single market in reference to UK. They are the same thing in this scenario.
Patron: The Mighty Katsumoto
Sukiyama's Blog
Simple explanations of Austrian Economics POV on a number of issues.
Simplified Western Philosophy
Best of Thooorin, CS:GO Analyst and Historian.
Whoever we deal with, even now, within the EU, we'll get the lighter end of the weights and measures. Thanks to decades of decay from BOTH tory and labour governments we have no bloody industry left. Britain only exports a few things now.
1) Financial services
2) Education
3) Military training
4) HM armed forces to serve as mercenaries
5) Arms to anybody too moraly shady to be able to buy from Germany or Belgium.
Hell we can't even put planes on our damned carriers or have enough ships at sea to stop Iranian speedboats nicking our . Nelson's body could probably generate electricity and be hooked to the national grid the rate he'll be spinning in his grave at this point.
Your first claim is unsubstantiated and constitutes a thinly veiled personal attack, so I will ignore that.
Regarding elections, I'm under the impression at least that those are legally binding, not advisory. So there is a legal argument. Let me know if I'm wrong. The public trust argument is also shaky at best, considering the large number of reported improprieties during the referendum campaign and the extreme polarization of the British public that followed. I would argue the events leading to the referendum happening in the first place and the way it did happen, laid the grounds for the erosion of public trust. The point is, the UK is already there and if there was the will then a second referendum could become morally viable, or at least as morally viable as the first one was.
Wouldn't that be an argument against Brexit then?
Last edited by Alastor; August 14, 2019 at 04:11 AM.
Uh huh. Again back to the Norway question that you refused to answer. A country that is still largely autonomous, which all EU countries are, cannot be called “subjugated”. Even if Britain has no representation in EU, it can still do whatever it wants. It can enact its own border policies, its own trade rules, and its own regulatory standards within its borders. It will simply have to face economic consequences for doing so. Even if the worst case scenario is reached, it is unlikely that UK will have no negotiation power to change its situation in the EU. Lack of representation in EU bodies is not the end all, be all.
Patron: The Mighty Katsumoto
Sukiyama's Blog
Simple explanations of Austrian Economics POV on a number of issues.
Simplified Western Philosophy
Best of Thooorin, CS:GO Analyst and Historian.
The problem remains, ironicly perhaps the first (hopefully last) time I agree with epicfail, that if we ignore or overturn the referendum we betray democracy and destroy faith in it. You'll end up with ordinary folk abandoning the democratic process and leaving elections determined by a small turnout of partisan fanatics.
Also we could end up reversing brexit and losing scotland, they will damned well demand a second referendum if we run a second brexit one. Even if we do run a second and remainers win, brexiteers will be demanding another re-run and you can't exactly say "nope, no more re-runs, sorry" as you've already set the precedent.
We'll be running referendum campaigns till bloody doomsday.