Brexit - Time to scrap it and start again?

[caratacus]

The British people have wanted a say on the EU for years but have been prevented by a parliament which has continually surrendered powers to an outside body without any form of consultation. That is undemocratic! Now after a referendum which ran contrary to their wishes, they have quite brazenly schemed against the outcome to the extent that we are not only unable to leave without the EU's cooperation but are unable to have an election and replace a minority government.

These are the ones who have dragged the reputation of our constitutional democracy down, and yet they a have te audacity to claim the contrary. They are rabble and the whole thing is a theatre not a proper parliament of the people.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-49645338

[Alastor]

The British people have wanted a say on the EU for years but have been prevented by a parliament which has continually surrendered powers to an outside body without any form of consultation. That is undemocratic! Now after a referendum which ran contrary to their wishes, they have quite brazenly schemed against the outcome to the extent that we are not only unable to leave without the EU's cooperation but are unable to have an election and replace a minority government.

The British people have had the say afforded to them by their representative system several times throughout the last few years. Every time there was an election for instance. Again the UK is not a direct democracy, so not asking them a specific question directly is not undemocratic, unless you consider representative systems as a whole to be undemocratic which is a different topic. All they had to do if they wanted to leave was vote for a party that ran with that agenda. All they had to do if they were unhappy was vote for a party that said likewise. Which they did, several times as evidenced by the constant attempts from various British governments to negotiate opt-outs and special treatment deals from the EU. Which generally they got. Rebates, Schengen, Euro, Cameron's deal etc etc.

[caratacus]

The British people have had the say afforded to them by their representative system several times throughout the last few years. Every time there was an election for instance. Again the UK is not a direct democracy, so not asking them a specific question directly is not undemocratic, unless you consider representative systems as a whole to be undemocratic which is a different topic. All they had to do if they wanted to leave was vote for a party that ran with that agenda. All they had to do if they were unhappy was vote for a party that said likewise. Which they did, several times as evidenced by the constant attempts from various British governments to negotiate opt-outs and special treatment deals from the EU. Which generally they got. Rebates, Schengen, Euro, Cameron's deal etc etc.

All three main political parties kept membership of the European Union from their main agendas, there wasn't a choice. Until UKIP came along there was no political voice which stood any chance of influencing the direction successive governments have taken, and then even then the elctoral system ensured that party could not take any seats in the Commons themselves despite their significant electoral base. "Special treatment" as you put it, was simply a way to placate opposition.

[Alastor]

All three main political parties kept membership of the European Union from their main agendas, there wasn't a choice. Until UKIP came along there was no political voice which stood any chance of influncing the direction successive governments have taken, and then even then the elctoral system ensured that party could not take any seats in the Commons themselves despite their significant electoral base. "Special treatment" as you put it, was simply a way to placate opposition.

To need placation, first the grievances must have been heard. Therefore there was a voice. As for the electoral system I assume you mean the "first past the post" rule. So if UKIP got only a few MPs it means that in very few counties they actually had more votes that any other party. Not exactly that significant their electoral base then. Whose fault is it if Brits voted for UKIP in the EU elections but went back to the Conservatives in the national ones? And didn't the British people vote by a landslide a few years back (2011 referendum) not to change their electoral system?

[ioannis76]

Current mess is direct result of poor result of first referendum. Because both sides has almost 50%, that is very strong view to contest anything. 2:1, 3:1 are way different than 1:1.

First referendum result is weak win for leave. However not saying what kind of leave people wants....you say that UK should not remain in EU due to first referendum but in that case we cannot quess which kind of deal if any has majority in population (else you agree that 100% leavers are fine with "no deal"? or what about May deal..why I cannot claim that 100% leavers voted for May deal?)...Simply solution is second referendum either Remain vs one final leave option or remain vs no deal vs deal.....possibly taking long extension to calm down home politics in UK,get new election and prepare such final deal. Deal that may pass in parliament. So far no deal has managed that...

From what you write, I reach the conclusion that if there was to be another referendum, the only acceptable question in that referendum would be whether the people would be interested in a no deal brexit if a deal could not be reached by (add specific date). Certainly not another referendum asking the people whether they want the UK to leave the EU or to remain in it, since that question has already been asked and answered.
Repeating the same question in a possible future referendum (ie whether they want to remain or leave) would be a blatant disregard for the meaning of democracy.

[Cope]

From what you write, I reach the conclusion that if there was to be another referendum, the only acceptable question in that referendum would be whether the people would be interested in a no deal brexit if a deal could not be reached by (add specific date). Certainly not another referendum asking the people whether they want the UK to leave the EU or to remain in it, since that question has already been asked and answered.
Repeating the same question in a possible future referendum (ie whether they want to remain or leave) would be a blatant disregard for the meaning of democracy.

Democracy has already (and continues to be) blatantly disregarded: the politicians demanding a IInd. referendum couldn't care less.

[Ludicus]

Democracy has already (and continues to be) blatantly disregarded

Excuse me, but why should there be a second referendum? Was there any foulplay in the first one?

In fact, it's hard to deny that the a largely uninformed public was invited to make a judgment (1). As a side note, I dare to say that even today part of the British people still have no idea what they voted for with the Brexit. I quote, Public felt ill-informed in EU referendum campaign
"There were glaring democratic deficiencies in the run-up to the vote, with the public feeling totally ill-informed"

And let's keep in mind that in 2016 a country called Scotland voted overwhelmingly in favour of staying in the EU by 62% to 38% - with all 32 council areas backing Remain.

If majority of people support brexit than what do you fear?

(1) In fact the Tory leadership deeply fears a second referendum.
Why? The British people is better informed now.A second referendum would overturn the Brexit vote.
As the demagogue Jacob Rees-Mogg recognizes, in a naive moment of shameless intellectual dishonesty, the problem with a second referendum is everyone would vote to stop Brexit,
"we can't have another referendum now that people know more about Brexit"
------
It follows that the most mature and democratic thing to do is a new, this time much better informed referendum.

[caratacus]

To need placation, first the grievances must have been heard. Therefore there was a voice. As for the electoral system I assume you mean the "first past the post" rule. So if UKIP got only a few MPs it means that in very few counties they actually had more votes that any other party. Not exactly that significant their electoral base then. Whose fault is it if Brits voted for UKIP in the EU elections but went back to the Conservatives in the national ones? And didn't the British people vote by a landslide a few years back (2011 referendum) not to change their electoral system?

Grievances heard, doesn't equate with a genuine desire to engage the electorate over the EU. Nor does it create a healthy partnership when a member state needs to negotiate special dispensation. The reason this was considered necessary was because of the large financial contribution the UK makes into the EU budget, any other country would have been shown the door. It is this lack of consultation that has created the resentment amongst the electorate and the support for Brexit.

UKIP failed to make an impact not only because of the first past the post system but that wide divisions emerged within the party over its direction. People vote again for the Conservatives in the belief that they would carry out Brexit, when quite obviously they were duped and continue to be so. It is the scheming duplicity that is so wrong about the whole thing, if you set aside the merits of the EU.

[Cope]

In fact, it's hard to deny that the a largely uninformed public was invited to make a judgment (1). As a side note, I dare to say that even today part of the British people still have no idea what they voted for with the Brexit. I quote, Public felt ill-informed in EU referendum campaign
"There were glaring democratic deficiencies in the run-up to the vote, with the public feeling totally ill-informed"

Post the report.

And let's keep in mind that in 2016 a country called Scotland voted overwhelmingly in favour of staying in the EU by 62% to 38% - with all 32 council areas backing Remain.

Irrelevant.

[Copperknickers II]

The British people have wanted a say on the EU for years but have been prevented by a parliament which has continually surrendered powers to an outside body without any form of consultation. That is undemocratic! Now after a referendum which ran contrary to their wishes, they have quite brazenly schemed against the outcome to the extent that we are not only unable to leave without the EU's cooperation but are unable to have an election and replace a minority government.

We can have an election just as soon as Boris has negotiated the deal he so enthusiastically assures us is on its way. Or alternatively, when the PM has agreed, following the democratic decision of parliament that No Deal is not an option, to extend the deadline. There's nothing to stop Boris from pushing ahead with No Deal, or with a version of Theresa May's deal, once he has won a majority in said election. If he doesn't win a majority then he will be in the situation he finds himself in currently - without a mandate to push through No Deal. The British public have given no evidence that they want No Deal, and until that comes (in the form of a convincing election victory for a Tory manifesto promising it, or a second referendum) pursuing or accidentally ending up in a No Deal situation is not democratically mandated.

[Ludicus]

Irrelevant.

I agree, Scotland's vote is irrelevant. Scotland (and Ireland) are irrelevant to the English establishment.

Post the report.

Follow the link,read the full report published in 2016.
-----
Summarized by Katie Ghose, the chief executive of the ERS, Electoral reform campaigners slam 'dire' EU referendum debate ...

" this report shows without a shadow of a doubt just how dire the EU referendum debate really was.There were glaring democratic deficiencies in the run-up to the vote, with the public feeling totally ill-informed. Both sides were viewed as highly negative by voters, while the top-down, personality-based nature of the debate failed to address major policies and issues, leaving the public in the dark.The findings contrast with analyses of the Scottish referendum which showed there was a well-informed public engaged with the key issues

It offered a stark contrast to the vibrant, well-informed, grassroots conversation of the Scottish independence vote – a referendum that left a lasting legacy of ongoing public participation in politics and public life.
The only high-profile figures who, according to the poll, persuaded voters of their position were Boris, Farage and Donald Trump. Of those surveyed, 29% said Johnson had made them more likely to vote leave, compared with 14% who said he made them want to vote remain. Farage persuaded 25% of voters to leave, although 20% said he made them want to stay, while 18% said Trump made them more likely to vote out compared to 12% who said the opposite.


The ERS is calling for a review to ensure future referendums do not repeat the same mistakes.
It makes nine recommendations, including tasking an official public body to intervene when misleading claims are made by the campaigns, and asking Ofcom to conduct a review of an appropriate role for broadcasters to play in referendums.It also wants votes extended to all 16-year-olds and the early publication of a definitive rulebook to govern campaign conduct, followed by a minimum six-month regulated campaign period"

Btw,I was one of the 700,000 British people denied a vote in the first EU referendum, that's why we need another Brexit vote

[Cope]

I agree, Scotland's vote is irrelevant. Scotland (and Ireland) are irrelevant to the English establishment.

No constituent nation has a veto in national elections covering the whole of the United Kingdom. For self evident reasons, it would be utterly ludicrous if <7% of the United Kingdom's overall population could veto the outcome of national elections. With respect to the referendum on Britain's membership of the European Union, 1.6m Scottish residents (which is ~2% of the population of the entire United Kingdom) voted to remain.

Follow the link,read the full report published report published in 2016.
-----
Summarized by Katie Ghose, the chief executive of the ERS, Electoral reform campaigners slam 'dire' EU referendum debate ...

And now...

The evidence they provided to support their conclusion was a spike in Google searches for the phrase "what is the European Union" and a poll showing that ~25% of people (not necessarily those who voted) categorized themselves as "poorly informed". The report subsequently concedes that this number would have been lower had they polled closer to the election date. In other words, Ludicus, the data used to supposed the conclusion is woefully (nay, laughably) inadequate. Nevertheless, even if the ERS's assertion was properly evidenced, the argument that voters don't/didn't know what the European Union is, merely proves that the British electorate were wrongfully led into a union which they had not been properly consulted about.

[mongrel]

Fact is the Cameron government did no impacting for the Brexit policy, so no-one was informed of the potential consequences of Brexit, absolutely nobody. I look forward to the publication of the Operation Yellowhammer papers. It should, if my understanding is correct, make grim reading for those who have persuaded themselves that 'no deal is a good deal'.

[caratacus]

Fact is the Cameron government did no impacting for the Brexit policy, so no-one was informed of the potential consequences of Brexit, absolutely nobody. I look forward to the publication of the Operation Yellowhammer papers. It should, if my understanding is correct, make grim reading for those who have persuaded themselves that 'no deal is a good deal'.

If the study was given the name "Yellowhammer" in a cynical way conflating it with the Yellow Vests in France, it provides an insight into its authors approach to Brexit, don't you think? I cannot think any other reason! unless they believe a small field bird has any connection.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

We have had 3 years since the referendum, how much time to prepare is needed? The argument that people didn't know what they voted for, is quite frankly insulting. They didn't know what little would be done afterwards, that's for sure.

[Katsumoto]

Who needs the rule of law when you have Brexit, eh.

52% of Leave voters want Boris Johnson to break the law for Brexit

Half of Conservative voters likewise think the PM should put himself on the wrong side of the law by refusing to ask the EU to extend the Brexit deadline

With a bill forcing Boris Johnson to request the EU delay the Brexit deadline until 31 January 2020 set to become law tonight, the Prime Minister is faced with a choice: break the promise that formed the core of his leadership bid, or break the law of the land.

After days of speculation it now looks likely that the PM will abide by the law, with The Times reporting that several cabinet ministers had warned him they would have to resign if he did not.

However, new YouGov polling conducted over the weekend reveals that 52% of Leave voters think the Prime Minister should break the law by refusing to ask the EU for a Brexit deadline extension. Only 28% put the law before the Brexit deadline, while the remaining 21% said they didn’t know what he should do.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics...reak-law-brexi

[Muizer]

I don't see any mileage in the argument that an 'uninformed electorate' is a justification to redo an election or referendum. Where does that end? I also think that however big a mess it may have been, the outcome of the first referendum has established a political fact that cannot be undone. Redoing the referendum does not turn back the clock on people's thinking on the subject. The UK has had 3 years of polarizing/entrenching discussions. It is illusory that a new referendum with remain on the ballot could possibly be about 'consulting informed opinions'. Betrayal of leave voters will play a major part. I would have preferred the UK to vote remain, but that just did not happen. The only referendum that makes any sense would be about what kind of Brexit people want (or rather dislike least).

[mongrel]

If the study was given the name "Yellowhammer" in a cynical way conflating it with the Yellow Vests in France, it provides an insight into its authors approach to Brexit, don't you think? I cannot think any other reason! unless they believe a small field bird has any connection.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

We have had 3 years since the referendum, how much time to prepare is needed? The argument that people didn't know what they voted for, is quite frankly insulting. They didn't know what little would be done afterwards, that's for sure.

Name anyone who knew or anticipated the need of rationing ,provision for the mass deployment of armed forces to suppliment civilian roles, and an order for bodybags to cope with increased mortality? I would say nobody . If by some massive gift of foresight or prophecy they did know, one would have to be a total anarchist to vote for it.

Who needs the rule of law when you have Brexit, eh.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics...reak-law-brexi

Party of law and order?My arse. Wish the media would ask why the haste, why 31 October and what justifies such extreme behaviour to meet what is an arbitory deadline ?

[ioannis76]

In fact, it's hard to deny that the a largely uninformed public was invited to make a judgment (1)

This is a ridiculous excuse. Wasn't the Bremain side given air time to make their point?
And who says that, had they been "better informed", the margin in favour of the Brexit would not have been greater?

Democracy has already (and continues to be) blatantly disregarded: the politicians demanding a IInd. referendum couldn't care less.

I agree, but I believe they can still fix this. If the UK remains in the Eu, despite the will of the People, then yes, the damage will be irreparable.
But this is an example of how the EU and pro-EU groups function. It's in fact a hidden dictatorship, working against the will of the People.

[caratacus]

Name anyone who knew or anticipated the need of rationing ,provision for the mass deployment of armed forces to suppliment civilian roles, and an order for bodybags to cope with increased mortality? I would say nobody . If by some massive gift of foresight or prophecy they did know, one would have to be a total anarchist to vote for it.

If this is indeed the contents, and I wouldn't be surprised it is. Then it says more about the rabid remain thinking of the civil servants behind it, than being a reliable preparation plan for Brexit. Anyone who knows anything about the armed forces, knows full well that through continuous drastic cut backs in defence spending, they aren't prepared for a conventional conflict, let alone take on additional roles. But I bet that isn't featured in the plan, more akin to a script for an apocalypse movie.

Party of law and order?My arse. Wish the media would ask why the haste, why 31 October and what justifies such extreme behaviour to meet what is an arbitory deadline ?

The haste! you call 3 years a rushed job? There is no reason to delay any longer, were at the end of the road mate. Too much time has been squandered already. The EU will not negotiate further, especially given our own parliament has tied the Government's hands by not being able to leave without a deal. If people think that we will go over a cliff, perhaps they should be asking why hasn’t a bridge been built, and only then might we agree what lies at the root of the problem, that is Brexit

[Dante Von Hespburg]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-49661855

Boris Johnson’s suspension of UK Parliament is unlawful, judges at Scotland’s highest civil court rule

The Constitutional crisis deepens. So Scotland's highest court (Civil as this is not a criminal matter, but a constitutional one) has ruled the prorouging unlawful (particularly i suspect as it emerged over the last few days that Prorouging was to do with brexit, and not simply the reason the government gave to Parliament and the Queen of wanting to set out a Queens Speech).

The courts have the power to ask the queen to de-prorouge parliament. However this is now (My bad at putting not before ) certain to go to the Supreme Court, it will also be interesting as i know the appeal is going on in English courts currently by Major and Miller to also get prorouging deemed unlawful (they like in Scotland lost the first case). The question being if this will effect the English verdict, or indeed you may have now a monarch torn between Government and Court, and Scotland and England's courts at odds over the same issue. Its going to be rather a mess really until i suspect the Government appeals and the cases converge at the Supreme Court.

EDIT: More detail finally- yep the Supreme Court is where this is heading- the panel of 3 Scottish judges did not want to precipitate a political crisis by simply Scotlands highest court demanding the Queen cancel prorougation over what is a matter that effects the entirety of Britain (That's my reasoning, they haven't stated why- but i think its a fair bet), and instead are allowing to to be bucked up to the supreme court for the final decision.

If this is indeed the contents, and I wouldn't be surprised it is. Then it says more about the rabid remain thinking of the civil servants behind it, than being a reliable preparation plan for Brexit. Anyone who knows anything about the armed forces, knows full well that through continuous drastic cut backs in defence spending, they aren't prepared for a conventional conflict, let alone take on additional roles. But I bet that isn't featured in the plan, more akin to a script for an apocalypse movie.

In regards to Yellowhammer and no-deal preparations (Which the Government stated this morning was the most reasonable worse case scenario portrayed in Yellow Hammer) i know its recognized even by the Government that there will be disruption (though extents vary on who is asked of course). The main reason for this is that the UK just simply has not prepared, a large part is that May activated article 50 and then seemingly sat around for a year (Refusing parliamentary scrutiny saying it would be 'revealing our hand'...which it turned out contained nothing, because they hadn't even formed a plan yet), then it came out that nothing had been done. No deal prep only really started in 2018 iirc with Hammond's building up of a budget for it, but even then this wasn't actual preparation, just a stash of money to prop up sterling when needed. So no-deal prep that the original 'war gaming' analysis had at needed 15 years for a smooth transition, was actually started i would argue only really properly a few months ago (and then given the leaks and various ministers comments, its debatable to what extent this actually is 'started'). So i suspect Yellowhammer leaks to be right not because of brexit itself, but because the UK has literally squandered the time it was given (and we activated article 50 way to early for any serious consideration- activating it without even an idea of what we wanted from brexit or how to go about it as May did was astoundingly idiotic).

There is also this-

Ms Raja, founder and boss of Nim's Fruit Crisps, stockpiled supplies last year in the run-up to the original Brexit date in March.
But she told the BBC she had no plans to do the same ahead of 31 October.
Ms Raja is not alone. New research by the British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) shows 41% of UK firms have done no risk assessment on the impact of Brexit.
The BCC survey canvassed the views of more than 1,500 business leaders.
"Last time we stockpiled, it came to absolutely nothing. We were lucky enough to get a deal with the NHS and we were able to use the products that we had stockpiled," said Ms Raja, whose factory is based in Kent.
"But this time around, it just feels like we want to do what [people at] Westminster seem to be doing, which is just folding their arms and waiting for the deadline."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-49605461

41% of UK businesses haven't done even basic no-deal prep. Even if somehow now the Government becomes super-efficient in a way that no state has ever been before and squeezes its no-deal prep to somehow be totally prepared, covering all major crisis points in a less than a year, the UK's businesses are either just not bothering (or are not being supported by the Government properly- depending on view). That alone is going to be incredibly disruptive.