UK forum members, BREXIT?

[Alex Nikitin]

Well that is what happens with a first past the post system, sometimes the win is just by a nose but it is still a win. If you alter the system you are then giving a deliberate political bias to it so a first past the post is the fairest in what is always going to be an imperfect system.

Exactly. And if the result of the referendum is not implemented, than essentially we lose the very foundation of a democratic society. Which means in turn that the other values of that society is under threat and can be thrown out just as easily. That is the main problem of the EU - trading freedom, democracy and national identity for apparent (but ultimately false) comforts of a "good for all" socialism. In my personal opinion this referendum result is the best thing that could happen to the UK and Europe, the common sense of the UK people is coming to rescue our democracy.

Cheers

Alex

[Brumby]

Let me ask one simple question:

Did at any point in time was it stated that a simple majority of those who voted would result in an immutable obligation upon the UK government to exit the EU?

[vk6zgo]

Back in the 1960s Singapore left the Malaysian Federation.

That was a lot more traumatic than Brexit---a whole State was  "exiting" a country.
There were predictions of doom all around,but now,50 years on,both Singapore & Malaysia are doing quite well.

The UK is only leaving an Economic Bloc,so they should do OK.
I think the Poms thought back in the '70s that they were signing up to something like the ASEAN of today,but the EU seems determined to be more like COMECON.

[doobedoobedo]

[Alex Nikitin]

Let me ask one simple question:

Did at any point in time was it stated that a simple majority of those who voted would result in an immutable obligation upon the UK government to exit the EU?

Yes.

Cheers

Alex

[Zero999]

Still I wonder whether anyone can argue leaving the EU is somehow good for the economy of the UK?

The arguments I've heard mostly centre around: declining trade with the EU, the EU suppressing trade with other countries and increasing bureaucracy.

I'm not saying we should not negotiate with EU, just that now we're leaving, it no longer needs to be our number 1 trading partner.
Before the UK joined, EU we did a lot of trade with Australia, Canada, Singapore, India etc. which was suppressed when we joined and getting this back should be the number 1 priority.

Some claim that it could take a long time to establish trade agreements with other countries, based on how long it's taken for the EU to negotiate with non-European states but the UK has the advantage that such arrangements don't need to be agreed by all EU states.

I saw a graph recently where Australia's trade with the UK was about 12% of our GDP in 1948 and fell away to 3-4% in the early 1960's and flatlined around 0-1% since 1980. We're firmly turned toward Asia now. I doubt there will be a major turnaround now. Compared to Europe, Australia is a small market and far away. The UK is in Europe and will always find most of its trade partners in Europe.

How long before Greece decides it can't hope for any growth whilst it has a currency it can't devalue to improve competitiveness? It isn't a matter of what will bind Europe together it is what will stop it fracturing apart?  Self interest will dictate the answer to that. That's why the UK voted to leave. That is why countries joined the EU and the Eurozone.  The pursuit of self interest has not changed. The current structure of the EU and Eurozone is not equally in all members self interest.  Greece and Germany do not compete equally efficiently or have remotely similar economies and therefore a common currency does not serve both equally. That's a problem.

Do you have any exact figures?

Could the decrease in percentage of trade in the 50s and 60s between Australia and the UK be due to growth in other areas?

Trade would have certainly decreased in the 70s and 80s when the UK joined the EU.

I agree that  Australia will trade more with Asia because of its geographic location but it's just one country we could trade more with. There are plenty of others.

[Tepe]

I agree that  Australia will trade more with Asia because of its geographic location but it's just one country we could trade more with. There are plenty of others.

Plenty? With enough money?

[grumpydoc]

Well that is what happens with a first past the post system, sometimes the win is just by a nose but it is still a win. If you alter the system you are then giving a deliberate political bias to it so a first past the post is the fairest in what is always going to be an imperfect system.

It is no less fair or democratic to require a 2/3rds majority - precisely to avoid the "it was too close to 50/50" issues.

However, it would be wrong to retrospectively change the rules for the 23 June referendum.

[Zero999]

I agree that  Australia will trade more with Asia because of its geographic location but it's just one country we could trade more with. There are plenty of others.

Plenty? With enough money?

Singapore, UAE, Canada, USA, New Zealand etc. but whether it's possible to adequately compensate for the decline in trade with the EU after brexit remains to be seen.

[nctnico]

When it comes to a referendum I think the bar should be set higher. Because a refendum is about a single issue politicians will ultimately play the fear card (FUD) to attract voters. So if a referendum has a low turn up or is a close 50/50 call it can be said that the people don't care or are divided on the matter.

[Kjelt]

youtube removed

You ever wonder how many people in the UK still speak english with a stiff upper lip like he does, and how much power this small group still has in the UK? And if that is a good thing?
And then he talks about democracy, ever wondered who puts the names on the voting list where the people can vote on? What if you want to vote for someone not on the list? Is that democracy?

[doobedoobedo]

youtube removed

You ever wonder how many people in the UK still speak english with a stiff upper lip like he does, and how much power this small group still has in the UK? And if that is a good thing?
And then he talks about democracy, ever wondered who puts the names on the voting list where the people can vote on? What if you want to vote for someone not on the list? Is that democracy?

Yes Jacob Rees Mogg is very posh. I didn't realise I should discount everything he says because of that though. Thanks for the heads up! I'll be sure to check people's accent and background before I decide whether I can agree or disagree with them in future.

Incidentally I've never voted for him because he's not my MP. But I believe the lists of candidates are decided on by the individual political parties, unless someone stands as an independent.

Independents are heavily biased against in EU parliamentary elections.

[woodchips]

The snag with requiring more than a certain percentage is that one question is the status quo, the other change, they are neither equal or similar. So a straight majority is the only fair way.

[Kjelt]

I didn't realise I should discount everything he says because of that though.

I didn't say that, I was just wondering if this is a minority that has the power and wants to keep the power and that might be the reason for his opinion. If that is a good thing or not, i don't care. Just interested in someones agenda and then listen to him with that agenda in mind 

But I believe the lists of candidates are decided on by the individual political parties, unless someone stands as an independent.

So how is this different from the EU where the members are (s)elected inside the parties ?
All I am saying is that by his own definition of lack of democracy he is part of the same practice. If you want to run tomorrow you are not getting on the list.
Most people do not realize how little democratic their democracy really is. BTW the same here in Holland, same crappy system.

[grumpydoc]

The snag with requiring more than a certain percentage is that one question is the status quo, the other change, they are neither equal or similar. So a straight majority is the only fair way.

Surely the opposite is equally valid - that to move away from the status quo should require more than a simple majority.

Ultimately it depends on the circumstances, especially on whether the status quo is beneficial, neutral or harmful, and that itself might be nuanced or contested.

In all it shows that holding referendums is quite a poor way to govern.

[Tepe]

The snag with requiring more than a certain percentage is that one question is the status quo, the other change, they are neither equal or similar. So a straight majority is the only fair way.

In my country, if parliament decides to change the constitution, the parliament will first have to pass the change, then an election must be held, then the new parliament will have to pass it and then a referendum must be held in which a majority for the change consisting of at least 40% of the electorate is required before it will pass. Not 40% of those who bothered to go to the polling station but 40% of everybody with the right to vote. I happen to think that is a reasonable system.

[Alex Nikitin]

The snag with requiring more than a certain percentage is that one question is the status quo, the other change, they are neither equal or similar. So a straight majority is the only fair way.

Surely the opposite is equally valid - that to move away from the status quo should require more than a simple majority.

Why? The first referendum on that issue in 1975 (though it was only about joining the EEC, not the "superstate" EU) was decided by a simple majority, so it is only fair to do it in the same way.

Ultimately it depends on the circumstances, especially on whether the status quo is beneficial, neutral or harmful, and that itself might be nuanced or contested.

In all it shows that holding referendums is quite a poor way to govern.

And who would decide which way is "beneficial" ?  .

Cheers

Alex

[dannyf]

I happen to think that is a reasonable system.

That's nice and dandy but irrelevant here: the rule in place at time of the referrendum didn't call for a super majority, or a majority of any arbitrary kind. The "remain" camp lost. If they were really as smart as they claim to be, they probably should have set up a new rule BEFORE the votes.

They were not smart enough to have that foresight, so time to move on. It is just downright silly trying to justify their loss on "unfair", simple majority rules.

Would they complain about the rules equally loudly had they won? Don't think so.

[Tepe]

That's nice and dandy but irrelevant here: the rule in place at time of the referrendum didn't call for a super majority

It was relevant insofar as it was a comment about the claim that simple majorities are the most fair way of conducting a vote and the therefore by implication the only right way to do it.

Other than that, I agree.

[Tepe]

The first referendum on that issue in 1975 (though it was only about joining the EEC, not the "superstate" EU)

The 1975 referendum wasn't about joining. You joined on the 1st of January 1973. So the 1975 referendum was actually like the 2016 one. Remain or leave, stay or go  )

[grumpydoc]

The snag with requiring more than a certain percentage is that one question is the status quo, the other change, they are neither equal or similar. So a straight majority is the only fair way.

Surely the opposite is equally valid - that to move away from the status quo should require more than a simple majority.

Why? The first referendum on that issue in 1975 (though it was only about joining the EEC, not the "superstate" EU) was decided by a simple majority, so it is only fair to do it in the same way.

The same argument applies as to whether a simple majority is sufficient in a plebiscite. Just because we set the bar at 50% in 1975 does not mean that it was the correct thing to then much less now.

However it probably was more reasonable at the time given that we had only been members for three years, so the "status quo" was far less established.

Ultimately it depends on the circumstances, especially on whether the status quo is beneficial, neutral or harmful, and that itself might be nuanced or contested.

In all it shows that holding referendums is quite a poor way to govern.

And who would decide which way is "beneficial" ?  .

That was precisely my point when I said that might well be nuanced or contested and demonstrates why policy making based on the result of a popular vote might not be all that good an idea. Yes, I can see that you could respond to that with "well the only thing to do is set the bar at 50%" but I don't particularly agree that it is a good solution - at least not 50% of the vote cast. 50% of the electorate I would be happy enough to support.

Whatever you think about the vote it cannot be argued that it has not had a profound impact on UK and EU politics. Whether that will be a good thing in the long run remains to be seen.

[Kalvin]

Would they complain about the rules equally loudly had they won? Don't think so.

Of course there would be a similar discussion going on, if someone would have decided so.

One thing really bothers me is that there were clearly some major-class false claims and promises in the pro-Brexit campaign which could have had a profound effect on the result.

In a similar manner, don't you think that you should have a right to complain and ask for a refund if a seller sells you fake components, non-existing items, a broken measurement instrument as a working instrument, a bicycle as a sports car etc.? Or, do you just think "Oh dear, I just got screwed big time and now I just have to go on with my life?"

[dannyf]

One thing really bothers me is that there were clearly few major-class false claims and promises in the pro-Brexit campain which could have had a profound effect on the result.

isn't that a good thing? Sounds like you are saying that the pro-Brexit camp won in spite of making fewer claims / promises.

or you think they should have lied more?

In a similar manner, don't you think that you should have a right to complain and ask for a refund if a seller sells you fake components, non-existing items, a broken measurement instrument as a working instrument, a bicycle as a sports car etc.? Or, do you just think "Oh dear, I just got screwed big time and now I just have to go on with my life?"

You should. and the political system gives you quite a few mechanisms precisely for that: you can propose another referrendum, you can vote out the politicians whose views you don't care too much about, you can disassociate with your fellow citizens and form an independent country in rejoining the EU, you can give up your citizenship and join a different country of your liking, etc.

If you get enough like-minded people on any of that, you can realize your recourse.

[Zero999]

To put things in perspective: for EU that means about 10% of total trade, which is why the UK will be lower priority than the US and China, etc. That's what Obama meant by "back of the queue": the US will also prioritize the EU since the UK are so small in comparison.

What Obama said is irrelevant because he will no longer in power when the UK leaves the EU and this is more than just about money.

When I voted to join what was then the EEC I never voted for Political union.

1) You didn't vote to join in 1973, you voted on continued membership in 1975.
2) And yes, you voted for political union, you just didn't know it.
3) Neither were the voters in my country told about that when they went to the polling stations in October 1972.

The UK wanted to join the EEC already in 1961 but were not allowed to because the French (Charles de Gaulle) felt they were too un-european and would only cause trouble. The UK weren't allowed to join until 1973. Now they want to leave, and who knows, in 10-20 years maybe they will join again. The next time there won't be any rebate or special treatment though.

Perhaps the French were right? The UK is not European enough to become part of the EU superstate.

Another thing: they may not be an EU in 10 to 20 years time.

[Alex Nikitin]

The first referendum on that issue in 1975 (though it was only about joining the EEC, not the "superstate" EU)

The 1975 referendum wasn't about joining. You joined on the 1st of January 1973. So the 1975 referendum was actually like the 2016 one. Remain or leave, stay or go  )

I stand corrected, thank you. I knew it was the case but did not formulate my sentence accurately.

Would they complain about the rules equally loudly had they won? Don't think so.

Of course there would be a similar discussion going on, if someone would have decided so,

One thing really bothers me is that there were clearly few major-class false claims and promises in the pro-Brexit campain which could have had a profound effect on the result.

In a similar manner, don't you think that you should have a right to complain and ask for a refund if a seller sells you fake components, non-existing items, a broken measurement instrument as a working instrument, a bicycle as a sports car etc.? Or, do you just think "Oh dear, I just got screwed big time and now I just have to go on with my life?"

I do not believe that the majority of voters based their decision much on what politicians have said. Moreover, I think if somebody did vote only because of what politicians said, he/she has no grounds to complain  . If in doubt - research things or just don't vote (though then you would have no right to complain whatsoever  ) . It is your vote and ultimately your responsibility. Use your brain - at least to understand that you are not a customer in a shop.

Cheers

Alex