Should There be a Revote on Brexit?

[rc18]

I think the fact this protest only managed a few tens of thousands of participants in London of all places speaks volumes.

Thing is, the idea that any given issue should only be voted on once has never been how direct democracy works in practice.

We held dozens of referendums on "limiting mass immigration" until one eventually passed. Should the right-wing nationalists have just shut up when they lost the first one in the 1970s? or when they lost the Schengen vote in 2005? or the free movement vote in 2009?

There is a significant difference between having a vote, enacting the decision, and then later revisiting the issue versus attempting to stop the decision being enacted in the first place.

If we ever do actually leave then ardent remainers are well within their rights to campaign to rejoin, but it will be an even tougher sell than at the EUref. That's the real reason for arguing for a vote to overturn the referendum.

[rc18]

My own preference is that parliament -- the current one, and all later ones -- to simply ignore the referendum. It was just a campaign gimmick (a lot like Trump's wall) that no government need acknowledge. If it comes to it, jurists can discover or invent a Latin legal jargon to the effect that "Parliament refuses to smell a noisome odour."

Realistically, though, I agree with most everyone else here: there will be no second referendum. The thing is done.

(Though part of me is really looking forward to the UK getting its economy smashed and becoming even more peripheral to world affairs until is comes crawling back to the EU begging for readmission with Schengen and the Euro.)

When this is the attitude of remain supporters you can’t exactly blame people for voting to leave.

[rc18]

Here comes the whataboutery. Clearly I hit a nerve.

Leave voters have assassinated an MP, plotted to kill another, publicly harass and threaten other MP's

Ah yes, the actions of one deranged individual is clearly equivalent to opinions repeated ad nauseam on this forum.

cheer at the prospect of people losing their jobs and have no consideration for the negative effects Brexit will have on various industries.

Not believing project fear is not in the same universe as "cheer at the prospect of people losing their jobs".  Besides if this was actually a concern for you then you would care just as much about people saying they "want the UK economy smashed".  But you don't, why?

[rc18]

If Remainers wanted to smash the UK economy they'd vote Leave.

A wonderfully glib comment.  But the fact remains that it doesn't take much for many of those who express support for remain to reveal anti-British sentiment. For some, usually a subset of leftwing anti-Westerners, they saw the EU as diluting the "anglo-saxon" worlds influence, so the vote to leave unleashes their contempt. For others it is an elitist counter-peasant revolt, a kind of cynical response to loss of power that reveals little actual care for the UK, only their position. This is not a new observation.  Matthew Goodwin wrote a good article on the subject of Brexit including;

You must be logged in to read this quote.

https://quillette.com/2018/08/03/britains-populist-revolt/

Project fear is turning out to be project fact and they don't care.

You have no idea what facts are as discussed below.  Besides under which scenario did Project Fear predict probable recessions in Germany, France etc. but not in Brexit Britain?  We were meant to be in recession merely for having the temerity to vote to leave, let alone actually act on it.

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-6578731/Recession-stalks-eurozone-Germany-France-stall-just-ECB-ends-quantitative-easing.html

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/jan/08/its-not-brexit-britain-most-likely-to-suffer-recession-its-germany

Your faith is completely detaching you from reality.

And it wasn't some lone individual. It was someone who knew full well what they were doing who had been influenced by the language of Brexit supporters who paint remainers as traitors, saboteurs, and every other name under the sun.

So it was one lone individual then.

Even Brexiteers like Owen Jones get threatened. Why? Because they're the wrong sort of brexiteer. They're not racist and happen to be gay.

What?!

Why are you making such an absurd, blatant, and easily refutable lie?

https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1010934366300786688

You must be logged in to read this quote.

700,000 Remainers marched peacefully throughout London.

Check your facts, even the pro-EU GLA says it was far less than that.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/01/05/peoples-vote-march-attended-third-number-organisers-claimed/

But sure, Remainers are the more awful people who must be stopped.

All you've demonstrated is you cannot structure a coherent argument in favour of your attitude without lies and misrepresentation.

[rc18]

A revote would mean that the cosmopolitan class will truly never take no for an answer and that the EU truly is Hotel California: you can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave. It would essentially mean that democracy in Britain is no more - not that it is presumably any better in other EU countries.

Of course, if this happens, God forbid, it would be mostly because of delusional Brexiteer fools in the Conservative party who think May's perfectly fine deal isn't good enough, who think the UK can just replace its EU trade relations with some Commonwealth countries that don't even produce what Britain needs.

You appear confused. The whole reason May’s deal isn’t a “fine deal”, amongst other things, is precisely because the backstop and the stubborn refusal to stipulate we can unilaterally end it is a thinly-veiled attempt to ensure the EU has a veto on keeping us within the Customs Union, and probably large parts of the Single Market.

As for “producing what Britain needs” what exactly is it you think this is? In terms of goods imports by far the most dominant imports are cars, medicines, and machinery. The world is not going to stop turning if German cars become more expensive. Not to mention this sector is probably going to change radically in the coming decades anyway with new technologies on the horizon.  As for medicines this is an area that Europe, and the developed world in general, are ceding to developing countries. In fact some formerly expensive drugs I use now come from India.  Machinery is perhaps the only real problematic area as transition to new supply chains will take time, but again it’s not like there aren't alternatives anymore. As for UK service “imports”, by far the largest value is British holiday-makers to EU states. If they choose other destinations so be it, if they spend their money in the UK instead then even better. In fact this alone could wipe out a huge fraction of our trade deficit with the EU.

The EU is rapidly dropping in importance to trade, it has dropped as a percentage of our exports by 1/5th in the last decade alone. It’s the rest of the world that is growing. As for imports this is distorted by the so-called Rotterdam effect.  As you may well know a large proportion of our imported goods come from non-EU sources that are shipped through Rotterdam, inflating our EU trade deficit and making the EU seem more important than it is. These goods would be cheaper if not for the EU customs union external tariff.  It would be economically insane to keep us tethered to a customs union in perpetuity, and it would be precisely the opposite of regaining soveriegnty which in part motivated the vote.

[rc18]

I am not "confused", you simply disagree with me - don't get it twisted.

No it isn't disagreement, you simply appear to have an unrealistic conception of what leaving the EU actually entails. It seems to be some walter mitty fantasy of having your cake and eating it; being sovereign and free of the political union while enmeshed in its economic system.  With all due respect this attitude is completely away with the faeries.  Repeatedly during the EU referendum politicians on both sides made clear that leaving the EU in a way that returns sovereignty over the most important aspects of British life in practise means leaving the Single Market and Customs Union.

It makes no sense for the UK to leave the highly profitable single market and I never expected the UK to actually do that.

but there is an argument to be made that as the EU becomes an ever-closer union, the UK's sovereignty to decide on its own borders and its own demographics would diminish.

The deal is not (nominally at least) about the Single Market; the official line of both the government and Labour is not to remain in the Single Market.

As Mutti has consistently reiterated the Single Market and Freedom of Movement are intimately linked.  You cannot "decide on [your] own borders and [your] own demographics" and stay in the EU's Single Market.  Staying in the Single Market is thus politically unpalatable, and would only be certain to happen if god forbid we remain.

The issue with May's deal is nominally about the Customs Union (though using it to keep us in parts of the Single Market, and thus Freedom of Movement, via the backdoor is unlikely that far away).  In what universe does it make sense to leave the EU's political union, single market, but then remain tethered to the EU's trade policy forever, an economy with completely different needs to our own?  It's even less sovereignty over trade than we have now, it's not acceptable to anyone but hardcore federalist remainers.

For me Brexit was all intergovernmentalism prevailing over supranationalism.

Dude, where have you been the last few decades?

The supranationalists/federalists won.  What's more our political institutions, even in a eurosceptic country like the UK, came to be dominated by federalist sympathisers.  

But our population most certainly aren't. Even a large proportion of people who voted remain don't particularly like the increasing federalism of the EU.  That's why the hardcore are desperate to keep us in before we officially leave, they know the UK won't vote to return to an even more closely integrated EU any time soon.  Leaving is a last resort, there is no changing the EU from within back to a trading bloc, it's supranationalism or bust now.  If you disagree then you need to leave, that's what we chose.

What's more, I've always supported European economic cooperation and deep economic trade relationships without the political integration, so a soft Brexit always made sense to me - and May's final deal is pretty close to what seemed good to me, and certainly better than anything I expected after the EU and Barnier's tough talk. Your negotiators really got the best they could get. A new round of negotiations could yield even more, who knows, but the principles behind the agreement seem good to me.

I have no objection to a free trade agreement with the EU, but sovereignty is impossible whilst remaining in the Customs Union or Single Market.  Even leavers would say half-in/half-out is worse for sovereignty than even remaining in the political union, at least we'd still have a vote.

What do you think leaving the EU means?  You seem to be labouring under the assumption you can just leave the political union and regain sovereignty and retain much of the old EC.  But they are intimately linked now. Leaving the political union but remaining in the Single Market and Custom Union gives the EU sovereignty of our economics and borders with no representation, a federalists wet dream.

[rc18]

I don't necessarily disagree with a lot of what you say, but that condescending tone is simply ludicrous and you need to get rid of it if you want to have a serious discussion on this subject. I fully agree that the EU is not reformable from within, which is why I had a great night back then in 2016 and why I envy the UK for leaving it (and why I want Brexit to be a success: if the UK is screwed, no EU country will leave anymore, which is why the current sh**tshow in the UK is pretty painful to watch for a Nexiteer).

The tone probably had something to do with calling brexiteers delusional about May's deal.  Hell, even the non-federalist remainers don't like this aspect of her deal.

The sh**tshow is an inevitable consequence of having a political class of federalists wedded to the political union. They are not going to give up without a fight, it was never going to be easy.  Parliament has degenerated into a talentless farce, but we can't fix it while in the European political system.  

However, I also think half-in/half-out would for now allow the UK to gradually move beyond the EU market and become less interconnected with that EU market. You don't have a vote in the EU (not that it matters much...), but you're able to end the agreement unilaterally at any time, which means it is intergovernmental and not supranational - this is an enormous difference to being in the EU.

May's deal gives the EU a veto on leaving the arrangement. We cannot unilaterally end the agreement at any time. We are stuck in it for however long the EU wants (a.k.a forever). This is a hook to reel us back into the EU, that's why brexiteers aren't going to vote for it.

And a non-EU immigration opt-out the UK already had. Subsequently taking in millions of Pakistanis anyway just to show the Tories how successful the multicultural dream would be was your own Labour government's absolutely brilliant decision.

I have no love for our own politicians, let me be clear it's not like the EU is the source of all our problems, but at least they're our bastards and theoretically we can get rid of them.

I wouldn't necessarily trust your political elites to actually implement this "diversification" of economic ties as, indeed, many are cosmopolitans and globalists at heart, but the end of that process would ideally entail the disentanglement of the UK and EU economies except for a free trade agreement. By contrast, a hard Brexit right now (or a no-deal Brexit) would do a lot of damage to the UK economy which seems wholly unnecessary.

I don't think any leavers trust them to, but it will be an inevitable consequence of a so-called "hard" brexit (or as I call it, leaving).  You can't be weaned off the EU, it doesn't work like that. You say Norway is happy, but remember their political class is very much in favour of joining the EU.

As for predictions of doom, literally every piece of "conventional" wisdom over the last 2 and a half years has shown to be pretty much the opposite of true.  That's because the "expert" opinion isn't an educated guess, it's just the projection of the prejudices of those self-same cosmopolitans and globalists.  The fact is no one knows what will happen.  I'm sure in the beginning there'll be much wailing in the media, but at the end of the day life goes on.  It's very much in the economic interests of the globalists for it to do so.  In the long run is being wedded to a dying continent that we have no influence in that good for our economy?

I get it, you are scared about brexit's effect on others in the EU who are not fond of the way the continent is going, but at the end of the day a clean break leave is the only way we are not going to be drawn back in.

[rc18]

So if I understand the primary objection herein to a revote, it's that the democratic will of the voters must be observed. Therefore, if said voters want a revote to express their democratic will again, that's....bad?

Voting =/= democracy, it's merely a process.

If you keep people voting until they get the "right" answer then it is not the demos that has the power, it is the political oligarchy.  That's the behaviour of a banana republic, or indeed the EU. The outcome of a vote needs to be respected before any new vote.  Once we leave if people want to campaign to rejoin then no ones stopping them.

Remember the reason there isn't a referendum every year on Scotland's independence is because they were told the last time it was a once-in-a-lifetime vote.  In fact in a multi-million pound leaflet for the EU referendum the government promised this one was a once-in-a-lifetime vote.

Sounds more like Brexiteer fanboys are afraid that their not good idea is now largely seen as not good, and if put to voters they will likewise pronounce it, not good.

Leave would likely win any second referendum if it were an option.  Nothing in the intervening years has changed the fundamentals, and despite the wailing on the internet the reality is very little has materially changed for the worse since the referendum.  Project Fear has been a bit of a busted flush. Remainers have always been split between a core of true-believers and a much larger proportion who never liked the EU and voted to remain only for economic reasons but think the referendum should be respected.

It isn't just leavers who think that, plenty of remain political figures think a 2nd referendum is a bad idea;

https://twitter.com/bbcthisweek/status/1086054251988541440

I don't fear losing a referendum, it would just set a very bad precedent in confirming people's vote doesn't matter because they will just be forced to revote.  What I do fear is a 2nd referendum would be absolutely dreadful, the last one was god-awful enough and the public mood would sour very quickly in a second.  It really would tear society apart.

Only a relatively small minority are hard-up decided against doing a revote.

I'm sorry to break it to you but internet boards like this do not in any way, shape or form reflect public opinion.

E.g.
https://www.icmunlimited.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Voting-18thJan19_pv-only-BPC.pdf

Pursue a ‘no deal’ brexit at 28% is the highest of all options compared to just 24% of the public wanting a revote.  And the vast majority of that 24% voted remain in the referendum. So no, there really is no hankering among the British public for a divisive 2nd referendum.

[rc18]

Easy. The choice isn't the rosy optimistic one that the Leave campaign promised at the time.

What has changed?

Besides, we did not vote for the Leave campaign or the Remain campaign, we voted to Leave or Remain. Literally nothing the Remain campaign have predicted has come true either, so what?

At minimum, there should be a referendum on whether to accept May's deal or leave without a deal.

Those campaigning for a 2nd referendum are doing so to remain, so there wouldn't be a question where remain wasn't an option. In fact there probably wouldn't be an option that was seriously leaving! Btw the campaign for a 2nd referendum seems to have fallen apart in the last few days anyway e.g.

https://metro.co.uk/2019/01/25/second-referendum-off-table-remain-mps-drop-peoples-vote-plans-now-8389290/
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jan/25/corbyn-ally-ian-lavery-dents-labour-hopes-of-push-for-second-referendum