Vince Cable Still Bleating On About 'exit From Brexit'!

[saintpeter48]

Just saw him on the news and the first thing he said was that the British public should be asked if we want an exit from brexit, what part of the referendum doesn't he understand.
May I remind you Mr Cable, the British public were asked that question over a year ago, the answer was OUT.
You are a dinosaur and a backwards step by the Lib Dems!!

[Khandro]

jim;
//I would have thought that one of the cornerstones of a democracy is that the losers never have to shut up // Would you extend your principle to other areas of life? sport for example, then could have the losing team bleating on forever to have the match played again and again until they won!

[jim360]

I'm not sure what the specific circumstances of the next General Election have to do with anything. My point was that saintpeter's rant in his last post was rather bizarre, since of course getting an opportunity to reverse a General Election decision is precisely what we get periodically.

Whether that should also apply to referenda is debatable, perhaps, because they are on more specific issues. I'd suggest that the way to resolve these questions in future is to work out what a referendum is actually for, and set up proper rules for them, rather than introducing a referendum ad hoc and only deciding what to do about it after you've found out what the answer was. Both of the last UK-wide referenda were very poorly planned and organised, and were arguably called only to satisfy party-political interests in the first place. The AV referendum helped keep the Lib Dems in Coalition, rather than any serious attempt to debate electoral reform. And, until the public told Cameron to sod off, the EU referendum was called mainly as a way to head of UKIP support and the Eurosceptic Tories. We're stuck with the result now and have to work towards implementing it, as I have never argued otherwise, but you can't deny that it wasn't really thought through properly.

[youngmafbog]

By "it was never thought through properly" I assume you men the public giving the 'right' answer?

[jim360]

No, you assume wrongly. Obviously I am disappointed about the result, but here I am specifically talking about the implementation and the obvious lack of planning in the event of a "Leave" vote.

[Khandro]

jim; without a crystal ball, it is never going to be possible to say what the outcome of any major event is going to be. Before the remoaners introduced spurious arguments about hard and soft brexits and time wasting and expensive legal challenges, it was clear what the majority of the population voted for - they wanted sovereignty and 'their country back' and that, one way or another, is thankfully what we are going to get, so I suggest you just just accept it and do everything you can to make it work for the common good, your continual negativity is out of place and non-constructive.

In fairness, you were born into the European Community period and probably fear existence outside of it to be fraught with unknown disasters, as someone who knew well the times before the EU there is nothing to fear. An independent Britain again is something to look forward to, not to be nervous about.

[jim360]

I think you're exaggerating the scale of the impact I can have on any of this, Khandro!

But, that aside, while I agree that it's important now to make Brexit work (obviously), I'm not sure I agree that's the same thing as abandoning "negativity". Among other reasons, if you want to make something work you need an appreciation of how it might not.

[ToraToraTora]

by your logic jim we'd have a referendum daily! at the time we had it the result was given, it was a pure binary choice, no ambiguity, leave or stay, no double negatives no implied reasoned choices. This sort of choice comes about once in a generation we cannot second guess ourselves based on current demographics. Would the result be different today? I don't know but when the the public were asked the answer was given. How long is that valid? You could as the same about any referendum, even the Scottish one but you have to draw the line somewhere. I think Saint Tony and co are desperate to preserve their gravy train so keep alive this dead debate. In the end it is incumbent upon as all to make this work, even if you did not vote for it initially.

[Garaman]

//In the end it is incumbent upon as all to make this work, even if you did not vote for it initially.//

I agree with that, and I think the idea of a second referendum is wrong (though I wouldn't say it would be undemocratic). However, what some think is the best way to make it work may differ from what others think is the best way.

[jim360]

"by your logic jim we'd have a referendum daily!"

I'd like to think you'd give me a little more credit than that. A far better way of putting my logic is that the rules surrounding referendums -- in particular, how long the "cooling off" period between referendums on the same question should be -- ought to be far better defined and enshrined in law, rather than just made-up by politicians in order to suit their needs. The 1975 referendum was --
shamefully, in my opinion -- used as an excuse not to hold a second referendum on the EU maybe even up until the last one was called; on the other hand, I'd agree with you absolutely that right now is "too soon" for a third referendum on the question.

I'm not actually sure what I think about a further referendum to be honest. But if I have doubts about it then they are nothing to do with the democratic status of one. It seems pretty clear to me that asking the people what they think is a democratic exercise by definition; if you ask them several times then each time is still democratic, as long as in between times government policy reacts according to the result (which it has done).

[jim360]

Thanks to garaman for saying in very few words what it took me a couple of paragraphs to say.

[Ellipsis]

If you are a Brexiter and pleased with the outcome, perhaps you could consider how you would have reacted had the outcome been 52:48 the other way ... quietly accepted it and said "Fine, that's it for another 40 years or more"?

I think not. I think the outcome that would have followed had the vote been 52:48 for remain is the outcome that should have been followed given that the outcome was 52:48 for Brexit.

Which is: wow, that was a close result, there is clearly antipathy towards Europe, let's take that back to Europe, give them a chance to improve the things which we all know are wrong, and have another referendum in 2 or 3 years when we see what they come up with.

I have to say, I don't think they would have done much (much as they didn't when Cameron went out there early in 2015) and that second referendum would probably have resulted in a bigger Brexit vote - but who knows?

"Improve the things which we all know are wrong", while keeping the bits that are in the UK's best interest, is the ideal outcome for David Davis. i.e. we don't remain in the EU, but we end up with a relationship which is the one that we would have wanted with the EU anyway. Bloomberg's "Europe's Ties That Bind" Euler diagram perfectly lays out the size of the economies and the relationships between various countries in the Euro, the EU, the EEA and EFTA:

https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/iNllUULaAcYA/v2/800x-1.png

Davis needs to figure out where we fit in a new version of that diagram.

[ToraToraTora]

as I've said many times, I would have accepted the result.