March in March

[Niamer]

Remainers, regretters and non-voters, please come!

www.uniteforeurope.org

I feel that the statement only refers to us still being in the EU so no longer applies now.

If you're arguing that the the government has a mandate based on what you "feel" about it, then I would suggest that the mandate is hardly a very clear one. And an unclear mandate simply isn't a mandate at all.

They had a much clearer mandate to give disenfranchised citizens, like me and probably 3 million or more others, our votes back. They didn't do it and don't seem in a hurry to do so.

Parliament voted to uphold the referendum result because they're terrified of a constitutional crisis and the opposition has collapsed.

The result didn't determine the type of Brexit, merely the fact of leaving.

The type of Brexit is being decided with no recourse to the democratic process, in spite of the expressed will of half the country, not to mention the soft Brexit Leavers.

Is that democracy? Not really. Future historians will conclude.

In 20 years we will follow Germany in banning referendums.

Ninon Could you spell out what further democratic process you would like to see to determine the type of Brexit, and how that will fit in with the negotiations with the EU?

It's difficult to fix a botch given the failures thus far: I would have much preferred to see proper parliamentary debate not the democratic lip service.

We could start with robust debate in the Lords. And the type of Brexit should be put to the country. Not that I think the majority will have much idea of the implications of either, but it would be a start.

However, referendums can go wrong as it has been seen...

So you want a second referendum?

Ninon You don't sound like you have a huge amount of respect for the "majority", if I may say so.

Of course another way we could go would be to have a GE, which would probably give a massive Tory majority on a Brexit ticket. Would you prefer that as a more democratic way to proceed?

Well, I would have liked to have seen a properly thought out White paper, with time taken to consider the ramications for the country e.g. EEA/EFTA/Hard Brexit/Not possible, so no Brexit. Then it would have needed time to discuss it properly. Then an unwhipped vote in Parliament.

I fail to see why things have to be rushed, just because Theresa May has set herself a deadline, to appease a bunch of extreme right wingers in her party, after wasting time wittering on about red white and blue brexit and other such hogwash.

The problem is a decent white paper with a cowed Parliament isn't much use. It would have likely produced the same result.

Do you respect the 'majority' decisions of referendums in 30s Germany? Bats and beware of tyranny of the majority (particularly if they have been manipulated by propaganda).

A slim majority on a question of this importance needs a fully functioning demoracy complete with effective checks and balances to process it safely.

You don't sound like you have a huge amount of respect for the "majority", if I may say so.

I have none whatsoever. A stupid decision isn't any less stupid because it's supported by a majority. You might recall that the war in Iraq was, at the time, supported by a majority too.

OTOH there has been a parliamentary process and I respect that. I regret, like peregrina, that the vote wasn't a free one and that there was no white paper (the guff that the government issued wasn't worthy of the name).

This has nothing to do with the march in March though. Neither the referendum nor the vote in the House of Commons cancelled free speech or the right to protest.

Quite Nanon.

I will repeat the question I posed up thread, and no one answered. If the vote had gone the other way, and the PM had said 'Right, full steam ahead for joining the Euro and Schengen, an EU army and complete integration', would you have been quite so keen on the will of the majority? Farage for one had made it clear that he wouldn't have done.

I certainly would prefer either a General Election - the parties do have to give some consideration to writing a Manifesto, or failing that, as an absolute last resort, a Referendum. If we had a Referendum, we need to look at countries which use them, like Ireland, to see how they conduct them.

If the Tories got in with a stonking majority - I personally would not like it, but they would have a mandate. We would still have the option of voting them out at the next election. Bear in mind that Thatcher won a third election in 1987 with a comfortable majority. Ten years later, the party were slaughtered in the Election.

So you want a second referendum?

No not really. I don't think it would work in practical reality. But in theory, putting the type of Brexit to the people is the only way of assessing support for either, and counterbalancing Brexiteers' power grab. It's actually in the government's interest to secure a mandate and spread responsiblity as if they choose hard Brexit and it goes wrong, they will be solely to blame.

It's actually in the government's interest to secure a mandate and spread responsiblity as if they choose hard Brexit and it goes wrong, they will be solely to blame.

Yes, which is why all those MPs who said they voted Remain were trying to cover their backs in Parliament the other night, with their 'I voted Remain, but I have to obey the will of my constituents' (Leave areas)/ will of the people' (Remain areas).

Except the Government will try to pass the buck - nasty EU wouldn't give us what we wanted. They consistently told us we couldn't have our cake and eat it, but they didn't mean it. We should have our cake and eat it, it's not fair.

I regret, like peregrina, that the vote wasn't a free one

Which makes me think of the laws on sexual consent.

In order for consent to be meaningful a person must have the freedom and capacity to consent. In other words to say no.

This was singularly lacking in the parliamentary debate, where all MPs feel coerced to say yes, for fear of crisis.

We could have a general election but it would be a Tory landslide, Labour will be further decimated, exacerbating the problem of lack of opposition. The only plus about that would be that the responsibilty for Brexit would be shared across the population.

Misti - I sometimes use the word feel when I should use the word think! So the strength of the mandate has nothing to do with how I word my reply.
Ninon, Parliament voted in favour of A50 not because they were scared of a constitutional crisis but because they were upholding the result of the referendum which they had already agreed to do when the referendum bill was voted in unanimously. Voting for A50 wasn't a vote for leaving the EU that had already been done by us.
I, as you can gather am a leaver and I don't know any 'soft Brexiters'! No one on these threads has ever come forward to say they are one which makes me wonder if they are an urban myth!

Part fear of constitutional crisis, part fear of the mob.

When I'm talking about what's gone wrong in parliament I'm referring to both the referendum bill & A50.

The ratification of the Brexit deal will be similarly compromised.

Once parliamentary democracy has been undermined, it takes a long time to get it back on track.

I will repeat the question I posed up thread, and no one answered. If the vote had gone the other way, and the PM had said 'Right, full steam ahead for joining the Euro and Schengen, an EU army and complete integration', would you have been quite so keen on the will of the majority?

Farage was right that a close vote would be unfinished business, but I think even he did not foresee just how divided the country would be.

I don't think that a remain vote would have been a mandate for closer integration - I don't believe it would have been reasonable to interpret a remain vote as anything other than a vote for the status quo. The interpretation of a leave vote was always going to be much less clear, which is why it is surprising in some ways that May has got herself boxed into the hard brexit corner.

the strength of the mandate has nothing to do with how I word my reply.

Feel/think - either way it's acknowledgement that the manifesto was not clear on this point, which in turn means there is no mandate to leave the single market.

Yes, which is why all those MPs who said they voted Remain were trying to cover their backs in Parliament the other night, with their 'I voted Remain, but I have to obey the will of my constituents' (Leave areas)/ will of the people' (Remain areas)

Bunch of cowardly fuckers aren't they? I wonder what they will do when the will of the people starts to change?

There are already moves to get Kate Hoey deselected in Vauxhall. I'm not generally in favour of deselection but in this case it couldn't happen to a more deserving candidate.

I don't think that a remain vote would have been a mandate for closer integration

I don't think so either. We would have carried on, and the concessions that Cameron had negotiated would have come into force. They have now completely gone by the wayside, even though we are as yet still in the EU.

I posed the question because we are asked about our not accepting 'democracy being enacted' and similar expressions. I wanted those posters to partake in a thought experiment. Had the vote narrowly gone the other way, would they have just accepted it? Maybe yes, if a 'business as usual' approach was adopted, but an extreme view being taken? Quite honestly, I doubt it. Farage and the Tory extreme right wingers most certainly wouldn't have done.

Public opinion can change quickly, even when it looks unlikely.That's also why I reminded people of how the votes went in the General Elections between '87 and '97.

I understood your point exactly Peregrina it's a very good one.

People seem to be fans of the 'will of the majority' as long as it coincides with their own wishes. When it does not, they can presumably see the anti-democratic nature of the kind of assumptions that the Brexiteers are making.

Remain was not a mandate for pro-EU extremism, any more than Leave was a mandate for hard Brexit - although there's no doubt the latter was ill-defined.

Tyranny of the majority if manipulated by propaganda.....
Like Blair manipulated us all, buried truth, hid facts, fuzzed every thing behind hazy smoke screens!! Creeping tyranny of more and more eu... Propaganda.... Etc etc.

kind of assumptions that the Brexiteers are making

Or rather the parallel of the kind of assumptions - Euro, Schengen, EU army etc

The EU army was certainly one line the Leave camp was promoting as being against, as was further integration, joining the Euro....

I would find it quite ironic if May in her desperate enthusiasm to stitch up deals, has to make one with Turkey, and the E European workers are replaced with Turkish ones.

Part fear of constitutional crisis

This is your interpretation of why MPs voted as they did. Mine is different - I think MPs voted the way they did because they believed they should honour the result of the referendum and that not doing so would have dire consequences for our democracy and society.

part fear of the mob

I don't understand what you mean by this, perhaps you could expand.

Once parliamentary democracy has been undermined, it takes a long time to get it back on track

Indeed.