Brexit mega thread part 12: David Cameron: Return of the King

[SerendipityJane]

(previous thread)

That's "king" as a suffix not a prefix. Also part of a phrase.

There was not a threshold specified in the 1975 referendum, So, for consistency, there could not be a threshold specified in 2016.

Rubbish. Each referendum we have had has been on different terms. If the country decides that Referenda should be part of their Parliamentary system as e.g Switzerland, Ireland, there is a need to establish the basic rules that they should be held under. As it stands it appears that the rules are something down jotted down on the back of an old envelope. This is not the best way to run a country - and certainly not one which used to pride itself on its Parliamentary democracy.

As Cameron was a remainer, he would have immediatley been called out for bias and attempting to fudge a remain result, if a threshold was specified.

Also nonsense because this would have been laid before Parliament before the date of the Referendum was held. No one could be said to be either a Leaver or Remainer until they had put their cross in the box. It might be said that as PM Cameron guided the 2015 Manifesto, which had a commitment to the Single Market, but that is only a clue as to where his sympathised might have lain. Johnson especially being famous for writing articles for and against.

The Legacy Act has been found to be in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights, according to the High Court in Belfast.

I believe it’s disliked by all sides, one of the greatest talent of this administration being to unite both their friends and their enemies against them.

There was not a threshold specified in the 1975 referendum, So, for consistency, there could not be a threshold specified in 2016.

The 1979 Scottish Devolution referendum had a clause added to the 1978 Scotland Act by the Labour MP George Cunningham that 40% of the electorate (ie those that were on the electoral register) had to vote in favour, in addition to a simple majority So for example, my vote counted as a NO even though I couldn't vote as I was on the electoral register but wasn't yet 18, so not allowed to vote (ironically, at the time I'd have voted No but I've changed my view since )

Ultimately, this brought down the then Labour Minority government as the SNP and Liberals withdrew their support - and ushered in the years of Thatcher rule.

There was not a threshold specified in the 1975 referendum,

A lot of things were different in 1975. Rape in marriage was legal, for a start. So do bore off with your faux comparisons.

I should have made it clear in my post that I was pointing out that it was indeed possible to put in thresholds - and that it had been done before

Alex Salmond's proposed amendement to the EU Referendum Act that each of the consituent nations of the UK (or two nations,one principality and one province or however you wish to define them ) should be in agreement for the decision to change the status of the UK was rejected on the basis that it wasn't necessary because the referendum wasn't binding

The UK is crap at holding referendums. Countries that do so regularly, like Ireland, have organisations like the Electoral Commission who fact check ensure that people make their choice based on truths and not lies or "Vows" that are then broken

If only that had been the case here

Spot on prettybird

If the Brexit Referendum had ben held on that basis, it would not have passed.
But the Brexiters would have had leave to bring the matter up again. One would hope that a more skilful PM that Cameron was in charge the next time.

I think there is some sort of provision with Referendums for either Scottish Independence or Irish Reunification - if they fail, the status quo remains and a certain time has to pass before another can be held?

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2024/feb/29/food-trade-bodies-consider-legal-action-brexit-not-for-eu-labelling

@Peregrina - I think there is indeed such a provision for an Irish re-unification referendum but don't hold me to it as it's part of an International Treaty (which is what the Belfast Agreement/GFA is) but there is no such provision for any Scottish Referendum.

The Westminster Government has to grant the Scottish Parliament the right to hold one under Section 30 - hence some of the current tension, both between the Scottish Parliament (that has repeatedly voted for it as it has now had a majority of members in favour for successive parliaments) and Westminster, and between the SNP and Alba (and elements of the SNP) who want to hold Indyref2 without permission from Westminster (the Catalonia approach, which I think would be a mistake as it would alienate Spain for an possibly future Scottish Accession to the EU talks).

It's not helped by Alex Salmond having said during the Indyref that it was a "once in a generation/lifetime opportunity"

Define "generation" . People or political? In political terms, it's a maximum of 7 years. With people, it's 10 or 20 years - yet kids go through their entire school career in 13 years. Secondary school in Scotland is 6 years. 20 years would mean that that's longer than it takes for a baby to be born and get to voting age.

If it's "lifetime", it's just an expression. If you go for a "once in a lifetime job opportunity" and you don't get it, does that mean you can never ever try again for a similar "opportunity" should it come up again? After all, once in a lifetime means you only ever get one chance and must therefore give up all hope of it should you fail

To my mind a "generation" in human terms is that a group are born, progress through childhood, reach adulthood and then begin parenting children of their own, i.e. that's when the next generation starts. Obvs difficult to put a time on that 25 years seems reasonable.

I don't think AS was wrong actually to say that IndyRef was a "once in a generation" opportunity, emphasising it's significance. As people may know I'm instinctively a unionist and had I had a vote in 2014 I'd have cast it for Scotland staying in the UK.

What the UK's political institutions and leaders have done to the representatives from the SNP since then is appalling, particularly in the last couple of weeks. I can't judge the SNPs record in Scotland (I just don't know enough) but the way they have been treated is contemptible even if some of their own actions under NS were similarly so.

I don't want the UK to break up, but I do want Scotland to have it's right to national self determination and where it is atm it is increasingly obvious that it cannot. So I'd back holding IndyRef2, and there shouldn't be a 15 year wait.

Technically, "a generation" is the gap between being born, and having a child. So somewhere between 12 and 45 years. Although I'd be happy to accept the median age of age at birth of first child as an arbitrary point. Maybe 25 years ?

This explains why sometimes there is nothing a political party can do as new generations arise. I mean who, turning 18 this year, is going to go "my first vote will go to the Tory party I know and have loved these past 14 years" ?

Historians normally view a generation as 25 years.

A study of whole-genome data has found an average generation time of 26.9 years across the past 250,000 years, so the above is pretty close.

Gosh @LouiseCollins28 I remember years of Brexit threads and I think that is possibly the first time I have agreed with every bit of your post! I also watched the BBC programme The Story Of Wales presented by Huw Edwards and feel the same about Wales.

I'm going for a dog walk to celebrate.

And, conflating another thread, I've just remembered where I heard the name Galloway from, those old threads! My memory is not what it used to be and I've been off MN for years so it feels like filling in gaps atm.

Ah, so it shouldn't be once in a generation for IndyRef2, but should be once in a lifetime for Brexshit.

Make it make sense...

Looking at Brexit again about 25 years after it was enacted, so that would be 2045 by my reckoning, doesn't seem unreasonable at all to me. Clearly you can't be in/out/in/out with that sort of thing but 1973-2020 in was 47 years in so we'd need to spend a long time out to match that IMO. I think I originally said the exact same 47 years but I must be going soft.

On IndyRef2 I think the case is much clearer. Westminster simply isn't allowing SNP MPs to give effect to the wishes of voters in Scotland. That's the way the Westminster system is, since a party with a max number of MPs in the low 60s is never going to govern on it's own. However the connivance of the 2 largest parties and the Speaker to deny the SNP the opportunity of a vote when they controlled house business last week, was shameful.

I don't think there needs to be an IndyRef2 next month, nor even necessarily quickly following the next GE. The case for one could be strengthened or weakened by the electoral performance of the SNP. A 4th successive GE where the SNP win the most votes and the most seats in Scotland would powerfuly make the case that the current system is failing Scottish people if, as I expect, they form no part in the government.

I remember feeling very differently about this in 2015 when it looked that a party that wants to the breakup of the UK would possibly be in coalition government (with Labour) and I hated the thought of that.

3 GEs later by 2024! if the message is the same this time, from voters in Scotland, then it's high time they were listened to IMO.

Westminster isn't reflecting the needs of the current electorate, according to all the polls here comes Global saying that polls only count if they're in her favour so why shouldn't we be allowed to revisit Brexit? Particularly now that even the densest of voters are becoming aware of quite how badly they were lied to. Frankly it's only the headbangers and racists that still support it. And if you think we should run our government to only consider the headbangers and racists for the next 20 years, well, you need your head examined...

This is all against a backdrop where parliament is quietly being prepared to be sidelined, of course.

The narrative that "some MPs weren't able to vote the way they wanted because of 'intimidation'" has just been planted in the media. I fully expect it to grow legs, and meet up with the counter narrative from Rochdale that the MP returned isn't really a "proper" MP because the campaign wasn't a "proper" campaign.

Imagine a world where the Torys only win (say) 100 seats, but refuse to leave power claiming the voting system didn't reflect peoples wishes.

I think the PM saw your post here and pulled out the lectern to confirm, it'll be those headbangers we want. Not the ones we don't meet the needs of, no, those are now "extremists".

Yes I did wonder if he was going to pull the "Russian interference - we can't do a GE!" speech but then that might get ppl asking q's about Cambridge Analytica that could be tricksy...

More winning...

And yay! More taking back control...

Some farmers, "winning" since we left (comments section is enlightening) https://www.kentonline.co.uk/canterbury/news/tractors-line-streets-and-block-major-route-in-protest-302777/

Will there be a stand where we can go and laugh at them ? If they sold tickets they might cover some losses.

@Peregrina No one could be said to be either a Leaver or Remainer until they had put their cross in the box.

So, how do you explain why the leaflet sent to each UK household, before the refeferendum, advocated remain?

@prettybird Countries that do so regularly, like Ireland, have organisations like the Electoral Commission who fact check ensure that people make their choice based on truths and not lies

@Peregrina If the Brexit Referendum had ben held on that basis, it would not have passed.

How would the Electoral Commission have verified that Remain forecasts of:

500,000 to 800,000 job losses would occur by a Vote to Leave (Treasury Report),

and

UK would enter recession (Also the Treasury Report),

and

GDP would have declined 4% by Q3 2018,

and

Property values would plummet,

Were all certain to happen before the Referendum was called in 2015?

GlobeTrotter2000

So, how do you explain why the leaflet sent to each UK household, before the refeferendum, advocated remain?

Let's explain this simply - the Tory Party Manifesto supported the Single Market so it's reasonable to assume that as a whole this was what the Tory party thought best for the party.

Johnson wrote articles for Remain and Leave - he came down on the side of Leave publicly but none of us actually know how he voted. We know he is a proven liar, so he could just as easily have put is cross against Remain.

How would the Electoral Commission have verified that Remain forecasts of:
This is also simple. They wouldn't need to. They would have called out the blatant lies. So there would have been no bus stating that we spent £350 million a week on the EU, let's spend it on the NHS, because we didn't. Similarly any claims about Turkey being about to join the EU were nonsense. Turkey had been trying for about 35 years and had been completely rejected each time. That could have been promoted as fact.

I suspect that you are not stupid and do know this. You don't put the Brexit case well. If Brexit was a success and it had been the EU holding us back, we should begin to see the evidence now.