Harry Hayfield
Green
Cavalier Gentleman (as in 17th century Cavalier)
Posts: 2,751 
|
Post by Harry Hayfield on Mar 23, 2019 12:06:27 GMT
On June 23rd 2016, a referendum was held on the UK's membership of the European Union which resulted in 17.4 million people voting to leave, this is my opinion of what should have happened as to what happened and I would like member's opinions as to whether they would be valid or not
June 24th 2016: David Cameron resigns as Prime Minister. In the meeting with the Queen to discuss this, he also announces the resignation of his government and asks Her Majesty to summon George Osborne (as deputy leader of the Conservatives) and asks her to ask him to form a national government. Osborne accepts the role and creates a new Cabinet made up of the best of all the parties of Westminster as well as a new Cabinet post of "Secretary of State for Leaving the European Union" who will head a select committee to discuss the methods.
December 2016: The select committee produces its report and outlines four methods of leaving dubbed "Norway", "Canada", "EFTA" and "Alone". The Cabinet agree the methods and calls a referendum for the people to decide which method is best as well as a REMAIN option. The referendum is to be held on June 22nd 2017 and will be a compulsory turnout referendum with a "None of the above" box option whose votes will not count towards the result, but if greater than 1% of all votes cast will make the referendum "advisory" as opposed to "binding"
June 22nd 2017: The referendum result comes out as...
(What happens next?)
I believe that the lack of a national government and a second referendum to confirm that Britain wanted to leave is the reason we are in this mess at the moment.
|
|
Izzyeviel
Lib Dem
I stayed up for Hartlepools
Posts: 3,279
|
Post by Izzyeviel on Mar 23, 2019 14:21:13 GMT
Where did this idea that there would be a national government come from? So many leavers tell me that this is what they expected to happen. Was this ever actually discussed in the campaign?
|
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Mar 23, 2019 14:44:58 GMT
Where did this idea that there would be a national government come from? So many leavers tell me that this is what they expected to happen. Was this ever actually discussed in the campaign? I'd never heard any sane person advocate that before and I still haven't |
|
Izzyeviel
Lib Dem
I stayed up for Hartlepools
Posts: 3,279
|
Post by Izzyeviel on Mar 23, 2019 14:48:02 GMT
Where did this idea that there would be a national government come from? So many leavers tell me that this is what they expected to happen. Was this ever actually discussed in the campaign? I'd never heard any sane person advocate that before and I still haven't I keep seeing it on twitter, my family keep saying it, people at the bus stop have been talking about etc. They must've got it from somewhere. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Mar 23, 2019 14:53:24 GMT
Where did this idea that there would be a national government come from? So many leavers tell me that this is what they expected to happen. Was this ever actually discussed in the campaign? That sort of observation has been made so often and appears predicated on the basis that Brexit was a totally different animal to the actuality. There was no platform to discuss how it was to happen, what would be done with A and B, because neither campaign was a political party and had no position or ability to deliver anything other than 'Leave' or 'Remain'. If this had been Government/Conservatives/The Right equals Leave.......And The Opposition/Labour/LD/SNP equals Remain....Then So much would have been different, clearer (perhaps?), put into costed policy terms, delineated as to what it meant, given a time-scale, codified as to what exactly we were leaving and how. But the divide crossed party lines, theoretical politics lines, economic standpoint lines and nearly everything. And to make it worse most of the institutions of our civil and political life were all on one side. That side gave scant thought to anything other than the size and certainty of their majority. They had all and every lever of influence and power. They are in fact the 'Guilty' for holding a Referendum, failing through a staggering level of arrogance to believe it could be lost, not having any plans at all of what to do if the unthinkable happened, and then going into a meltdown funk and screaming fit when it happened. It was not for Leave (essentially an amorphous group of persons with long-embedded very deep discontents) to set out how leaving was to be done, or what it meant, or whether cross-party coalitions of National Government might be required to accomplish it. How could they? They had no such knowledge or understanding. They had been charged to makes a Peoples' Decision on a blunt brute point and they did so. They had in place a lot of very expensive institutions to actually do it for them and they entrusted the task to those professionals as they do to lawyers and doctors on the basis that they in turn were running the buses, moving the waste water, providing the power and keeping the shops and school running! The political class should not have given them the opportunity if it was impossible to do or against the national interest. And if most of them thought it would never happen they should have reacted promptly on the event to say we hear you and we shall alter the EU to redress some of those concerns but we can't leave because of A, B, C and X and explained carefully the enormity of it all. Or they should have thought on it and come back to the nation with a national plan decided by a majority of the HOC as to how it had to be done. Perhaps having a validation of that Plan by a GE rather than a referendum? But difficult as getting all the parties to embrace an actual framework policy would have been a bit difficult in the Conservatives and I think impossible in Labour under Corbyn? He just could not endorse a Tory measure could he? It would have to be a bit different for him to preserve his armour propre! The gut politics got in the way. I saw all that and thus thought the only possible way forward was a binary choice the first weekend Crash Out on No Deal and start immediate emergency negotiations OR Tell the public that can't have what they voted for and why |
|
|
|
Post by Merseymike on Mar 23, 2019 15:00:35 GMT
Where did this idea that there would be a national government come from? So many leavers tell me that this is what they expected to happen. Was this ever actually discussed in the campaign? That sort of observation has been made so often and appears predicated on the basis that Brexit was a totally different animal to the actuality. There was no platform to discuss how it was to happen, what would be done with A and B, because neither campaign was a political party and had no position or ability to deliver anything other than 'leave' or 'Remain'. If this had been Government/Conservatives/The Right equals Leave.......And The Opposition/Labour/LD/SNP equals Remain....Then So much would have been different, clearer (perhaps?), put into costed policy terms, delineated as to what it meant, given a time-scale, codified as to what exactly we were leaving and how. But the divide crossed party lines, theoretical politics lines, economic standpoint lines and nearly everything. And to make it worse most of the institutions of our civil and political life were all on one side. That side gave scant thought to anything other than the size and certainty of their majority. They had all and every lever of influence and power. They are in fact the 'Guilty' for holding a Referendum, Failing through a staggering level of arrogance tp believe it could be lost, not having any plans at all of what to do if the unthinkable happened, and then going into a meltdown funk and screaming fit when it happened. It was not for Leave (essentially an amorphous group of persons with long-embedded very deep discontents) to set out how leaving was to be done, or what it meant, or whether cross-party coalitions of National Government might be required to accomplish it. How could they? They had no such knowledge or understanding. They had been charged to makes a Peoples' Decision on a blunt brute point and they did so. They had in place a lot of very expensive institutions to actually do it for them and they entrusted the task to those professionals as they do to lawyers and doctors or the basis that they in turn were running the buses, moving the waste water, providing the power and keeping the shops and school running! The political class should not have given them the opportunity if it was impossible to do or against the national interest. And if most of them thought it would never happen they should have reacted promptly on the event to say we hear you and we shall alter the EU to redres some of those concerns but we can't leave because of A, B, C and X and explained carefully the enormity of it all. Or they should have thought on it and come back to the nation with a national plan decided by a majority of the HOC as to how it had to be done. Perhaps having a validation of that Plan by a GE rather than a referendum? But difficult as getting all the parties to embrace an actual framework policy would have been a bit difficult in the Conservatives and I think impossible in Labour under Corbyn? He just could not endorse a Tory measure could he? It would have to be a bit different for him to preserve his armour propre! The gut politics got in the way. I saw all that and thus thought the only possible way forward was a binary choice the first weekend Crash Out on No Deal and start immediate emergency negotiations OR Tell the public that can't have what they voted for and why I think this is exactly why Im opposed to referendums. And I have come to the same conclusion. But I don't think that no deal is sensible - the world won't collapse either, mind. So I think if the MP's had the courage, which I doubt, they would revoke article 50 and explain why. Which would not be difficult to explain. The hard core leavers would be livid but they aren't a majority. Most people just want the whole thing sorted. And if that is what people want the easiest solution in terms of no on going problems is to remain. All the issues I have raised before which do not make me an identikit Remainer still apply |
|
|
|
Post by pepperminttea on Mar 23, 2019 18:37:00 GMT
On June 23rd 2016, a referendum was held on the UK's membership of the European Union which resulted in 17.4 million people voting to leave, this is my opinion of what should have happened as to what happened and I would like member's opinions as to whether they would be valid or not June 24th 2016: David Cameron resigns as Prime Minister. In the meeting with the Queen to discuss this, he also announces the resignation of his government and asks Her Majesty to summon George Osborne (as deputy leader of the Conservatives) and asks her to ask him to form a national government. Osborne accepts the role and creates a new Cabinet made up of the best of all the parties of Westminster as well as a new Cabinet post of "Secretary of State for Leaving the European Union" who will head a select committee to discuss the methods. December 2016: The select committee produces its report and outlines four methods of leaving dubbed "Norway", "Canada", "EFTA" and "Alone". The Cabinet agree the methods and calls a referendum for the people to decide which method is best as well as a REMAIN option. The referendum is to be held on June 22nd 2017 and will be a compulsory turnout referendum with a "None of the above" box option whose votes will not count towards the result, but if greater than 1% of all votes cast will make the referendum "advisory" as opposed to "binding"June 22nd 2017: The referendum result comes out as... (What happens next?) I believe that the lack of a national government and a second referendum to confirm that Britain wanted to leave is the reason we are in this mess at the moment. This I think would have been the correct path for the government to go down. Give the public a series of 4-5 different Brexit options and allow them to rank them. However 'remain' should not be included as the question of leave/remain was settled by the first referendum and the second is to ask what type of leave people would prefer. All but the most extreme remainers (including the likes of Soubry) would've accepted a ballot without remain on at this stage and would have thrown their weight behind getting a victory for the Norway+ option. If the goverment had gone this route they would have upset people at both extremes but most people would have (in many cases reluctantly) come behind the Brexit plan and Brexit wouldn't be anywhere near as divisive as it is now. |
|
|
|
Post by johnloony on Mar 23, 2019 21:36:56 GMT
The title of the thread ("... properly") is contradicted by lots of stuff in the opening comment.
If Brexit had been done properly, the new PM would have been an explicit Brexiteer (Gove or Broris), not Osborne; there wouldn't have been a referendum with compulsory turnout, and there definitely wouldn't have been a ludicrous 1% clause. The only vaguely viable possibility is a national coalition government.
If Brexit had been done properly, Cameron would have stayed on as PM, would have involved other parties in the discussions, and would have negotiated a better deal and sold it better.
|
|
middyman
Conservative
"The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of other people's money."
Posts: 8,050
|
Post by middyman on Mar 23, 2019 22:14:50 GMT
That sort of observation has been made so often and appears predicated on the basis that Brexit was a totally different animal to the actuality. There was no platform to discuss how it was to happen, what would be done with A and B, because neither campaign was a political party and had no position or ability to deliver anything other than 'leave' or 'Remain'. If this had been Government/Conservatives/The Right equals Leave.......And The Opposition/Labour/LD/SNP equals Remain....Then So much would have been different, clearer (perhaps?), put into costed policy terms, delineated as to what it meant, given a time-scale, codified as to what exactly we were leaving and how. But the divide crossed party lines, theoretical politics lines, economic standpoint lines and nearly everything. And to make it worse most of the institutions of our civil and political life were all on one side. That side gave scant thought to anything other than the size and certainty of their majority. They had all and every lever of influence and power. They are in fact the 'Guilty' for holding a Referendum, Failing through a staggering level of arrogance tp believe it could be lost, not having any plans at all of what to do if the unthinkable happened, and then going into a meltdown funk and screaming fit when it happened. It was not for Leave (essentially an amorphous group of persons with long-embedded very deep discontents) to set out how leaving was to be done, or what it meant, or whether cross-party coalitions of National Government might be required to accomplish it. How could they? They had no such knowledge or understanding. They had been charged to makes a Peoples' Decision on a blunt brute point and they did so. They had in place a lot of very expensive institutions to actually do it for them and they entrusted the task to those professionals as they do to lawyers and doctors or the basis that they in turn were running the buses, moving the waste water, providing the power and keeping the shops and school running! The political class should not have given them the opportunity if it was impossible to do or against the national interest. And if most of them thought it would never happen they should have reacted promptly on the event to say we hear you and we shall alter the EU to redres some of those concerns but we can't leave because of A, B, C and X and explained carefully the enormity of it all. Or they should have thought on it and come back to the nation with a national plan decided by a majority of the HOC as to how it had to be done. Perhaps having a validation of that Plan by a GE rather than a referendum? But difficult as getting all the parties to embrace an actual framework policy would have been a bit difficult in the Conservatives and I think impossible in Labour under Corbyn? He just could not endorse a Tory measure could he? It would have to be a bit different for him to preserve his armour propre! The gut politics got in the way. I saw all that and thus thought the only possible way forward was a binary choice the first weekend Crash Out on No Deal and start immediate emergency negotiations OR Tell the public that can't have what they voted for and why I think this is exactly why Im opposed to referendums. And I have come to the same conclusion. But I don't think that no deal is sensible - the world won't collapse either, mind. So I think if the MP's had the courage, which I doubt, they would revoke article 50 and explain why. Which would not be difficult to explain. The hard core leavers would be livid but they aren't a majority. Most people just want the whole thing sorted. And if that is what people want the easiest solution in terms of no on going problems is to remain. All the issues I have raised before which do not make me an identikit Remainer still apply I am not convinced this would have sorted it. Farage & Co would be up in arms and the Brexit is best chorus would have the addition of charges of betrayal. If we thought the anti-EU campaign was a trial before the referendum, it would dominate the news after revocation of A50. |
|
slon
Non-Aligned
Posts: 12,708
|
Post by slon on Mar 26, 2019 15:52:40 GMT
Maybe for Brexit to be done properly it requires the governance of the UK to be done properly.
In a sort of ideal democracy people would vote for a party which represented their views. If therefore they thought leaving the EU was the most important thing for Britain then they would vote for a party which had that as a number one priority policy.
This might mean we have a number of small parties with a large or small following according to their policies and personnel, and the power of such parties will wax and wane according to how well or badly they perform (a bit like free market economics or Darwinian evolution theory) . The parties would also have to work together or in close coalition to acheive necessary majority for change and the required legislation.
Can't happen in the UK as we have a FPTP voting system which results in two party dominance (minor parties other than special regional issue ones cannot gain any representation).
This leads to the current situation where a governing party is trying to represent two opposing views so is unable to govern ... and it remains more important to this party to remain united than to admit the schism.
This is not a proposal for a change to the system of voting, merely an observation of the mess we are in at the present.
|
|
|
|
Post by mrpastelito on Mar 31, 2019 15:51:41 GMT
They way I would've done it:
Stay on as PM, and certainly not resign.
Enter negotiations with EFTA and see whether they'd accept us back into their fold, and on what terms.
If an agreement with EFTA can be reached, invoke Article 50, announce that we're going to rejoin EFTA, and inform the EU that our intention is to leave on WTO terms within a couple of years but that we'd be open to negotiating closer terms should the EU wish so.
If for some reason(s) an agreement with EFTA can't be reached, invoke Article 50 with the intention of forming a third pillar of EEA with the observation that a future sovereign parliament might negotiate either closer or looser terms.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Apr 1, 2019 11:18:04 GMT
They way I would've done it: Stay on as PM, and certainly not resign. Enter negotiations with EFTA and see whether they'd accept us back into their fold, and on what terms. If an agreement with EFTA can be reached, invoke Article 50, announce that we're going to rejoin EFTA, and inform the EU that our intention is to leave on WTO terms within a couple of years but that we'd be open to negotiating closer terms should the EU wish so. If for some reason(s) an agreement with EFTA can't be reached, invoke Article 50 with the intention of forming a third pillar of EEA with the observation that a future sovereign parliament might negotiate either closer or looser terms. I'm somewhat confused here. If we join EFTA then we aren't leaving on WTO terms, so why would you be telling the EU that we are? |
|
|
|
Post by mrpastelito on Apr 1, 2019 13:14:03 GMT
They way I would've done it: Stay on as PM, and certainly not resign. Enter negotiations with EFTA and see whether they'd accept us back into their fold, and on what terms. If an agreement with EFTA can be reached, invoke Article 50, announce that we're going to rejoin EFTA, and inform the EU that our intention is to leave on WTO terms within a couple of years but that we'd be open to negotiating closer terms should the EU wish so. If for some reason(s) an agreement with EFTA can't be reached, invoke Article 50 with the intention of forming a third pillar of EEA with the observation that a future sovereign parliament might negotiate either closer or looser terms. I'm somewhat confused here. If we join EFTA then we aren't leaving on WTO terms, so why would you be telling the EU that we are? As long as we joined EFTA, but not EEA, we'd be part of all EFTA trade agreements, (so yes, not WTO), but our relationship with the EU would have to be redefined, and as long as there wasn't agreement on this future relationship, our dealings with the EU would come under WTO rules I think? |
|
