Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

What would happen if Parliament voted down Brexit? Watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    It depends how and why.

    If after years of exploratory negotiations it turns out there is no way that Leavers in cabinet can make Brexit work, then they'll have to admit the whole thing was hokey. For the public interest, it could be argued quite convincingly that the country voted to Leave based on a series of lies.
    No, just no. Leave certainly made some bold claims about what Britain could achieve outside the EU. It wasn't a General Election- Leave didn't form a government. They weren't ironclad manifesto promises, and the fact that we might not now spend 350 million a week more on the NHS, which no one ever actually specifically claimed (it was more 'we should spend our EU contributions on public services in the UK'), does not validate the claim that the country voted to Leave based on a series of lies.
    The notion that we all got hoodwinked instead of the reality that resentment against the EU has been brewing for decades is outright insulting. I'd wager 95% of Leave voters would vote Leave again in a second referendum, especially since there's been no punishment budget, the rest of the world hasn't shunned us, Europe hasn't descended into war and everyone is begrudgingly starting to admit that the economy will probably avoid recession let alone the financial apocalypse that was predicted. The rank hypocrisy of Remain voters about apparent Referendum lies is vomit inducing.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abstract_Prism)
    Article 50 will NEVER be invoked.

    Calling it now.

    eternal feet-dragging continues
    Why delay your impending doom, better to just get it over with.

    Tbh I think they're just waiting for the best time as they need to form a trade negotiation team and formulate a strategy since we haven't used our own independent ones for decades. Parliament is still in recess anyway.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    No, just no. Leave certainly made some bold claims about what Britain could achieve outside the EU. It wasn't a General Election- Leave didn't form a government. They weren't ironclad manifesto promises, and the fact that we might not now spend 350 million a week more on the NHS, which no one ever actually specifically claimed (it was more 'we should spend our EU contributions on public services in the UK'), does not validate the claim that the country voted to Leave based on a series of lies.
    The notion that we all got hoodwinked instead of the reality that resentment against the EU has been brewing for decades is outright insulting. I'd wager 95% of Leave voters would vote Leave again in a second referendum,
    The idea that 52% of the populace already had in-built resentment against the EU that would have made them immune to persuasion the other way is what's insulting here. Fact is that while Remain did get its fingers burned in making some small exaggerated claims, nearly everything Remain claimed was based on interpreting evidence and facts. Meanwhile, Leave have been caught making blatant lies, based on made up figures, and when called out on them, doubled down further.

    It makes not a jot of difference that Leave aren't a government (in fact, senior Leavers are now in prominent positions of power to do with EU withdrawal, so it does matter - they've secured power based on massive, massive lies).

    If I were sold a lemon of a car and told the sellers' lies did not matter, I'd be pretty pissed off.

    Anyway, you missed the point of my post. If it becomes adamantly clear that despite Leave's empty promises and lies, any Brexit scenario is full of nothing but bad news, then a responsible governments reports to Parliament that the public were misled. We're not a direct democracy, and it should be recognised that the people are fallible at times.

    especially since there's been no punishment budget,
    The one truthful thing you've caught on to, although give it time, as the economy is heading into rough waters.

    the rest of the world hasn't shunned us,
    Strawman. Nobody said they would.

    Europe hasn't descended into war
    Nobody argued this - strawman.

    and everyone is begrudgingly starting to admit that the economy will probably avoid recession let alone the financial apocalypse that was predicted. The rank hypocrisy of Remain voters about apparent Referendum lies is vomit inducing.
    Source for that? I've seen nothing but bad news, and all the Leave sources seem to be scraping the barrel for good news.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JamesN88)
    Why delay your impending doom, better to just get it over with.

    Tbh I think they're just waiting for the best time as they need to form a trade negotiation team and formulate a strategy since we haven't used our own independent ones for decades. Parliament is still in recess anyway.
    It's more a case that even the Leave side never had a unified vision. We have IDS wanting full exit and Hannan wanting EFTA. We then have soft remainers who have now accepted exit but will want to press us right up against the EU box but not in it.

    I'd prefer being in the single market with free EU movement but i'm quite happy to leave the single market so it's like 60/40 in terms of the solution for me. I voted Out on the basis that i concluded that the EU does not make us break us economically, we'll be fine either way and it's clear that we'll be very pro trade.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    It's more a case that even the Leave side never had a unified vision. We have IDS wanting full exit and Hannan wanting EFTA. We then have soft remainers who have now accepted exit but will want to press us right up against the EU box but not in it.

    I'd prefer being in the single market with free EU movement but i'm quite happy to leave the single market so it's like 60/40 in terms of the solution for me. I voted Out on the basis that i concluded that the EU does not make us break us economically, we'll be fine either way and it's clear that we'll be very pro trade.
    I'm in the soft Remainer category but I'm not losing any sleep over it. I always thought we'd be fine either way long term but nothing came remotely close to convincing me we'd be better off leaving.

    You're right about it all being up in the air. Apparently some in the city have gone from being pro-Remain to wanting a full exit as the UK won't have any control over single market regulations.

    http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/a...le-market.html
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    there would be historical infamy for all of the politicians involved - from there on, they would be stamples and examples of "corrupt, dictatorial politicians" and traitors. I don't think they'd like that.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sleepysnooze)
    there would be historical infamy for all of the politicians involved - from there on, they would be stamples and examples of "corrupt, dictatorial politicians" and traitors. I don't think they'd like that.
    'traitors', lol they would be heroes

    I might actually like Theresa may slightly if she rejects brexit
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alevelstresss)
    'traitors', lol they would be heroes

    I might actually like Theresa may slightly if she rejects brexit
    Yes people who ignore democracy are heroes, do you also like Kim Jong UN for his lack of democracy?

    A politician who blocks the will of the people are not heroes they would be betraying the people who put them there and failing in the job they are supposed to be doing.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Parliament will be taken to court, it's unconstitutional. It's an act of treason against the people. They're sole purpose is to represent the will of the people to the Queen through her government. Such an Undemocratic act will probably get us kicked out of the EU. Unless they can bring a mandate showing the majority view has changed in other words, a second referendum. It just won't happen, you can expect riots and nationwide turmoil if it does happen.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by plasmaman)
    A UKIP resurgence is most likely. Ironic because parliament blocking our EU exit seems the only way they'll reach their pre-referendum levels.
    I would hope, however, that parliament would back the referendum result, if not in actual support for Brexit then at least out of a demonstration of their democractic principles.
    The Labour leadership election may have an impact. For all his shortcomings, I do believe that Corbyn appreciates the Eurosceptic views held by a notable proportion of his party's electoral support and appreciates the fact that ignoring that group could be suicidal. What that smarmy Welsh geezer would do, on the other hand, is anybody's guess.
    What I don't expect is civil unrest ultimately leading to an anarchist uprising. Sorry to disappoint you.
    Your use of "Welsh" alongside an unambiguously negative adjective suggests you use that term in a derogatory sense. There's nothing wrong with having a Welsh PM

    Although that aside, can't stand Owen Smith. And smarmy he is.


    I still feel like a second referendum would be the best option, although I feel that would make us as a country a bit of a spectacle. But to me it's simply the most logical.

    The country is now better informed than ever regarding Brexit, so the voting decision would be based more on knowledge and experience rather than lies, smear campaigns and spin tactics.

    It would also encourage a larger percentage to vote, considering how tight the result was.

    So A. We now have a better informed public from the outing of lies and propaganda, the unveiling of truths and direct experience.

    B. A larger proportion of the public would vote, which would mean the result would be more representative of the population's true overall attitudes.

    C. The shocking fact that the Brexit campaign had absolutely no post-referendum plan, with the two main campaigners resigning amongst the chaos they created.

    With consideration to this, surely a second referendum is the most democratic outcome?

    What is the value of democracy when the information lay people receive are lies and propaganda?

    What significant events can we think of in history where we just wish that a country's public could have a second chance at making a horrible democratic decision? 🤔
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    Your use of "Welsh" alongside an unambiguously negative adjective suggests you use that term in a derogatory sense. There's nothing wrong with having a Welsh PM

    Although that aside, can't stand Owen Smith. And smarmy he is.


    I still feel like a second referendum would be the best option, although I feel that would make us as a country a bit of a spectacle. But to me it's simply the most logical.

    The country is now better informed than ever regarding Brexit, so the voting decision would be based more on knowledge and experience rather than lies, smear campaigns and spin tactics.

    It would also encourage a larger percentage to vote, considering how tight the result was.

    So A. We now have a better informed public from the outing of lies and propaganda, the unveiling of truths and direct experience.

    B. A larger proportion of the public would vote, which would mean the result would be more representative of the population's true overall attitudes.

    C. The shocking fact that the Brexit campaign had absolutely no post-referendum plan, with the two main campaigners resigning amongst the chaos they created.

    With consideration to this, surely a second referendum is the most democratic outcome?

    What is the value of democracy when the information lay people receive are lies and propaganda?

    What significant events can we think of in history where we just wish that a country's public could have a second chance at making a horrible democratic decision? 🤔
    Let's be real, the true reason why you want another referendum is because your side lost.

    It's fine to admit it, but with the utmost respect, please don't dress it up and call it 'democracy' like you have some noble motives.

    The referendum itself was democracy in action, it just happened that 52% of the population did not agree with you.

    You talk about lies, but that's entirely your opinion. Also there is no indication that people were misled and voted based on those 'lies'. This is another assumption. If you ask anyone on the leave side, they would argue that the Remain campaigned lied just as much, if not more. To tell people to vote again because you assume that they did not know what they were voting for, is just pure arrogance and an insult to their intelligence.

    I'm not trying to trigger an argument but I think you have accept that some people see things differently to you, and accept the rules of the referendum. This referendum really wasn't as black or white as it might seem sometimes, people just have different aspirations and priorities. Just because they voted differently doesn't mean they are lesser than you or didn't know what they were doing. If this is indeed what you believe (I would hope not), then I'd say a bit of self-reflection is what's needed, not another referendum.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    A little bit of wee would escape from FredOrJohn
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    The chance of this happening is extremely small, and I'm analysing this from a neutral standpoint:

    1) This would involve a Tory rebel against the PM. This is unlikely considering she would only have been in office for 1 year if Article 50 is invoked in late 2017. This would divide the party to the point of destruction.

    2) The 52% will act to remove any opposing MPs from parliament. By political party line of the referendum voting demographics, this would affect Conservatives MPs slightly more than Labour MPs. Voting against the 52% in parliament would effectively mean losing their seat and job.

    3) Ignoring the referendum mandate would drive non-voters and soft-Remain voters to the Leave side, meaning the 52% will turn out to be much higher.

    4) British democracy has been stable since its establishment. It would be against our historical characteristic to ignore a referendum's result. Part of what makes the UK attractive for foreign investment and finance is its political stability and historical uphold of democracy values. In other words, going against the UK's democratic culture would devalue its USP as a political safe haven.

    5) The voting incentive for Leave campaigners would also be much higher than Remain, due to the outrage. Soft-Remain voters would also find it hard to side with MPs that bypass democratic mandates.

    To those wishing for this to happen, just consider two questions - Do you think ignoring the will of the majority, even if you disagree with them, will ever turn out well? Do you think they will just go away and hide their Eurosceptic views? If you ignore them, Euroscepticism would only strengthen. I'm not making a political argument, but just think about this and be real.

    Brexit happened because there is a will for it by majority, not because people just felt 'Brexity' in June. By rejecting their mandate, you are only strengthening the Leave side by giving them a greater moral argument. This increased anger and collective power would only ensure Brexit's return and purging any opposing MPs along the way.
    I'd be all for this though- because then there's at least there's be a greater mandate for brexit. Rather than a 2% majority and a minority of MPs.

    Referendums are advisory and can be bypassed by parliament- I think the referendum can legitimately be ignored if it was superceded by a General Election result - say if Owen Smith won on a pro EU platform.

    Additionally this gives the chance for the Tories to set up their vision of a post Brexit vision which at the moment involves Boris, fox and Davis shouting at each other in a darkened room.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I'd rather we just stayed out of the EU than hold another referendum though. They're a bloody awful idea.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)

    Strawman. Nobody said they would. *

    Nobody argued this - straw man. *

    Source for that? I've seen nothing but bad news, and all the Leave sources seem to be scraping the barrel for good news.
    Wow, what campaign did you follow then? Seems like you lived in a Remain echo chamber, and continue to do so. Pessimism isn't good for the soul, sonny.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    It's more a case that even the Leave side never had a unified vision. We have IDS wanting full exit and Hannan wanting EFTA. We then have soft remainers who have now accepted exit but will want to press us right up against the EU box but not in it.

    I'd prefer being in the single market with free EU movement but i'm quite happy to leave the single market so it's like 60/40 in terms of the solution for me. I voted Out on the basis that i concluded that the EU does not make us break us economically, we'll be fine either way and it's clear that we'll be very pro trade.
    Interestingly the first of the committed Brexiteers (and he was an anti-marketeer from 1975) seems to be backing off as the practical enormity sinks in.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...an-staying-in/

    Are Fox, Johnson and Davis yet working on a plan at all or just enjoying the trappings of office? If they are working on a plan, is it the same plan with the fight to be over who gets the credit; or are they working on rival plans? Will that plan or plans withstand criticism from the Treasury?

    When does May expect that plan or plans to be delivered and what happens if they fail?

    The government has been 6 years implementing a "British Bill of Rights" and so far not even a draft has leaked from someone trying to destroy the proposals which suggests there is, as yet, nothing good enough to need to be the subject of attack.

    Many people want an Australian style points based immigration system. Labour said it had introduced one in 2008 and May said she had introduced one in 2010. Of course no-one is really prepared to introduce one because the inevitable results will be increased immigration and more of "the wrong sort" of immigrants.

    Are we going the same way with Brexit? It is early days yet.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CherishFreedom)
    Let's be real, the true reason why you want another referendum is because your side lost.

    It's fine to admit it, but with the utmost respect, please don't dress it up and call it 'democracy' like you have some noble motives.

    The referendum itself was democracy in action, it just happened that 52% of the population did not agree with you.

    You talk about lies, but that's entirely your opinion. Also there is no indication that people were misled and voted based on those 'lies'. This is another assumption. If you ask anyone on the leave side, they would argue that the Remain campaigned lied just as much, if not more. To tell people to vote again because you assume that they did not know what they were voting for, is just pure arrogance and an insult to their intelligence.

    I'm not trying to trigger an argument but I think you have accept that some people see things differently to you, and accept the rules of the referendum. This referendum really wasn't as black or white as it might seem sometimes, people just have different aspirations and priorities. Just because they voted differently doesn't mean they are lesser than you or didn't know what they were doing. If this is indeed what you believe (I would hope not), then I'd say a bit of self-reflection is what's needed, not another referendum.
    What I find most concerning, is that people think remain campaigners are only upset because "we lost". Why do you think we would be so petty, as to care about losing?

    I don't give a **** about the fact my side lost. What I give a **** about is the outcomes of Brexit. Do you want me to provide you with some?

    I care about the effect this is going to have on EU immigrants.

    I care about the effect this is going to have on our economy (let's be real)

    I care about the effect this is going to have on our most disadvantaged areas who receive the most money from the EU for regeneration. Therefore I care about the effect this is going to have on children and young people from deprived areas.

    I care about the effect this is going to have on our actions towards environmental sustainability and climate change prevention.

    I care about the effect this is going to have on our research. With many disciplines receiving at least a quarter of their funding from the EU, some a third. Also in regards to the percentage of research academics in the UK who contribute to high quality research in British institutions who are in fact immigrants.

    And this continues, you know I can so easily provide links to back all that up but it's so commonly known I'm sure I don't need to waste my time.
    The EU is what forces us to develop as a country, socially, academically, environmentally and economically. But oh. I don't give a toss about the effect this is going to have on my life, and everyone else's, all I care about is the fact that we lost.

    That idea represents a very concerning mindset of the Brexit group. You still seem to think your campaign was a competition, you're still in denial about the consequences of your actions.

    How can you still be in denial about the lies of the Brexit campaign?

    You don't want an argument, because you know how right we are. You've collectively ****ed us over. But hey, congrats, you've "won". That's all that matters, right?

    Welcome to Little Britian.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    I'd be all for this though- because then there's at least there's be a greater mandate for brexit. Rather than a 2% majority and a minority of MPs.

    Referendums are advisory and can be bypassed by parliament- I think the referendum can legitimately be ignored if it was superceded by a General Election result - say if Owen Smith won on a pro EU platform.

    Additionally this gives the chance for the Tories to set up their vision of a post Brexit vision which at the moment involves Boris, fox and Davis shouting at each other in a darkened room.
    I'd be fairly confident of another win. As much as the media love to find these people regretting it, i don't believe they are the majority.

    That said i don't think a second mandate is required.

    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Interestingly the first of the committed Brexiteers (and he was an anti-marketeer from 1975) seems to be backing off as the practical enormity sinks in.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...an-staying-in/

    Are Fox, Johnson and Davis yet working on a plan at all or just enjoying the trappings of office? If they are working on a plan, is it the same plan with the fight to be over who gets the credit; or are they working on rival plans? Will that plan or plans withstand criticism from the Treasury?

    When does May expect that plan or plans to be delivered and what happens if they fail?

    The government has been 6 years implementing a "British Bill of Rights" and so far not even a draft has leaked from someone trying to destroy the proposals which suggests there is, as yet, nothing good enough to need to be the subject of attack.

    Many people want an Australian style points based immigration system. Labour said it had introduced one in 2008 and May said she had introduced one in 2010. Of course no-one is really prepared to introduce one because the inevitable results will be increased immigration and more of "the wrong sort" of immigrants.

    Are we going the same way with Brexit? It is early days yet.
    At the risk of being an idealist i'd like to think that Davis is working on a credible plan to Leave (though i imagine Boris will stick his oar in and it would have to be in sync with Fox's vision for trade).

    Your right about immigration, i don't think the political class are really willing to reduce it much and probably are pretty happy with EU immigration. I'd tend to agree with them.
    • Political Ambassador
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Welcome Squad
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    What I find most concerning, is that people think remain campaigners are only upset because "we lost". Why do you think we would be so petty, as to care about losing?
    They think it's some sort of game. Also, it's kind of hilarious that they pretend that they'd be so chill if they did not win.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gladders)
    The idea that 52% of the populace already had in-built resentment against the EU that would have made them immune to persuasion the other way is what's insulting here. Fact is that while Remain did get its fingers burned in making some small exaggerated claims, nearly everything Remain claimed was based on interpreting evidence and facts. Meanwhile, Leave have been caught making blatant lies, based on made up figures, and when called out on them, doubled down further.
    Examples of these blatant lies?

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...e-big-claims1/

    As this article helpfully points out, the reality is both sides made exaggerated claims. They were all based on 'interpreting evidence and facts' to the extreme to fit their own agenda. The only difference is the self-righteousness of Remain voters in being so incapable of comprehending that, instead insisting their exaggerated predictions are fact but Leave's exaggerated predictions were lies.

    (Original post by gladders)
    It makes not a jot of difference that Leave aren't a government (in fact, senior Leavers are now in prominent positions of power to do with EU withdrawal, so it does matter - they've secured power based on massive, massive lies).
    They've secured power thanks to pro-EU Theresa May.

    (Original post by gladders)
    If I were sold a lemon of a car and told the sellers' lies did not matter, I'd be pretty pissed off.
    It'd be helpful if you could provide some examples of these lies and how impactful they were in the vote. The only real 'fib' Leave told was about the size of EU contributions by not factoring in the rebate. However I doubt finding out the UK only contributes a net of 9 billion rather than 13 billion would have led to a wholesale exodus of Leave voters towards Remain.

    (Original post by gladders)
    Anyway, you missed the point of my post. If it becomes adamantly clear that despite Leave's empty promises and lies, any Brexit scenario is full of nothing but bad news, then a responsible governments reports to Parliament that the public were misled. We're not a direct democracy, and it should be recognised that the people are fallible at times.
    'We're not a direct democracy' is a cop-out excuse for the political elite to flagrantly ignore the public on matters that they don't agree with. Not being a direct democracy should factor in on whether to have a referendum in the first place. One it's been had, it should be followed through on. It's the government's job to make it work, not whine that it's going to be too much effort.

    (Original post by gladders)
    The one truthful thing you've caught on to, although give it time, as the economy is heading into rough waters.
    No one said it wouldn't be 'rough'. Leaving the EU would OBVIOUSLY result in short time economic pressure. It's a huge leap though to get to the financial apocalypse that was predicted and a completely self-defeating punishment budget.

    (Original post by gladders)
    Strawman. Nobody said they would.

    Nobody argued this - strawman.
    Of course they did. Half of Remain's rhetoric was about how Brexit would be inward looking and destroy Britain's credibility with the world and how no one would trade with us or at the very least they'd rinse us. The reality is pretty much every one, bar hardline EU bureaucrats, have made positive gestures towards the UK.

    And yes, David Cameron did. Apparently the EU is responsible for the relative peace experienced in Europe since the end of WW2, not NATO. Did you have your head in the sand during the lead up to the referendum?

    (Original post by gladders)
    Source for that? I've seen nothing but bad news, and all the Leave sources seem to be scraping the barrel for good news.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36956418
    https://www.theguardian.com/business...y-brexit-fears
    http://www.cityam.com/248117/economy...es-brexit-vote
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/...e-as-brexit-s/

    From the last article:Britain’s economy will slow down but should not go anywhere close to a recession, according to economists at credit ratings agency Moody’s
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.