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

Remain Camp & Gina Miller Watch

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Do you have any evidence that the public like referendums? It's far more about party management that popularity IMO
    Poll the public on virtually any question and they'll tell you they want a referendum on it.

    That said, your analysis is also fairly accurate. Governments hold referendums to get out of a politically sticky situation (the Scottish independence referendum, the Brexit referendum) or to provide entrenchment and greater popular acceptance for a position (Belfast Agreement, 1975 EU referendum, devolution referendums).
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Poll the public on virtually any question and they'll tell you they want a referendum on it.

    That said, your analysis is also fairly accurate. Governments hold referendums to get out of a politically sticky situation (the Scottish independence referendum, the Brexit referendum) or to provide entrenchment and greater popular acceptance for a position (Belfast Agreement, 1975 EU referendum, devolution referendums).
    Yup. The public would say they want a referendum on almost any subject. However, after seeing the absolute farce that was the Brexit debate, on both sides, I don't want any more referendums for a very long time.
    Online

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    Poll the public on virtually any question and they'll tell you they want a referendum on it.

    That said, your analysis is also fairly accurate. Governments hold referendums to get out of a politically sticky situation (the Scottish independence referendum, the Brexit referendum) or to provide entrenchment and greater popular acceptance for a position (Belfast Agreement, 1975 EU referendum, devolution referendums).
    Yeah but I imagine these are the same people that more money on public services, less taxes, less immigration, more nurses etc etc
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by david9078)
    It makes me wonder about the decision for challenging the Referendum to leave the EU by Gina Miller.

    Gina said in her media and press interviews that "Parliament was sovereign and should make the decision". Hang on one second.....if you believe Parliament is sovereign - meaning that it is the final arbiter of legislation that affects the United Kingdom.....then why didn't you vote leave ?. The majority of brexiteers voted so that Parliament could remain sovereign and have the final say in what legislation is enacted ( and not the European Parliament ). It just makes Ms Miller's declaration that parliament is sovereign sound hypocritical. Parliament is only sovereign for people who voted remain when the same Parliament will hinder the decision to leave Europe.

    If the Referendum had decided that we remain in Europe, would Ms Miller have taken the matter to the Supreme Court - meaning it's Parliament to decide whether we remain in Europe and not the government ?......I think not.
    Equally importantly, where was the referendum to take us in to political union with Europe ?.
    Whatever the motives for taking the action I think it was the right thing to do and I voted Leave. In the end the referendum did all it needed to do - it showed the politicians what the public mood was: fairly closely split but a majority wanted to leave. Which is why we are going to leave and even Remain supporting politicians are generally onside with that.

    However, there was an important principle here. I voted Leave not because I was bothered about too much immigration or "EU red tape" but from the principles of democracy. The UK has a long history of parliamentary democracy and a history of being a nation state. In the past 40 years we have transferred powers away from the UK parliament to the EU at an unprecedented rate and the EU wanted to carry out many of the functions of a nation state, when people didn't regard it as a nation state. Agreeing shared standards to facilitate a bigger market is one thing, but things like setting control of borders at EU level just don't have democratic consent from the British people and they never did. That kind of thing should be set by a nation state and although no political system is perfect, the UK's parliamentary democracy is a good one and one I would trust more than the EU system, hence my vote to Leave.

    However, there is another sinister threat to our democracy, which is that the government wants to increase its executive powers to do things without parliamentary scrutiny, which means without the consent of the elected representatives of the people, which takes government away from the people. This triggering of Article 50 without going through Parliament was one of those incidences, and although it has been sold in the frothing right wing press as an attempt to subvert democracy, this was an attempt by the government to subvert UK constitutional law, and it has been reined in by the judges. We should be proud of this, because it shows that no matter how aggressively the PM tries to whip up the press or denounce her opponents as traitors to the will of the people, this is the UK, and we have an independent judiciary to make sure UK constitutional law is followed.

    We will have to watch very carefully when the government tries to sign trade deals - because trade deals pose many of the same issues that the EU (which was basically a massive trade deal) brought us: the signing away of sovereignty over various things, typically constraints to make laws in certain areas in the name of "harmonisation" with a foreign market. Those trade deals will be massively important to our future economic prosperity and also our ability to rule ourselves, but government may try to sneak them through without parliamentary scrutiny because it wants to get deals signed quickly even if some parts are bad for the UK, so they can say "hey look we are doing deals."

    Leavers need to be on the ball for this. It is only because of years of challenging the EU, when it was off the radar of most of the electorate, that they managed to get a referendum. For me the main benefit is that it restores power to the UK parliamentary democracy and means that British people get to vote directly on the representatives that have a say in all the laws that govern them. We should resist any attempt for government to set the precedent of overreaching its powers and avoiding being held to account by Parliament.

    Also even if you are a Conservative supporter and don't mind the idea of Theresa May overreaching her powers to "get things done" without Parliament, once that precedent is set, it applies to future governments. What happens if a Labour-SNP-Lib Dem coalition sneaks in with a narrow majority and a left wing government wants to start overreaching its powers to bypass Parliament to get through its agenda. Maybe it could act quickly to sign us back in the EU by accepting the Euro and Schengen area, and make Scotland independent...?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    Whatever the motives for taking the action I think it was the right thing to do and I voted Leave. In the end the referendum did all it needed to do - it showed the politicians what the public mood was: fairly closely split but a majority wanted to leave. Which is why we are going to leave and even Remain supporting politicians are generally onside with that.

    However, there was an important principle here. I voted Leave not because I was bothered about too much immigration or "EU red tape" but from the principles of democracy. The UK has a long history of parliamentary democracy and a history of being a nation state. In the past 40 years we have transferred powers away from the UK parliament to the EU at an unprecedented rate and the EU wanted to carry out many of the functions of a nation state, when people didn't regard it as a nation state. Agreeing shared standards to facilitate a bigger market is one thing, but things like setting control of borders at EU level just don't have democratic consent from the British people and they never did. That kind of thing should be set by a nation state and although no political system is perfect, the UK's parliamentary democracy is a good one and one I would trust more than the EU system, hence my vote to Leave.

    However, there is another sinister threat to our democracy, which is that the government wants to increase its executive powers to do things without parliamentary scrutiny, which means without the consent of the elected representatives of the people, which takes government away from the people. This triggering of Article 50 without going through Parliament was one of those incidences, and although it has been sold in the frothing right wing press as an attempt to subvert democracy, this was an attempt by the government to subvert UK constitutional law, and it has been reined in by the judges. We should be proud of this, because it shows that no matter how aggressively the PM tries to whip up the press or denounce her opponents as traitors to the will of the people, this is the UK, and we have an independent judiciary to make sure UK constitutional law is followed.

    We will have to watch very carefully when the government tries to sign trade deals - because trade deals pose many of the same issues that the EU (which was basically a massive trade deal) brought us: the signing away of sovereignty over various things, typically constraints to make laws in certain areas in the name of "harmonisation" with a foreign market. Those trade deals will be massively important to our future economic prosperity and also our ability to rule ourselves, but government may try to sneak them through without parliamentary scrutiny because it wants to get deals signed quickly even if some parts are bad for the UK, so they can say "hey look we are doing deals."

    Leavers need to be on the ball for this. It is only because of years of challenging the EU, when it was off the radar of most of the electorate, that they managed to get a referendum. For me the main benefit is that it restores power to the UK parliamentary democracy and means that British people get to vote directly on the representatives that have a say in all the laws that govern them. We should resist any attempt for government to set the precedent of overreaching its powers and avoiding being held to account by Parliament.

    Also even if you are a Conservative supporter and don't mind the idea of Theresa May overreaching her powers to "get things done" without Parliament, once that precedent is set, it applies to future governments. What happens if a Labour-SNP-Lib Dem coalition sneaks in with a narrow majority and a left wing government wants to start overreaching its powers to bypass Parliament to get through its agenda. Maybe it could act quickly to sign us back in the EU by accepting the Euro and Schengen area, and make Scotland independent...?
    This post has made me sort of hopeful about leaving the EU. I'm not fundamentally against the idea leaving the EU it is just that the vocal part of the Leave side has always been op repungent to me and stands for so much I dislike.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jape)
    I can't remember all the numbers now, but whenever Britain was voting against stuff in the EU we were overruled all but once. That doesn't happen with treaties.
    We were overruled 2% of the time.

    https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts...-uk-influence/
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    (Original post by david9078)
    It makes me wonder about the decision for challenging the Referendum to leave the EU by Gina Miller.

    Gina said in her media and press interviews that "Parliament was sovereign and should make the decision". Hang on one second.....if you believe Parliament is sovereign - meaning that it is the final arbiter of legislation that affects the United Kingdom.....then why didn't you vote leave ?. The majority of brexiteers voted so that Parliament could remain sovereign and have the final say in what legislation is enacted ( and not the European Parliament ). It just makes Ms Miller's declaration that parliament is sovereign sound hypocritical. Parliament is only sovereign for people who voted remain when the same Parliament will hinder the decision to leave Europe.

    If the Referendum had decided that we remain in Europe, would Ms Miller have taken the matter to the Supreme Court - meaning it's Parliament to decide whether we remain in Europe and not the government ?......I think not.
    Equally importantly, where was the referendum to take us in to political union with Europe ?.

    You misunderstand about parliamentary sovereignty. There was nothing inconsistent in what she said. Instead of wondering go and look it up. Paliament has always been sovereign and ultimately always had the final say. If this were not the case then it would not be able to leave the EU.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    This post has made me sort of hopeful about leaving the EU. I'm not fundamentally against the idea leaving the EU it is just that the vocal part of the Leave side has always been op repungent to me and stands for so much I dislike.
    The Leave side is a coalition of various forces:

    - A small number of people in politics, academia etc (ie 'elites') who had a long-standing opposition to the EU on the grounds of constitutional democracy. Their argument was that the EU had taken powers that should belong to a nation state, in a way that didn't have the consent of the people. From after the Maastricht Treaty and the creation of the single currency, it was clear that the aim of the EU was to replace the boundaries of the nation state at EU level: this wasn't the paranoid rantings of people on the fringes of British politics, it was genuinely the heart of the "EU vision". There might be some advantages in that but it is such a fundamental change that you can only do that with explicit consent of the British people. After Maastricht, the UK was always trying to kind of hang on within the EU and fight for influence whilst never being comfortable with the way it was going.

    - Some right-wing politicians who want the UK to leave the EU so it can become a low-tax, low regulation, low wage economy that can undercut Europe through having lower labour costs and lower social protections. They are supported by part of the business community, who like the idea of a bonfire of regulations so it reduces their costs.

    - A small number of left-wing politicians and trade unionists who have always been suspicious that the EU was basically a capitalist club that used "opening up markets" as a euphemism for creeping privatisation and advancing the power of multinational corporations by restricting nation states' ability to do interventionist things like subsidise industry and nationalise things. In their dream of having a Corbyn-style far left Labour government, the EU would have restricted them doing some of the policies they'd want to bring in, even if the EU was broadly centre-left on many social and environmental issues.

    On their own, these three groups would never have been big enough to get the public to engage with fighting to get the UK out of the EU, so they opened Pandora's box by unleashing ideas of fear of migrants, blaming every social problem on immigration because they had the easy argument against free movement. In reality, this is the only reason Leave won the referendum. The vast majority of Leave voters don't understand the constitutional issues or the arguments about sovereignty, ther than a general concept of "taking back control", they were stirred up to believe that if we stayed in the EU we would end up being subsumed in an EU army, Turkey would join and there would be 20 million Muslims coming to the UK and so on, all fabricated nonsense that was used for tactical reasons by parts of the Leave campaign.

    But there we are.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 25, 2017
  • 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
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    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

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