Europe III: April F-EU-Ls

[Asura]

The fact that the rules were broken alone should render the referendum void. It is not in any way democratic to have a compromised referendum dictate something that will change a country for decades.

I should really couch my opinions with the caveat that I am furious at the country for this, to the point of almost being irrational about the whole thing. I'm kinda still in the stage of not knowing how to reconcile it with the Britain I know.

[Nu-Eclipse]

Or just the facts, since 1973 can you point us to a UK referendum result, that's wasn't respected and carried out in Full?

Will O' dee peeple, innit?

[Dogg Thang]

1973 is very specific. Wonder why someone would start there and not any other year.

[Decider-VT]

1973 is very specific. Wonder why someone would start there and not any other year.

1973 was when the UK joined the EEC.

[Dogg Thang]

1973 was when the UK joined the EEC.

Ah okay. The question is about UK referendum results so I don’t see relevance but you must be right.

[charlesr]

I think because there was a referendum before that?

[Asura]

Ah okay. The question is about UK referendum results so I don’t see relevance but you must be right.

Admittedly it's because in the UK, we generally don't have referendums (referenda?), so when people are trying to cite a precedent, there aren't many others to choose from.

[Brad]

1975

Common market was 73

75 was the referendum

[Team Andromeda]

Will O' dee peeple, innit?

So no then... Thank you ....

[Team Andromeda]

Admittedly it's because in the UK, we generally don't have referendums (referenda?), so when people are trying to cite a precedent, there aren't many others to choose from.

Like we never had 4 in recent memory, and so far they have gone with the winner

[Nu-Eclipse]

So no then... Thank you ....

Take whatever answer you want to. Referendums in the UK aren't supposed to be legally binding and that is fact, regardless of what went on in the 1970s. Although I find it hilarious that you're now fully involved in this conversation again despite being so quick to tell [MENTION=13193]nakamura[/MENTION] that you had moved on from Brexit. Clearly you haven't.

Why are you bothered though? You got the result you wanted.

Will. O'. Dee. Peeple. Innit?

[Neon Ignition]

Genuine question, despite the overspending rule break from Leave, Remain had more spent on it didn't it? They had similar spending limits in theory but the government slapped a near £10m pro-Remain leaflet campaign down as well which was a greater sum than the over spend?

Mainly curious as I recall the answer to whether Leaves rule breaking on the limits having a significant effect on the outcome being very vague hence why no overturn would be considered because you'd have to attribute a massive number of votes to the fact and be able to rule out future rule breaking and nefariousness from future referendums absolutely for any to ever hold weight.

The legally binding aspect of the referendum feels by the by as well. If you ignore the outcome then you shouldn't bother running one in the first place, they also stated that it would be adhered to before the vote so there's little case against MP's not sticking to it either regardless of the arguments. The most common case being made is an economical one for the UK but this gains no traction either as it's very old news, voters not only knew the economy would take a Brexit hit but they anticipated a much worse one than we've had so far thanks to how doomsday Cameron and Osborne painted a picture.

I mean, really, the only possible option on the table for Remain would be a second referendum but it's near impossible at this point. It'd have to almost immediate and be massively constrained and controlled in a way no-one would trust the government to carry out and one that should leave prevail would make No Deal a certainty as the EU would walk out of negotiations right now as we throw everything back to square one in uncertainty.

A second referendum post-deal outcome is frankly too late, likely an orchestrated scenario to avoid last minute upset for the Tories. Doing one before would be a vote on a Brexit that hasn't happened based on a deal that hasn't been negotiated, worthless. You'd also have to commit the country to a third referendum as we wouldn't know the true effects of changing our minds last minute and remaining on our international standing or on public opinion until a later date too, you couldn't just cancel it and then stick your fingers in your ears to half the country having just made such a massive move for the sake of the other half a country.

Basically, Asura is spot on - Remain MPs, voters etc have to take control of Brexit at some point. It's going to happen but the nature on how it happens is still very much up in the air and there is still a lack of clear direction of where to go. Leave wastes its time asking for the impossible whilst Remain wastes its time trying to turn back the clock. Another referendum, a decade after Brexit would be perfectly reasonable but I could easily imagine much of the outcome of that will rest on how the remain side of the coin allows the leave side to dictate the coming years.

[Sketcz]

I hope the London housing market falls in on its self spectacularly. It’s affecting the housing prices in every county around it to the point when virtually everything is unaffordable.

Lived in London for several years myself. I was paying for a tiny room what would get me a 3 bedroom house elsewhere. My ex was paying twice as much as me and her single room was literally the same size - and all due to location. You could rent a 5 bedroom mansion for the money that room cost.

Madness.

As a hardline socialist I feel that no individual should own property, it should all be state owned and provided for free to the public based on occupation location and other factors. But I'd settle for a total collapse.

So many homeless in London, and yet so many uninhabitated homes owned by the rich.

[Dogg Thang]

Genuine question

Why have rules? If breaking referendum rules does not call the referendum result into question, why have them? If what was campaigned for physically cannot be delivered, how can you stand by that result? The outcome came about via broken rules and lies. It is not democratic to just dig yourself in based on that. If you argue that Remain did the same (and you do frequently even though it's harder to back up) that only compounds the problem, putting any result further away from an informed democratic decision. And there is only one way to know - run a more informed referendum. One where the results campaigned for one way or another can actually be delivered. The point of defending the result of the referendum has long since past. Anything now is either blind stubbornness or a self-destructive streak.

[Neon Ignition]

But that ties in with what I was saying about having absolutes with referendum outcomes, a second vote would have to be above question that any rule breaking or bad practice took place. Otherwise, if we run it and say Remain narrowly win we would then scrabble to cancel Brexit... then a year later potentially uncover something questionable about the rerun and be looking at a third run whilst integrating into the EU again.

I'm not disagreeing with the principle of how legitimacy can be brought into question by these actions, it's just like Asura leans into - when stacked against the real and happening practicalities of the situation it isn't a rerun that is going to decide the coming years for the UK. Can the UK do well in the EU, yes. Can it do well outside the EU, probably yes too. Will it? Well, that's the real question given the incompetence shown over the last 18 months.