[EU] Brexit negotiations at a standstill

[Shadowmelded]

A tad controversial? I think that is a massive understatement! Such a system would potentially mean that just over half of Wales' and NI's population (around 2.5million) would render the votes of the remaining 62.5million people meaningless.

It would have been meaningless for this vote anyway since Wales and England both went Leave. And remember, 1.3million votes rendered the rest of the entire UK's vote meaningless. Half of England would have most likely been relieved. I'm not saying this is the fairest way to vote btw, just that Cameron had political cover to give him extra insurance of his desired outcome. Hell, he could have (and should have) allowed EU nationals living in the UK to vote, or 16 and 17 year olds.

That is actually quite shocking. It got rejected outright? I never knew that you guys requested that. It sounds so reasonable to have a 3/4 majority on it looked from the nations perspectives. Too bad. How's the mood in Scotland, though? I doubt you'd actually call for independence again, would you?

Yup. Although I misremembered, apparently the proposal was a majority in all four nations, not a majority of the four nations deciding. The mood's pretty bleak (but then again it usually is) most people seem resigned to the fact that Brexit is happening since all of the Scottish Government's attempts to thwart it have been ignored (although there's still a remote chance that the Scottish Government could refuse to give assent to the Brexit bill). Sturgeon has already called for a second Independence referendum and had introduced a bill in the Scottish parliament about it but has delayed it since there's not really enough popular support for it right now (latest figures I saw had Yes to Indy at 46% and No on 48%, the rest being Don't Know). Support might increase once Brexit really starts to hurt people but imo it would be too late, the damage would be done.

[Pann]

It would have been meaningless for this vote anyway since Wales and England both went Leave. And remember, 1.3million votes rendered the rest of the entire UK's vote meaningless. Half of England would have most likely been relieved. I'm not saying this is the fairest way to vote btw, just that Cameron had political cover to give him extra insurance of his desired outcome. Hell, he could have (and should have) allowed EU nationals living in the UK to vote, or 16 and 17 year olds.

The implication of needing consensus between 3 of the 4 Home Nations is that the leave vote would not have passed, unless at a even split the total number of votes decided the result. It is a misrepresentation to say that 1.3million votes rendered the rest of the UK's votes useless, the reality is that 17.4million votes rendered 16.1million votes useless but such is democracy. What you suggested completely flies in the face of democracy, it gives a disproportionate value to the voters in the smaller nations, it is utterly unreasonable; it is not offering political cover it is the type of democracy that only occurs in dictatorships.

Whether or not you or I agree with the result of the referendum it is the only election that has been held across the whole of the UK where everyone's vote was equal and I really don't think that removing the power of man or woman's vote based on which country they are registered to vote in is a step forward.

[Deleted]

A tad controversial? I think that is a massive understatement! Such a system would potentially mean that just over half of Wales' and NI's population (around 2.5million) would render the votes of the remaining 62.5million people meaningless.

True but they also agreed to honor the Sewel doctrine, GFA and the copy paste of the Sewel doctrine to wales - If England doesn't like that, maybe they should, i don't know, vote for a party to rectify that?
Maybe the English Independence party?
They could be the Ippers.

[Shadowmelded]

The implication of needing consensus between 3 of the 4 Home Nations is that the leave vote would not have passed, unless at a even split the total number of votes decided the result. It is a misrepresentation to say that 1.3million votes rendered the rest of the UK's votes useless, the reality is that 17.4million votes rendered 16.1million votes useless but such is democracy. What you suggested completely flies in the face of democracy, it gives a disproportionate value to the voters in the smaller nations, it is utterly unreasonable; it is not offering political cover it is the type of democracy that only occurs in dictatorships.

Whether or not you or I agree with the result of the referendum it is the only election that has been held across the whole of the UK where everyone's vote was equal and I really don't think that removing the power of man or woman's vote based on which country they are registered to vote in is a step forward.

Comparing it to a dictatorship is a little exaggerated. Methods to protect the minority from a tyranny of the majority aren't that uncommon nor undemocratic.

[Deleted]

The implication of needing consensus between 3 of the 4 Home Nations is that the leave vote would not have passed, unless at a even split the total number of votes decided the result. It is a misrepresentation to say that 1.3million votes rendered the rest of the UK's votes useless, the reality is that 17.4million votes rendered 16.1million votes useless but such is democracy. What you suggested completely flies in the face of democracy, it gives a disproportionate value to the voters in the smaller nations, it is utterly unreasonable; it is not offering political cover it is the type of democracy that only occurs in dictatorships.

I thought the UK was a Union of states, not a Unitary state?
Maybe someone should explain to the English how Unions works.

[Dizzeeyooo]

Did it?

Where are the job losses? The fall in house prices? The recession? The crash of the stock market?

Even some of the areas where they were right were vastly overstated. Sterling was supposedly going to be reaching parity with the dollar by now.

why do people continue to shout about predictions based on Cameron saying a vote to leave means triggering article 50 immediately the day afterwards (which would have been a complete fucking shit show, as we are now demonstrating after having a year + to prepare) as evidence that predictions were wrong?

[Pann]

Comparing it to a dictatorship is a little exaggerated. Methods to protect the minority from a tyranny of the majority aren't that uncommon nor undemocratic.

No it is not. Tyranny of the minority?!? Everyone in the UK got a vote that carried equal value.

- - - Updated - - -

I thought the UK was a Union of states, not a Unitary state?
Maybe someone should explain to the English how Unions works.

The referendum was a UK wide vote and every registered voter had a chance to cast their vote.

[Shadowmelded]

No it is not. Tyranny of the minority?!? Everyone in the UK got a vote that carried equal value.

For such a monumental decision, requiring a supermajority doesn't seem that ridiculous, especially given the varied interests of the Home Nations and how the results could disproportionately affect some over others. Even if Scotland had voted 100% in favour of Remain, it still would not have been enough to swing the vote, which kind of diminishes the value when you're that heavily outnumbered.

[Dhrizzle]

The implication of needing consensus between 3 of the 4 Home Nations is that the leave vote would not have passed, unless at a even split the total number of votes decided the result. It is a misrepresentation to say that 1.3million votes rendered the rest of the UK's votes useless, the reality is that 17.4million votes rendered 16.1million votes useless but such is democracy. What you suggested completely flies in the face of democracy, it gives a disproportionate value to the voters in the smaller nations, it is utterly unreasonable; it is not offering political cover it is the type of democracy that only occurs in dictatorships.

Whether or not you or I agree with the result of the referendum it is the only election that has been held across the whole of the UK where everyone's vote was equal and I really don't think that removing the power of man or woman's vote based on which country they are registered to vote in is a step forward.

We already have this situation with the DUP holding the balance of power despite only getting 1% of the vote, as a result the Conservative government has the support of more than half the seats in Westminster with a coalition that got less than 45% of the vote. Conversely a left-wing coalition of Labour, Lib Dems and SNP would have had more than 50% of the vote (52% if you throw in the Greens) but not enough seats.

The DUP got 10 seats from 290,000 votes.
The Green Party got over 500,000 but only 1 seat.
The Lib Dems got 2.3 million, but only 12 seats.

[Huehuecoyotl]

The referendum was a UK wide vote and every registered voter had a chance to cast their vote.

The point is that the vote should have been set up differently in a Union that didn't treat the parts of that Union as irrelevant; it should have been made clear that in order for the UK to leave, ALL of the countries that made up the UK needed to vote leave. Or at the very least a majority of those countries. Instead two voted leave, two voted stay, and we are leaving anyway.

Mind you, Cameron should have set it up to say that Leave required a majority of eligible voters, not a simple majority of those who voted. Instead we get a situation where a quarter of the people eligible (and less than a quarter of those people who should have been eligible) are driving the entire country into a dramatic change of circumstances. I don't care which side of the fence you sit on, allowing that to happen was an idiotic oversight on Cameron's part.

[Dhrizzle]

I thought the UK was a Union of states, not a Unitary state?
Maybe someone should explain to the English how Unions works.

Invasion and subjugation, invasion and colonisation, attempted invasion and bribery and indoctrination all taking place against a background of being invaded, civil wars, all forms of revolution (agricultural, religious, industrial) and world domination. Why, how do you form unions?

[Pann]

For such a monumental decision, requiring a supermajority doesn't seem that ridiculous, especially given the varied interests of the Home Nations and how the results could disproportionately affect some over others. Even if Scotland had voted 100% in favour of Remain, it still would not have been enough to swing the vote.

I agree, there should have been a 60% majority for leave required before enacting the leaving process. However the suggestion that 3million votes from Wales of Northern Ireland could nullify 30+million votes in the rest of the UK is not a solution nor a reasonable suggestion. For better or worse Scotland is a part of the UK. In the scenario you suggested England could have voted 100% to remain but the as little as 5 million in the other nations voting leave would have been enough to swing the vote.

We can all point to problems and issues with the UK voting systems but what was suggested is not a solution and, in my opinion, would be far worse than any of the existing problems.

[Dhrizzle]

The point is that the vote should have been set up differently in a Union that didn't treat the parts of that Union as irrelevant; it should have been made clear that in order for the UK to leave, ALL of the countries that made up the UK needed to vote leave. Or at the very least a majority of those countries. Instead two voted leave, two voted stay, and we are leaving anyway.

Mind you, Cameron should have set it up to say that Leave required a majority of eligible voters, not a simple majority of those who voted. Instead we get a situation where a quarter of the people eligible (and less than a quarter of those people who should have been eligible) are driving the entire country into a dramatic change of circumstances. I don't care which side of the fence you sit on, allowing that to happen was an idiotic oversight on Cameron's part.

They should have made it clear that the in/out referendum was only advisory with an "out" result leading to impact studies and a second, binding referendum needing a super-majority (something like two thirds of the turnout or >50% of eligible voters) to leave and a second part asking what sort of Brexit people would want if the result did go to Leave.

[Pann]

We already have this situation with the DUP holding the balance of power despite only getting 1% of the vote, as a result the Conservative government has the support of more than half the seats in Westminster with a coalition that got less than 45% of the vote. Conversely a left-wing coalition of Labour, Lib Dems and SNP would have had more than 50% of the vote (52% if you throw in the Greens) but not enough seats.

The DUP got 10 seats from 290,000 votes.
The Green Party got over 500,000 but only 1 seat.
The Lib Dems got 2.3 million, but only 12 seats.

I agree with you that the current situation is completely unacceptable however we were talking about the referendum and the proposal put forward would have resulted in an imbalance of power per vote far worse than the current FPTP system. Ironically if the referendum voting system had been applied to the general election this would not be an issue.

- - - Updated - - -

The point is that the vote should have been set up differently in a Union that didn't treat the parts of that Union as irrelevant; it should have been made clear that in order for the UK to leave, ALL of the countries that made up the UK needed to vote leave. Or at the very least a majority of those countries. Instead two voted leave, two voted stay, and we are leaving anyway.

Mind you, Cameron should have set it up to say that Leave required a majority of eligible voters, not a simple majority of those who voted. Instead we get a situation where a quarter of the people eligible (and less than a quarter of those people who should have been eligible) are driving the entire country into a dramatic change of circumstances. I don't care which side of the fence you sit on, allowing that to happen was an idiotic oversight on Cameron's part.

Under such a system a Scottish, Welsh or Northern Irish vote would be worth several times more than an English vote. I think the referendum was handled badly but essentially saying to several million people that no matter which way you vote you cannot influence the result is not the solution.

I completely agree with your second paragraph.

[Kallisto]

The referendum was a UK wide vote and every registered voter had a chance to cast their vote.

No they didn't. Upto 4 million registered voters were denied a vote in this because it would not have given a balance tilted more towards the leave group. 3.3 million EU residents (Not including RoI, Malta and Cyprus) that can vote in many national and local elections plus British nationals who are living abroad who are also entitled to vote in our elections were denied the vote making up about 700k. Many of these are there because they work for government interests outside of the UK.

That's way too many, well over 5% of those with voting rights in this country denied the right to vote in the referendum for the simple reason of it essentially allowing Cameron not to piss off the brexit Tories (Most of whome hate the EU cause it stops their lot destroying workers rights) and potential Tory voters who were waivering to UKIP. If this were a free and fair vote that 5% would have been included.

- - - Updated - - -

I thought the UK was a Union of states, not a Unitary state?
Maybe someone should explain to the English how Unions works.

United kingdom is a Unitary State in law. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitary_state
Only 2 EU countries are not. Germany and Austria

[Pann]

No they didn't. Upto 4 million registered voters were denied a vote in this because it would not have given a balance tilted more towards the leave group. 3.3 million EU residents (Not including RoI, Malta and Cyprus) that can vote in many national and local elections plus British nationals who are living abroad who are also entitled to vote in our elections were denied the vote making up about 700k. Many of these are there because they work for government interests outside of the UK.

That's way too many, well over 5% of those with voting rights in this country denied the right to vote in the referendum for the simple reason of it essentially allowing Cameron not to piss off the brexit Tories (Most of whome hate the EU cause it stops their lot destroying workers rights) and potential Tory voters who were waivering to UKIP. If this were a free and fair vote that 5% would have been included.

Fair comment - I should have worded my post better.

[Shadowmelded]

I agree, there should have been a 60% majority for leave required before enacting the leaving process. However the suggestion that 3million votes from Wales of Northern Ireland could nullify 30+million votes in the rest of the UK is not a solution nor a reasonable suggestion. For better or worse Scotland is a part of the UK. In the scenario you suggested England could have voted 100% to remain but the as little as 5 million in the other nations voting leave would have been enough to swing the vote.

We can all point to problems and issues with the UK voting systems but what was suggested is not a solution and, in my opinion, would be far worse than any of the existing problems.

Yeah, it's not a perfect solution. My point was that there are enough legitimate concerns that can be raised that would have provided enough political cover for Cameron to implement it along with the promises made during the Indy Ref. Sure, people would have been pissed at Scotland but like I said, I think a lot of us wouldn't have minded if it could have prevented Brexit. Let's be honest though, if England had voted 50.1% in favour of Leave and votes from Scotland, NI and Wales swung it to Remain, they would have been apoplectic as well.

[Pann]

Yeah, it's not a perfect solution. My point was that there are enough legitimate concerns that can be raised that would have provided enough political cover for Cameron to implement it along with the promises made during the Indy Ref. Sure, people would have been pissed at Scotland but like I said, I think a lot of us wouldn't have minded if it could have prevented Brexit. Let's be honest though, if England had voted 50.1% in favour of Leave and votes from Scotland, NI and Wales swung it to Remain, they would have been apoplectic as well.

Well he didn't expect to lose. I think Brexit is an unprecedented act of self harm but I do not think giving certain regions unproportional voting power in order to protect us from ourselves is the answer. With regard to the 50.1% situation, yes, they would have been apoplectic but at least each vote carried equal power and the fault would lay firmly, as it does now, at the door of those decided that such a monumental decision could be taken on a simple majority vote.

[Slant]

The implication of needing consensus between 3 of the 4 Home Nations is that the leave vote would not have passed, unless at a even split the total number of votes decided the result. It is a misrepresentation to say that 1.3million votes rendered the rest of the UK's votes useless, the reality is that 17.4million votes rendered 16.1million votes useless but such is democracy. What you suggested completely flies in the face of democracy, it gives a disproportionate value to the voters in the smaller nations, it is utterly unreasonable; it is not offering political cover it is the type of democracy that only occurs in dictatorships.

Whether or not you or I agree with the result of the referendum it is the only election that has been held across the whole of the UK where everyone's vote was equal and I really don't think that removing the power of man or woman's vote based on which country they are registered to vote in is a step forward.

What puzzles me is that such a fundamental change to the nature of the UK (being a EU member) can be done by a simple majority. That would never fly in Germany, even if we allowed public referendums. Such a drastic change would have to be ratified by a two third majority in both Houses here.

- - - Updated - - -

I thought the UK was a Union of states, not a Unitary state?
Maybe someone should explain to the English how Unions works.

Ah, good catch. I knew something was off, but couldn't put it into words.

[Shadowmelded]

Well he didn't expect to lose. I think Brexit is an unprecedented act of self harm but I do not think giving certain regions unproportional voting power in order to protect us from ourselves is the answer.

Brexit aside, there is still value in protecting the minority. As it stands England essentially calls the shots and the rest of the home nations have to decide which half of England we agree with or be entirely ignored.

With regard to the 50.1% situation, yes, they would have been apoplectic but at least each vote carried equal power and the fault would lay firmly, as it does now, at the door of those decided that such a monumental decision could be taken on a simple majority vote.

The people who would have been apoplectic just make the case for protecting the minority. If they were actually Unionists they wouldn't care which part of the UK tipped the balance, anger that the other Home Nations did is just anger that England doesn't call the shots. Those people shouldn't be pandered to.

Anyway this is starting to get a fair ways away from the Brexit discussion so I'll leave it here.