EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[DarloRich]

It's not like we're worried about the future of this country. It's just that we are in a period of uncertainty; who knows when Article 50 is triggered.

It's a tad bit unfair that you're calling Brexiteers 'old, white men'. I can name many young people around me who would have voted out. I don't think anyone wanted to see racial discrimination, but more of a tight control on the immigration policies. It was Labours job to convince people over wise, but what did they do?

well technically it was Dave's job................

 

[TheKnightWho]

It's not like we're worried about the future of this country. It's just that we are in a period of uncertainty; who knows when Article 50 is triggered.

It's a tad bit unfair that you're calling Brexiteers 'old, white men'. I can name many young people around me who would have voted out. I don't think anyone wanted to see racial discrimination, but more of a tight control on the immigration policies. It was Labours job to convince people over wise, but what did they do?

I'm not calling all Brexiters old white men - I'm saying that the victim complex surrounding the mentality of some Brexiters is almost entirely found in old, white men.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It's a tad bit unfair that you're calling Brexiteers 'old, white men'.

I am an old white man of 71 (does that qualify as old) and voted Remain.

My wife is an old white woman (I will be sent to "the doghouse" if she reads this) of 75 and voted Remain.

 

[Harbornite]

I am an old white man of 71 (does that qualify as old) and voted Remain.

My wife is an old white woman (I will be sent to "the doghouse" if she reads this) of 75 and voted Remain.

In this context, is the doghouse one of Newton Heath's or Adrian Shooter's finest?

 

[Tetchytyke]

It was Labours job to convince people over wise, but what did they do?

No it wasn't, it was Dave and George's job.

They failed, which is why we now have an unelected Prime Minister who clearly doesn't want to invoke Article 50, but has neither the courage nor the intelligence to say so and end all this uncertainty.

 

[richieb1971]

No it wasn't, it was Dave and George's job.

They failed, which is why we now have an unelected Prime Minister who clearly doesn't want to invoke Article 50, but has neither the courage nor the intelligence to say so and end all this uncertainty.

Or perhaps she believes that not invoking article 50 is the best chance the UK has of redeeming itself.

Its better to get comfortable in your job, get all the statistics, suck in the surroundings of the new job before making rash decisions. There are consequences to many countries, not just our own.

 

[Trog]

.....which is why we now have an unelected Prime Minister..........

We always have an unelected Prime Minister it is how our system of Government is supposed to work. The Prime Minister is normally just the person who has the most support in the House of Commons, and can thus form a government they don't even have to be an MP, members of the House of Lords have been Prime Minister in the past.

In fact in law the Queen can appoint anyone to be Prime Minister they don't even have to be British, and provided the majority of MP's are happy to work with that person there would be no legal problem.

 

[Harbornite]

They failed, which is why we now have an unelected Prime Minister w

Did you complain about this when Gordon Brown was in power?

 

[Tim R-T-C]

We always have an unelected Prime Minister it is how our system of Government is supposed to work. The Prime Minister is normally just the person who has the most support in the House of Commons, and can thus form a government they don't even have to be an MP, members of the House of Lords have been Prime Minister in the past.

While technically true, you cannot argue that most people at a general election vote purely for their local MP. The Prime Minister, or potential candidates are the most important figures at election time and I would wager that a majority of the general public choose their vote based on who would become Prime Minister if their party were elected.

Did you complain about this when Gordon Brown was in power?

There was quite an outcry - but then Brown was very much the 'next in line to the throne' under Blair and most people anticipated the move coming eventually. If you vote for Blair, you essentially voted for Brown too. I doubt many people would have put money on May becoming PM at the last election.

 

[miami]

Vote Blair get Brown was a known saying in 2005.

I recall the expectation that Osborne would be next when Cameron stepped down.

Still not as bad as your MP crossing the floor (has an MP crossing the floor ever tipped the balance of power to get a new PM?)

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Still not as bad as your MP crossing the floor (has an MP crossing the floor ever tipped the balance of power to get a new PM?)

Reg Prentice? Not directly, but two years after he defected from Labour to Conservative, Labour lost a vote of confidence by 1 vote, which directly lead to the general election in which Mrs. Thatcher won. It seems reasonable to assume that if he hadn't crossed the floor, that general election wouldn't have happened. (Probably not quite what you were asking though, I guess you meant, so as to cause a change in PM without voters being consulted).

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

No it wasn't, it was Dave and George's job.

They failed, which is why we now have an unelected Prime Minister who clearly doesn't want to invoke Article 50, but has neither the courage nor the intelligence to say so and end all this uncertainty.

I thought this was a matter of "democracy in action". I take issue with you over your supposition, as it was nobody's job to convince the electorate. That is a most patronising point of view which assumes that even in a democracy, people should not have free will to make their own choices, without any state pressure being placed upon them at the time of casting their vote. It supposes the electorate are not reliable enough to follow "the party line" without pressure being placed upon them.

Both my wife and I, in our 70s, voted Remain but accept that the Leave side won the referendum.

On losing the referendum, Cameron did the honourable thing by tendering his resignation as Prime Minister which rather spoilt the party of Gove and Johnson who stupidly assumed that Cameron would stay on to lead in any Brexit agenda in Europe, which was anathema to him.

 

[Groningen]

I think that a turtle exits the EU faster than the UK.

 

[yorksrob]

No it wasn't, it was Dave and George's job.

They failed, which is why we now have an unelected Prime Minister who clearly doesn't want to invoke Article 50, but has neither the courage nor the intelligence to say so and end all this uncertainty.

It was also the EU's job to show that it could be responsive to the concerns of member states and their populations.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Did you complain about this when Gordon Brown was in power?

Less so, because it was clear- and had been for a very long time- that Blair and Brown were a double act, even if they didn't really like each other very much. Blair had said he was leaving even before the 2005 general election, and it was clear who the successor would be.

People voted for Labour knowing full well that Brown would be the leader once Blair had gone.

We always have an unelected Prime Minister it is how our system of Government is supposed to work. The Prime Minister is normally just the person who has the most support in the House of Commons, and can thus form a government they don't even have to be an MP, members of the House of Lords have been Prime Minister in the past.

I am well aware of how the Prime Ministerial system is alleged to work, alongside other fanciful fictions like the population in a constituency voting for a candidate not a party. Which was something the slimy Shaun Woodward, elected as Conservative MP for Witney, argued when he defected to Labour.

We all know that that isn't how it works in real life, what with leader's debates and a fixation with leadership qualities.

If everyone voted how it is claimed they do, then the fact Corbyn is "unelectable" wouldn't make the blindest bit of difference, as only the people of Islington North should care.

Both my wife and I, in our 70s, voted Remain but accept that the Leave side won the referendum.

I accept that Leave won the referendum, although I do take issue with the idea they have a "mandate" when the difference in votes was 1.8% and 27% of the electorate didn't vote at all. But then that's mostly Cameron's fault for not setting a quoracy or a minimum winning margin in the vote, as something like that shouldn't be decided by a handful of votes.

I also think most people who voted Leave are either stupid (i.e. "yeah they'll spend £350m/week on the NHS", as the nurses at my wife's work so charmingly believed) or racist ("send the buggers back").
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It was also the EU's job to show that it could be responsive to the concerns of member states and their populations.

I think the concern of most people who voted Leave was mostly a desire to drag Britain kicking and screaming back to the 1950s, if I'm totally honest.

The latest obsession seems to be blue passports. Goodness only knows why. But then I'm an immigrant with a blue passport, so I'm probably not clever enough to understand the Brexiteers.

 

[miami]

I thought this was a matter of "democracy in action". I take issue with you over your supposition, as it was nobody's job to convince the electorate. That is a most patronising point of view which assumes that even in a democracy, people should not have free will to make their own choices, without any state pressure being placed upon them at the time of casting their vote. It supposes the electorate are not reliable enough to follow "the party line" without pressure being placed upon them.

A large portion of the electorate made their choice based on the lies from the print media, not just during the campaign, but for the last 40 years. These lies change the tone of the debate, akin to a shifting overton window. We operate from the basis that the EU has banned the use of the pint (despite the fact it obviously hasn't), we hear that a fisherman is losing his livelihood because of EU quotas despite the fact that EU quotas are broadly in line with international agreements and the real problem (like with farming) is economies of scale not allowing small fishermen to compete.

Can we really have democracy when the population can't or won't do it's own fact checking? Can we really have democracy when those we outsource our decisions to (MPs) are portrayed as money grabbing swindlers who are only in it for themselves. At least all of them apart from Jo Cox.

We don't live in a world of journalism, we live in a world of false-equivalence, it's a the tactic Russia uses, to make people think there is no actual truth, everything has an angle, and all angles are equivalent. It's depressing.

On losing the referendum, Cameron did the honourable thing by tendering his resignation as Prime Minister which rather spoilt the party of Gove and Johnson who stupidly assumed that Cameron would stay on to lead in any Brexit agenda in Europe, which was anathema to him.

I thought he said he was going to stay on regardless?

 

[Phil.]

No it wasn't, it was Dave and George's job.

They failed, which is why we now have an unelected Prime Minister who clearly doesn't want to invoke Article 50, but has neither the courage nor the intelligence to say so and end all this uncertainty.

We - the electorate - don't elect a Prime Minister and never have.
Theresa May is neither lacking in courage or intelligence.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Less so, because it was clear- and had been for a very long time- that Blair and Brown were a double act, even if they didn't really like each other very much. Blair had said he was leaving even before the 2005 general election, and it was clear who the successor would be.

People voted for Labour knowing full well that Brown would be the leader once Blair had gone.



I am well aware of how the Prime Ministerial system is alleged to work, alongside other fanciful fictions like the population in a constituency voting for a candidate not a party. Which was something the slimy Shaun Woodward, elected as Conservative MP for Witney, argued when he defected to Labour.

We all know that that isn't how it works in real life, what with leader's debates and a fixation with leadership qualities.

If everyone voted how it is claimed they do, then the fact Corbyn is "unelectable" wouldn't make the blindest bit of difference, as only the people of Islington North should care.



I accept that Leave won the referendum, although I do take issue with the idea they have a "mandate" when the difference in votes was 1.8% and 27% of the electorate didn't vote at all. But then that's mostly Cameron's fault for not setting a quoracy or a minimum winning margin in the vote, as something like that shouldn't be decided by a handful of votes.

I also think most people who voted Leave are either stupid (i.e. "yeah they'll spend £350m/week on the NHS", as the nurses at my wife's work so charmingly believed) or racist ("send the buggers back").
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I resent being called stupid and/or racist. Just accept that a majority of the natives of these sceptered isles voted to leave. End of.


I think the concern of most people who voted Leave was mostly a desire to drag Britain kicking and screaming back to the 1950s, if I'm totally honest.

Think on.

The latest obsession seems to be blue passports. Goodness only knows why. But then I'm an immigrant with a blue passport, so I'm probably not clever enough to understand the Brexiteers.

.............

 

[miami]

Reg Prentice? Not directly, but two years after he defected from Labour to Conservative, Labour lost a vote of confidence by 1 vote, which directly lead to the general election in which Mrs. Thatcher won. It seems reasonable to assume that if he hadn't crossed the floor, that general election wouldn't have happened. (Probably not quite what you were asking though, I guess you meant, so as to cause a change in PM without voters being consulted).

Before my time, but looks like a nasty vote -- someone from the opposite side should have cancelled out Broughton.

 

[TheKnightWho]

We - the electorate - don't elect a Prime Minister and never have.
Theresa May is neither lacking in courage or intelligence.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


.............

I am sick of being told that Remain cannot exercise democratic discourse because of the referendum. Some Brexiters consistently fail to understand that what makes a real democracy is that we can discuss, debate and engage in discourse. Debates aren't over just because you think you're winning.

The arrogance on display with such ridiculous Victorian rubbish as "sceptred isle" doesn't disguise the worrying authoritarianism and hypocrisy by those who seem to think that this country is in a time warp stuck in the 1960s. Using such language as "natives" whilst trying to claim you're not racist (Sorry, but isn't it whites that are native? Should only they be allowed a say?) is laughable!

 

[J-2739]

Did you quote the wrong person?

 

[TheKnightWho]

Did you quote the wrong person?

He replied within the quote in his post in red. Bit odd, but I'm on my phone and correcting the format would be a pain.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

We - the electorate - don't elect a Prime Minister and never have.
Theresa May is neither lacking in courage or intelligence.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


.............

FWIW, I don't think Theresa May is lacking in courage or intelligence.

However, we've just had a referendum where the government did not propose or explore or explain what Brexit was supposed to mean - they would argue it wasn't their job to (and by doing so, they probably feared making it a fait accompli). Of course, Vote Leave and the rest of the Brexiteers could and should have said what the plan of action was....but it was shrouded in so much waffle etc about what could happen, strong nation, and bulldog spirit and other such stuff.

This is now the fundamental problem. 51.8% voted against something, not for something. The alternative world was never explained, never explored except in vague "it'll all be ok" comments. The 48.2% voted for something - it was established, almost tangible, albeit imperfect.

Instead, we have a soundbite "Brexit means brexit" but no one actually knows what Brexit will actually look like. From talking to those I know who voted Leave, I don't see any real thought as to what the future was ever going to look like - they just knew they didn't want what they thought the EU was like.

It's like voting on having "Chicken and Chips" in a cafe. 48.2% vote for it, though some may do so because they love it, others because it's familiar, and some despite thinking that it could do with a bit of a spice up. 51.2% voted for "something else" - what are the chances that the food brought out will suit everyone's pallet?

In that respect, Theresa May is probably doing the most sensible thing in actually seeing what Brexit should look like, what we are going to negotiate for, and what we will accept or not accept.

BTW, I think it's too easy to characterize Leavers as some homogenous group (i.e. old, white, racist). My mum (white, 80 years of age) voted stay. My sister in law voted Leave (white, 34, not racist in the slightest). I know a good number of Leavers and there's little consensus. Some do cite immigration (and even then, only some are outwardly racist - others talk of the impact on services and jobs), some talk of EU "meddling" and legislation, some are just "well, why not" and others have other reasons like wanting to return to some halcyon, mythical past of endless summers and chocolate box cricket on the green when things were so much better - a fallacy perpetuated by that ridiculous blue passport nonsense. The Sun - who seem to be heading that particular campaign - should be more concerned with what that passport actually allows you to do, rather than the bloody colour.

I'm a Remainer but as with Paul S earlier, I believe we have to now respect the decision and hopefully make the best of things in future. However, you can't have a referendum and then ignore the will of the people (even if it was only 73% of the electorate).

 

[Gutfright]

When you throw around the word racist like confetti based on spurious justification such as anecdotal evidence or a deliberate misrepresentation of the word "native" (the natives of a country are the people who are born there. Most natives of the U.K. are white, but many are black, or brown, or bright orange), then you rob the word of all meaning.

Getting back on topic, I have no problem with democratic debate but the level of anti-democratic debate coming from some of the saltier remainers is very worrying. The idea that the state should overrule the will of the people is completely authoritarian. It is hypocritical to argue that the view of the majority is worthless while at the same time trying to paint yourself as being in any way pro-democracy.

 

[AM9]

FWIW, I don't think Theresa May is lacking in courage or intelligence.

However, we've just had a referendum where the government did not propose or explore or explain what Brexit was supposed to mean - they would argue it wasn't their job to (and by doing so, they probably feared making it a fait accompli). Of course, Vote Leave and the rest of the Brexiteers could and should have said what the plan of action was....but it was shrouded in so much waffle etc about what could happen, strong nation, and bulldog spirit and other such stuff.

This is now the fundamental problem. 51.8% voted against something, not for something. The alternative world was never explained, never explored except in vague "it'll all be ok" comments. The 48.2% voted for something - it was established, almost tangible, albeit imperfect.

Instead, we have a soundbite "Brexit means brexit" but no one actually knows what Brexit will actually look like. From talking to those I know who voted Leave, I don't see any real thought as to what the future was ever going to look like - they just knew they didn't want what they thought the EU was like.

It's like voting on having "Chicken and Chips" in a cafe. 48.2% vote for it, though some may do so because they love it, others because it's familiar, and some despite thinking that it could do with a bit of a spice up. 51.2% voted for "something else" - what are the chances that the food brought out will suit everyone's pallet?

In that respect, Theresa May is probably doing the most sensible thing in actually seeing what Brexit should look like, what we are going to negotiate for, and what we will accept or not accept.

BTW, I think it's too easy to characterize Leavers as some homogenous group (i.e. old, white, racist). My mum (white, 80 years of age) voted stay. My sister in law voted Leave (white, 34, not racist in the slightest). I know a good number of Leavers and there's little consensus. Some do cite immigration (and even then, only some are outwardly racist - others talk of the impact on services and jobs), some talk of EU "meddling" and legislation, some are just "well, why not" and others have other reasons like wanting to return to some halcyon, mythical past of endless summers and chocolate box cricket on the green when things were so much better - a fallacy perpetuated by that ridiculous blue passport nonsense. The Sun - who seem to be heading that particular campaign - should be more concerned with what that passport actually allows you to do, rather than the bloody colour.

I'm a Remainer but as with Paul S earlier, I believe we have to now respect the decision and hopefully make the best of things in future. However, you can't have a referendum and then ignore the will of the people (even if it was only 73% of the electorate).

I opened the current discourse within this thread, on 1st September, some 69 days after the referendum, precisely to ask whether anybody here could explain what 'Brexit' meant. In effect, it was more a question aimed at those who voted to leave the EU (and presumably still felt that it was right for them and/or the UK), because despite Theresa May's soundbite 'Brexit means Brexit' there is no definition of its meaning other than the logical on of an exit from the EU.
I couldn't agree more with most of The Grand Wazoo's post but to bring the vexing subject back for discussion, I would suggest this sentence that forms paragraph 6:

In that respect, Theresa May is probably doing the most sensible thing in actually seeing what Brexit should look like, what we are going to negotiate for, and what we will accept or not accept.​

begs the question:

how will the electorate be able to decide whether what is available from any negotiations is acceptable before it is too late to change anything?​

 

[TheKnightWho]

When you throw around the word racist like confetti based on spurious justification such as anecdotal evidence or a deliberate misrepresentation of the word "native" (the natives of a country are the people who are born there. Most natives of the U.K. are white, but many are black, or brown, or bright orange), then you rob the word of all meaning.

Getting back on topic, I have no problem with democratic debate but the level of anti-democratic debate coming from some of the saltier remainers is very worrying. The idea that the state should overrule the will of the people is completely authoritarian. It is hypocritical to argue that the view of the majority is worthless while at the same time trying to paint yourself as being in any way pro-democracy.

There's a difference between native and citizen. Language is important - don't underestimate its implications. Or do you think whites born in British India referred to themselves as "natives"?

That's particularly relevant when it comes to the misleading nature of much of the campaigning. How, exactly, am I salty? Was this a football game or is it apparently unthinkable to be concerned about propaganda in the media now? Given the appalling nature of the campaigns and the vast amount of ignorance on display, should we really be making permanent decisions based on the "will of the people", despite it being stunningly obvious that a lot of media manipulation has gone on? And yes, I am referring to both campaigns - but there are some very telling examples on the Leave side that people did believe, despite claims that they were only possibilities.

To give a mundane analogy: "Oh, you want to spend all of your money on this dubious miracle cure even though that would mean you couldn't pay your bills? Sure!"

 

[DarloRich]

When you throw around the word racist like confetti based on spurious justification such as anecdotal evidence or a deliberate misrepresentation of the word "native" (the natives of a country are the people who are born there. Most natives of the U.K. are white, but many are black, or brown, or bright orange), then you rob the word of all meaning.

Getting back on topic, I have no problem with democratic debate but the level of anti-democratic debate coming from some of the saltier remainers is very worrying. The idea that the state should overrule the will of the people is completely authoritarian. It is hypocritical to argue that the view of the majority is worthless while at the same time trying to paint yourself as being in any way pro-democracy.

but a referendum is merely advisory. You must know that. The Government could ( but wont) quite easily say: Thanks but no thanks for your advice.

In any event the government should propose a plan asap that we can all consider. It should be agreed by an elected Parliament ( rather than a PM with no democratic mandate) and then acted upon. We do live, after all, in a parliamentary democracy!

 

[WelshBluebird]

I don't think anyone wanted to see racial discrimination

But surely, anyone with a half a brain could realise that a vote for Brexit would be, in the eyes of the racists, legitimising their views? You have to be very careful with who you share a platform with, and certainly I for one was not surprised with the racist assaults and discrimination that was reported in the week or so after the vote.

It was Labours job

No it wasn't. It was everyone who shared the remain camps job. That includes Mr "I lost so I'll resign and pretend it didn't happen" Cameron.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I resent being called stupid and/or racist. Just accept that a majority of the natives of these sceptered isles voted to leave. End of.

Nope, 51.8% on a turnout of 72% is not a majority.

Interesting use of the word "native", too, I might add.

Getting back on topic, I have no problem with democratic debate but the level of anti-democratic debate coming from some of the saltier remainers is very worrying. The idea that the state should overrule the will of the people is completely authoritarian. It is hypocritical to argue that the view of the majority is worthless while at the same time trying to paint yourself as being in any way pro-democracy.

It is a very difficult one, finding the balance between having "democracy" and not simply having a tyranny of the majority.

The referendum was not binding, it has been clear from the word go it is merely advisory, and in any event there was not a majority vote in favour of Brexit. Many of the problems with this vote are down to the slapdash way the question was written by a man who a) expected to barter it away to the LibDems in coalition and b) expected to win the vote anyway. If it were to be treated as binding then there should have been a set barrier to allow a pass, something in the region of 70% vote in favour. It is impossible for even the most ardent Brexiteer to seriously argue they have a majority when they won the vote by 1.5%, but 27% of the electorate did not express an opinion either way.

Advisory votes have been ignored before, most notably with the abolition of the death penalty in 1967.

 

[WelshBluebird]

When you throw around the word racist like confetti based on spurious justification such as anecdotal evidence or a deliberate misrepresentation of the word "native" (the natives of a country are the people who are born there. Most natives of the U.K. are white, but many are black, or brown, or bright orange), then you rob the word of all meaning.

I think it is fairly obvious what was being discussed.
Considering British born people have been told to "go back home", I do wonder where the people who hold those views think these people should go to!

Getting back on topic, I have no problem with democratic debate but the level of anti-democratic debate coming from some of the saltier remainers is very worrying. The idea that the state should overrule the will of the people is completely authoritarian. It is hypocritical to argue that the view of the majority is worthless while at the same time trying to paint yourself as being in any way pro-democracy.

Guessing you have never heard of "Tyranny of the majority".
Just because a majority vote for a change does not mean it is a good idea for the government to implement that change.
Take for example if we had a vote to get rid of income tax and not replace it with anything. That would have a fairly decent chance of getting a majority vote. However it would be a totally ludicrous thing to actually do and would destroy many parts of our civilized society.

 

[Gutfright]

There's a difference between native and citizen. Language is important - don't underestimate its implications.

That's particularly relevant when it comes to the misleading nature of much of the campaigning. How, exactly, am I salty? Was this a football game or is it apparently unthinkable to be concerned about propaganda in the media now? Given the appalling nature of the campaigns and the vast amount of ignorance on display, should we really be making permanent decisions based on the "will of the people", despite it being stunningly obvious that a lot of media manipulation has gone on? And yes, I am referring to both campaigns - but there are some very telling examples on the Leave side that people did believe, despite claims that they were only possibilities.

To give a mundane analogy: "Oh, you want to spend all of your money on this dubious miracle cure even though that would mean you couldn't pay your bills? Sure!"

If you believe that people are too stupid, ignorant, gullible, racist etc to be able to make important decisions, then why the hell would you be in favour of democracy?

If you are arguing that the referendum results prove that democracy doesn't work and should be abolished, then just say so. Nail your colours to the mast.

If you're in favour of democracy only when the people make decisions you agree with, you're not in favour of democracy at all.