EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[yorksrob]

Certainly, the EU should be able to make the most of its new found freedom and it would be best to make plans as early as possible. Britain is a troublemaker and the EU should be pleased to be rid of it.

We should frame this as a potential positive for both of our sides in any negotiation. Let's face it, there are aspects of the European project that the UK has never been happy with and the EU can now get on with them.

The Scottish Nationalists used to have a line about being "good neighbours rather than surly lodgers" and those of us who have been sceptical of the project in the past should be ready to embrace Europe in this spirit.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Just as with the Scottish referendum, the EU vote did not come with any strings attached regarding qualified a qualified majority, one vote would have been enough; 1.3 million is a landslide. The Remoaners can complain all they like, Brexit is coming whether they like it or not.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I see it is now being reported that former EU President Herman Van Rompuy is saying that no meaningful Brexit negotiations can take place until after the German general election next autumn. This just confirms what we have all know for years, the Germans are running the whole stinking outfit. Roll on Brexit.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37369917

A margin of not even 4% is not a landslide. It's a narrow victory. Then again, statistics were never the Brexiteers' strongpoint...

And no, Brexit doesn't seem like it'll be on its way anytime soon. Excuse after excuse might be presented, but May has the power to invoke article 50 today if she wants to. What it does confirm, though, is that Brexiters like to come up with lots of reasons to blame Europe for their own failings, as they've been doing for the last 40 years.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't think you understand this at all. Farage is not even an MP, let alone part of the government.

Then maybe he shouldn't have been claiming we could do things he couldn't deliver on then!

You can't have it both ways.

 

[burneside]

A margin of not even 4% is not a landslide. It's a narrow victory. Then again, statistics were never the Brexiteers' strongpoint...

And no, Brexit doesn't seem like it'll be on its way anytime soon. Excuse after excuse might be presented, but May has the power to invoke article 50 today if she wants to. What it does confirm, though, is that Brexiters like to come up with lots of reasons to blame Europe for their own failings, as they've been doing for the last 40 years.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Then maybe he shouldn't have been claiming we could do things he couldn't deliver on then!

You can't have it both ways.

The Leave campaign was made up of people across the political spectrum, some were MPs, but most were not. The whole government and civil service establishment were working against it. Anybody with an ounce of sense would have realised that Leave were in no position to promise specifics as they don't hold the reins of power, is now up to May and her cabinet to deliver.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Anybody with an ounce of sense would have realised that Leave were in no position to promise specifics

Yet they promised specifics anyway. They wrote the best of their specifics on the side of a bus, something about £350m a week for the NHS, you must have seen it.

So you're saying they lied, but it's the people who voted Leave who believed their lies who are to blame.

Well, we're agreed on them lying, anyway.

Shame it tends to undermine the argument about Leave having a "mandate", but hey ho, can't have everything.

 

[burneside]

Yet they promised specifics anyway. They wrote the best of their specifics on the side of a bus, something about £350m a week for the NHS, you must have seen it.

So you're saying they lied, but it's the people who voted Leave who believed their lies who are to blame.

Well, we're agreed on them lying, anyway.

Shame it tends to undermine the argument about Leave having a "mandate", but hey ho, can't have everything.

Ah, that old chestnut about the "promise" on the bus, I suggest you read the wording that appeared on the bus. It was an option of what could be done with the £350m.

The Leave campaign offered all kinds of suggestions for potential ways forward post-Brexit, but they were only suggestions. How could they offer cast-iron guarantees of anything when they are not sat in No 10? Even Theresa May cannot do that at this time. It's as though the Remoaners thought on June 24th the whole Leave team would assume power in Downing Street in lieu of a general election.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It was an option of what could be done with the £350m.

 

[richw]

You mean Farage was promising things he couldn't deliver?

Colour me shocked.

Leavers are starting to realise everywhere they voted for a side with no mandate to make promises. None of their proposals can be followed through without a mandate holder on side.

As for yesterday the eu wanting to get a Euro army etc isn't that part of the Nazi plan that caused ww2?

 

[Howardh]

If UK ends up with WTO rules, then how much will the cost of imported electricity (from France and Holland) go up, if there are tariff's on it?

 

[TheKnightWho]

The Leave campaign was made up of people across the political spectrum, some were MPs, but most were not. The whole government and civil service establishment were working against it. Anybody with an ounce of sense would have realised that Leave were in no position to promise specifics as they don't hold the reins of power, is now up to May and her cabinet to deliver.

If that was the case, why were millions of people duped then?

Calling them stupid after you've deceived them is like rubbing salt into a wound!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Ah, that old chestnut about the "promise" on the bus, I suggest you read the wording that appeared on the bus. It was an option of what could be done with the £350m.

The Leave campaign offered all kinds of suggestions for potential ways forward post-Brexit, but they were only suggestions. How could they offer cast-iron guarantees of anything when they are not sat in No 10? Even Theresa May cannot do that at this time. It's as though the Remoaners thought on June 24th the whole Leave team would assume power in Downing Street in lieu of a general election.

If I promised we could get a universal basic income of £100,000/month, declared 0% tax on everything and said we'd get visa free travel to anywhere in the world if I got elected, it's my fault if people believe that and voted for me. It's not reasonable for me to turn around and go "well I technically said we could, not that we would" if my miraculous promises don't come to fruition.

It's almost as though you know full-well that millions of people were deceived, but don't want to admit that it was the lies of the Brexit campaign that were responsible for that. If you are not in power and are in no position to make any promises, don't go around saying "let's spend it on the NHS instead" when you are in no position to actually do that.

 

[Domh245]

Ah, that old chestnut about the "promise" on the bus, I suggest you read the wording that appeared on the bus. It was an option of what could be done with the £350m.

Now, if I remember rightly, the bus looked like this:

and not like this:

 

[PHILIPE]

I never heard of any discussion in regard to the possibiity of a second referendum before the referendum of June 23rd. Only afterwards when the Remains didn't like the result.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I never heard of any discussion in regard to the possibiity of a second referendum before the referendum of June 23rd. Only afterwards when the Remains didn't like the result.

Except you're wrong.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681

 

[burneside]

If that was the case, why were millions of people duped then?

Calling them stupid after you've deceived them is like rubbing salt into a wound!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


If I promised we could get a universal basic income of £100,000/month, declared 0% tax on everything and said we'd get visa free travel to anywhere in the world if I got elected, it's my fault if people believe that and voted for me. It's not reasonable for me to turn around and go "well I technically said we could, not that we would" if my miraculous promises don't come to fruition.

It's almost as though you know full-well that millions of people were deceived, but don't want to admit that it was the lies of the Brexit campaign that were responsible for that. If you are not in power and are in no position to make any promises, don't go around saying "let's spend it on the NHS instead" when you are in no position to actually do that.

"Let's spend it on the NHS" is a suggestion and an option, that is why the Leave campaign did not say "We will definitely spend it on the NHS", because they knew they were not in a position to keep that promise. The Leave campaign merely pointed out what could be possible if we no longer paid billions into the EU. Some people seem to be under the impression we went through a general election campaign, instead of a referendum.

 

[TheKnightWho]

"Let's spend it on the NHS" is a suggestion and an option, that is why the Leave campaign did not say "We will definitely spend it on the NHS", because they knew they were not in a position to keep that promise. The Leave campaign merely pointed out what could be possible if we no longer paid billions into the EU. Some people seem to be under the impression we went through a general election campaign, instead of a referendum.

The majority of people interpreted them as promises and pledges, and not as "suggestions". This is something you and the Leave campaign in general knew full-well. Implying that I (or others on this thread) can't make the distinction spectacularly misses the point, because it's not what I thought about the campaign or their claims that matters here.

Like I said, you're calling millions of people stupid because they believed what they were told by the campaign and the right-wing media. Why can't you just admit they were deceived?

 

[Harbon 1]

I never heard of any discussion in regard to the possibiity of a second referendum before the referendum of June 23rd. Only afterwards when the Remains didn't like the result.

The discussion came about on the back of a leave voter starting a petition for a second referendum if remain didn't get 65%(or something like that) of the vote as it wasn't a clear enough majority.

 

[burneside]

The majority of people interpreted them as promises and pledges, and not as "suggestions". This is something you and the Leave campaign in general knew full-well. Implying that I (or others on this thread) can't make the distinction spectacularly misses the point, because it's not what I thought about the campaign or their claims that matters here.

Like I said, you're calling millions of people stupid because they believed what they were told by the campaign and the right-wing media. Why can't you just admit they were deceived?

Despite the fact Cameron was adamant he would not resign in the event of a leave vote, did you really think the Leave campaign team would troop into No 10 on the morning of the 24th June and start implementing all the possible scenarios that had been suggested during the referendum campaign?

 

[TheKnightWho]

Despite the fact Cameron was adamant he would not resign in the event of a leave vote, did you really think the Leave campaign team would troop into No 10 on the morning of the 24th June and start implementing all the possible scenarios that had been suggested during the referendum campaign?

Cameron resigning wasn't something that he said to persuade people to vote to Remain. Try harder.

Either people were deceived by it, in which case there is no mandate, or the Leave campaign said it for no discernible reason, in which case they're idiots.

As I keep saying - why not just admit people were deceived, and stop calling them stupid for believing what they were told? There never was £350m to spend on the NHS because that wasn't a net payment, so it's something that never would have been possible regardless of who was in power. And the government has already pledged that there will be NHS spending cuts, and not any increase, in the wake of Brexit. That's something approved by a party that had the majority of MPs in favour of Brexit. Therefore, it's pretty safe to say that people were deceived, and that many pro-Brexit politicians have voted directly against the pledge of the official Leave campaign.

 

[dcsprior]

I also believe that since the EU is/was a current thing at the time of the referendum, not voting would have shown support for it.

I voted remain, but I can't agree with the above. Every non-voter has their own reason, for instance a man I know (a remainer) and his wife (a bexiter) decided that there was no point going to the polling station for zero net effect; changing the rules retrospectively to treat them both as remain voters would be wrong.

Sent from my LG-H340n using Tapatalk

 

[Harbon 1]

I voted remain, but I can't agree with the above. Every non-voter has their own reason, for instance a man I know (a remainer) and his wife (a bexiter) decided that there was no point going to the polling station for zero net effect; changing the rules retrospectively to treat them both as remain voters would be wrong.

Sent from my LG-H340n using Tapatalk

I guess the word 'support' would be wrong in this case thinking back. Obviously some non-voters would have been intending to vote but couldn't for reasons outside of their control. It's difficult to put into words the point I'm trying to make, sort of a double negative somewhere along the lines of an opinion. Changing the rules now would be very wrong indeed.

 

[AlterEgo]

I voted remain, but I can't agree with the above. Every non-voter has their own reason, for instance a man I know (a remainer) and his wife (a bexiter) decided that there was no point going to the polling station for zero net effect; changing the rules retrospectively to treat them both as remain voters would be wrong.

Sent from my LG-H340n using Tapatalk

I bet the wife postal voted!

 

[burneside]

Cameron resigning wasn't something that he said to persuade people to vote to Remain. Try harder.

Either people were deceived by it, in which case there is no mandate, or the Leave campaign said it for no discernible reason, in which case they're idiots.

As I keep saying - why not just admit people were deceived, and stop calling them stupid for believing what they were told? There never was £350m to spend on the NHS because that wasn't a net payment, so it's something that never would have been possible regardless of who was in power. And the government has already pledged that there will be NHS spending cuts, and not any increase, in the wake of Brexit. That's something approved by a party that had the majority of MPs in favour of Brexit. Therefore, it's pretty safe to say that people were deceived, and that many pro-Brexit politicians have voted directly against the pledge of the official Leave campaign.

Cameron's insistence that he would not resign in the event of a leave vote was nothing to do with swaying the campaign, it was his ego. Which lasted all of two hours before did resign.

The only idiots around here are the people who thought the Leave campaign would form a government on June 24th.

 

[Harbon 1]

The only idiots around here are the people who thought the Leave campaign would form a government on June 24th.

I don't think anyone on here believes they would?

If they did I feel sorry for them.

 

[EM2]

"Let's spend it on the NHS" is a suggestion and an option,

Is this a suggestion?
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2611664&postcount=1015
Looks very much like a promise to me.

 

[Howardh]

Is this a suggestion?
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2611664&postcount=1015
Looks very much like a promise to me.

If a TOC put up a poster asking the public to give that money to them, and they said they would provide new trains, and then they didn't (ie. half the money was spent on rebuilding bridges, the other half just "lost" in the system, where would they stand legally?
In other words, the ASA would have posters torn down if they weren't truthful. However, what would happen if the ad was truthful at the time and turns out not to be, and the ads have now gone?
"Buy Railforum Best Bitter @ 6%" and when it goes on sale it's 3%?

 

[meridian2]

Cameron resigning wasn't something that he said to persuade people to vote to Remain. Try harder.

Either people were deceived by it, in which case there is no mandate, or the Leave campaign said it for no discernible reason, in which case they're idiots.

As I keep saying - why not just admit people were deceived, and stop calling them stupid for believing what they were told? There never was £350m to spend on the NHS because that wasn't a net payment, so it's something that never would have been possible regardless of who was in power. And the government has already pledged that there will be NHS spending cuts, and not any increase, in the wake of Brexit. That's something approved by a party that had the majority of MPs in favour of Brexit. Therefore, it's pretty safe to say that people were deceived, and that many pro-Brexit politicians have voted directly against the pledge of the official Leave campaign.

More likely the investment of the NHS had nothing to do with the referendum. I don't recall it ever being tabled, either by Leave or Remain, so you can't really accuse something of being a deception when the building blocks for a deception weren't there to begin with.
On the contrary, the Tories have a history of cutting the NHS and will stop at nothing to privatise as much of it as they can.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Cameron's insistence that he would not resign in the event of a leave vote was nothing to do with swaying the campaign, it was his ego. Which lasted all of two hours before did resign.

The only idiots around here are the people who thought the Leave campaign would form a government on June 24th.

Stop calling us stupid - I know exactly how referenda work. What you fail to grasp is that it is the general public who have been deceived, and it is them you are calling idiots.

The fact you keep repeating the same tired point repeatedly without addressing what anyone is saying makes me think you have no idea how to actually respond. The fact you still think we don't know how referenda work, when that has been addressed repeatedly, is telling.

 

[VauxhallandI]

"Let's spend it on the NHS" is a suggestion and an option, that is why the Leave campaign did not say "We will definitely spend it on the NHS", because they knew they were not in a position to keep that promise. The Leave campaign merely pointed out what could be possible if we no longer paid billions into the EU. Some people seem to be under the impression we went through a general election campaign, instead of a referendum.

Are you some sort of wind up merchant?

 

[burneside]

Are you some sort of wind up merchant?

No, I'm absolutely serious.

 

[TheKnightWho]

No, I'm absolutely serious.

I don't know what's sadder - that you and other Leavers who say this think you're genuinely honest, or that people actually believed this crap.

 

[burneside]

I don't know what's sadder - that you and other Leavers who say this think you're genuinely honest, or that people actually believed this crap.

The feeling is mutual mate, the Remoaners are beyond contempt. That's all I can say about you lot without getting banned.