EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[dosxuk]

We never had a referendum on creating a political block so NF was quite within his rights to campaign to leave it.
This time it's entirely different we've had one to Leave and now we're told we should simply have another one as the first went the wrong way.

Are you saying that if leave had lost 52-48, Farage would have just gone "fair enough, that's that then, carry on with the EU, I'm going to go help Clinton"?

The country is deeply divided. Many people still strongly believe that leave / stay is the only way people should have voted. Many people still believe that people were misinformed. Many still people believe that the leave didn't clearly state their plans for the break up. All of those factors are going to lead to large numbers of people wanting a re-run - and would have been the case regardless of which side actually won.

Personally I don't see anything undemocratic about parliament getting a say in the plans for our departure, or even a referendum when we actually have a concrete plan about what we're going to do. In the same way as if we had a general election next week, and a pro-EU party won on a pro-EU stance it wouldn't be undemocratic for that party to call the whole thing off.

 

[Johnuk123]

What I do know is that it will be bad for all of us.

Quite the contrary you haven't got the slightest clue as it's never been done before.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

and you don't see your position as a touch hypocritical then?

You are saying that it is OK to campaign to have a referendum to leave the EU but not ok to campaign to have a referendum on what that leaving looks like AND in doing so you subvert democracy but your champion Farage didn't subvert democracy in asking for his referendum?

My answer told you the reason I'm not going to repeat it, although I'm one of the people you keep calling stupid I have a feeling that Brexit is going to be a massive success.
Of course being a stupid idiot I may well be wrong.

 

[dosxuk]

I have a feeling that Brexit is going to be a massive success.

Quite the contrary you haven't got the slightest clue as it's never been done before.

 

[Johnuk123]

Quite the contrary you haven't got the slightest clue as it's never been done before.

Quite right, that's why I said it was only a feeling and not a prediction unlike others who have said Brexit WILL be bad for all of us.
I'd like to know how they are so absolutely certain.

 

[DarloRich]

My answer told you the reason I'm not going to repeat it, although I'm one of the people you keep calling stupid I have a feeling that Brexit is going to be a massive success.
Of course being a stupid idiot I may well be wrong.

So just to recap: Your argument is that it was OK for Nigel Farage to campaign for a referendum because "We never had a referendum on creating a political block" (whatever that means) BUT that is not alright for others to campaign on the basis of another referendum on how we leave the EU?

Is it worth pointing out, using your own strained logic, that we have never had a referendum on how we leave the EU just one indicating that we want to leave the EU.

Furthermore, you still haven't justified how this subverts the democratic process. Can you offer anything further here?

Quite right, that's why I said it was only a feeling and not a prediction unlike others who have said Brexit WILL be bad for all of us.
I'd like to know how they are so absolutely certain.

My view is based on all of the published economic data from ( sorry) experts ( yes i know we don't need them but still) who say the economy is heading for a downturn post brexit, that inflation will return, that interest rates will rise, that real terms living standards and wages will fall. By extension I worry unemployment will rise and we wont have easy access to markets for the few items we actually make for export.

Your view seems to be that everything will be fine and leaving the EU will work out well. Can you suggest any grounds for that?

 

[EM2]

So by pushing for a new referendum to overturn the original one (which they have all called for) you would say that is not subversion ?

And Nigel Farage wouldn't have done exactly the same, of course:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/nigel-farage-52-48_uk_5820dc7ce4b020461a1d5fd9

Comments Nigel Farage made before the EU referendum are once again coming back to haunt him.

The former/current/interim Ukip leader said in May that a narrow 52-48% win for Remain side would be “unfinished business” and would prompt him to fight for a second referendum.

The remarks were made in an interview with the Mirror and resurfaced in the days after Farage and the Leave campaign claimed an emphatic victory in the June vote.

Leave won by 52-48%.

And let's not forget planning to march on the Supreme Court when they hear the Government's appeal against the recent High Court ruling.
That's not subverting justice and parliamentary sovereignty, of course.

And in a case of political déjà vu, the remarks are once again circulating in light of Farage’s reaction to the High Court ruling on the triggering of Article 50 last week.

He - along with Aaron Banks and the other Leave campaigns - will march on the Supreme Court on December 5, the likely first day of the new hearing where the government is appealing the decision.

A spokesperson for Farage told the Telegraph: “We will also be launching with all Leave campaigns including members of all political parties a march on the Supreme Court to make a point that ‘Brexit means Brexit’.

They added: “This will remind the Government and politicians, and the establishment including the court, that they cannot ignore the democratic vote of the people in the referendum.”

 

[Barn]

So just to recap: Your argument is that it was OK for Nigel Farage to campaign for a referendum because "We never had a referendum on creating a political block" (whatever that means) BUT that is not alright for others to campaign on the basis of another referendum on how we leave the EU?

Is it worth pointing out, using your own strained logic, that we have never had a referendum on how we leave the EU just one indicating that we want to leave the EU.

There isn't really a "how". This is something which has largely been invented post-referendum by Remainers. We leave the EU by triggering Article 50, we patch up transitional matters, and then we quit the EU. There isn't much more to it.

There is a question of "what's next?". I agree with you that this question needs to be decided democratically - referendum or parliament. I would certainly want a referendum before committing to the EEA.

But the question needs to be "Should we enter into this deal or should we rely on a WTO fallback?". That respects the decision to leave and places an incentive on both parties to reach a good deal.

If the question is "Should we enter into this deal or should we remain part of the EU", that places a really strong incentive on the EU to produce a really awful deal in order to humiliate us into staying.

 

[LateThanNever]

There isn't really a "how". This is something which has largely been invented post-referendum by Remainers. We leave the EU by triggering Article 50, we patch up transitional matters, and then we quit the EU. There isn't much more to it.

There is a question of "what's next?". I agree with you that this question needs to be decided democratically - referendum or parliament. I would certainly want a referendum before committing to the EEA.

But the question needs to be "Should we enter into this deal or should we rely on a WTO fallback?". That respects the decision to leave and places an incentive on both parties to reach a good deal.

If the question is "Should we enter into this deal or should we remain part of the EU", that places a really strong incentive on the EU to produce a really awful deal in order to humiliate us into staying.

But both Johnson and Farage told us that there woulsd be no problem with the UK remaining in the single market. That looks unlikely now - unless of course Italy leaves the Euro or Le Pen gets in in France, in which case the EU might be leaving us...

 

[DynamicSpirit]

So by pushing for a new referendum to overturn the original one (which they have all called for) you would say that is not subversion ?

No, it's part of democracy and free speech: That people campaign for and argue for what they believe in (just as it would simply be democracy if the result had gone the other way and Nigel Farage et al had continued campaigning to try to change peoples' minds). Subversion is defined by The Cambridge Dictionary as 'the act of trying to destroy or damage an established system or government:', which is very definitely not what those arguing for remaining in the EU/a new referendum/etc. are doing. (Having said that, it seems to me that definition is incomplete, since to my mind the word subversion carries connotations of some use of underhand or illegal tactics - a nuance which seems to be missing from the quoted definition).

Or do you believe that after each general election, all parties other than the victor should shut up and refuse to do any campaigning for 5 years, on the basis that the electorate has spoken and elected the winning party, and it would therefore be subversive to argue against them, or to attempt to change anyone's mind?

 

[Steveman]

No, it's part of democracy and free speech: That people campaign for and argue for what they believe in (just as it would simply be democracy if the result had gone the other way and Nigel Farage et al had continued campaigning to try to change peoples' minds). Subversion is defined by The Cambridge Dictionary as 'the act of trying to destroy or damage an established system or government:', which is very definitely not what those arguing for remaining in the EU/a new referendum/etc. are doing. (Having said that, it seems to me that definition is incomplete, since to my mind the word subversion carries connotations of some use of underhand or illegal tactics - a nuance which seems to be missing from the quoted definition).

Or do you believe that after each general election, all parties other than the victor should shut up and refuse to do any campaigning for 5 years, on the basis that the electorate has spoken and elected the winning party, and it would therefore be subversive to argue against them, or to attempt to change anyone's mind?

I presume you think that after every football match the losing side should be able to ask for another go until they win.
I understand your very much in favour of a second referendum as you lost the first one, you're entitled to that opinion.
As has already been said will it be best of 3 if Remain win the 2nd one as that must be the logical way to go about things.
We will be having referendums for ever with your proposal to never accept the validity of one that goes the opposite way to what you think it should have.

If your lot had won you would be on here saying how we must accept the result and another referendum would be ridiculous.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Or do you believe that after each general election, all parties other than the victor should shut up and refuse to do any campaigning for 5 years, on the basis that the electorate has spoken and elected the winning party, and it would therefore be subversive to argue against them, or to attempt to change anyone's mind?

I believe that they should accept the result of that election.

Then they should campaign towards the next election, not keep harking back to one they have lost.

 

[EM2]

I believe that they should accept the result of that election.

Then they should campaign towards the next election, not keep harking back to one they have lost.

Should they campaign based on things that the side that won haven't done, or won't do, or told untruths about?

 

[Johnuk123]

Many people still believe that people were misinformed. Many still people believe that the leave didn't clearly state their plans for the break up. All of those factors are going to lead to large numbers of people wanting a re-run - and would have been the case regardless of which side actually won.

There is a ComRes poll today that shows that 47% of people would still vote Leave and 46% would vote Remain.
3% Of Leave voters last time would change their vote but 4% of Remain voters would now vote Leave.

So going on that poll nothing much has changed.

 

[Domh245]

If your lot had won you would be on here saying how we must accept the result and another referendum would be ridiculous.

Somehow, I think that had remain won, the whole thing would have been over by the coming of the US election. Cameron would still be in no 10, the pound would be cruising along at $1.40 or so, Farage would (probably) still be leading UKIP, etc. The most vocal eurosceptics would keep on going on about it (just as the contingent of "remoaners" are now) but for the vast majority of the country who really don't care much about this at all, it'd be business as usual.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Should they campaign based on things that the side that won haven't done, or won't do, or told untruths about?

Yes, if they wish, but they should accept the result.

Isn't that always the case? The winning (and losing side had they won) promise things which they can't, won't or don't deliver. If the remain camp knew the leave camp were being 'economical with the truth', or were 'facing both ways' (Boris I'm looking at you here), then it was up to them to effectively get that message across during the campaign. Perhaps they did and without 'project fear' the result would have been 57 / 43 or 62 / 38 to leave. Would that have shut the remainers up? Or would they still be bleating with a 80 / 20 vote?

If a decisive result with a substantial majority either way was required, the referendum should have been done that way i.e. 60%, or 75% one way or the other. Macaroon thought he would win, but win narrowly, so he didn't favour that. The remainers chose to have a referendum, the type of referendum, the date, the question on the paper, they have themselves to blame.

If people don't like democracy because they don't always get the result that they want, then perhaps they should consider moving to one of the many countries which doesn't have a working democracy and see just how much they like that.

 

[EM2]

Yes, if they wish, but they should accept the result.

Isn't that always the case? The winning (and losing side had they won) promise things which they can't, won't or don't deliver. If the remain camp knew the leave camp were being 'economical with the truth', or were 'facing both ways' (Boris I'm looking at you here), then it was up to them to effectively get that message across during the campaign. Perhaps they did and without 'project fear' the result would have been 57 / 43 or 62 / 38 to leave. Would that have shut the remainers up? Or would they still be bleating with a 80 / 20 vote?

If a decisive result with a substantial majority either way was required, the referendum should have been done that way i.e. 60%, or 75% one way or the other. Macaroon thought he would win, but win narrowly, so he didn't favour that. The remainers chose to have a referendum, the type of referendum, the date, the question on the paper, they have themselves to blame.

If people don't like democracy because they don't always get the result that they want, then perhaps they should consider moving to one of the many countries which doesn't have a working democracy and see just how much they like that.

Remain have pointed out that:

• Farage said that a 52/48 win for Remain would be 'unfinished business'.
• Senior figures on the Leave side have straight away said that £350m a week won't be going to the NHS.
• Senior figures on the Leave side have said that there won't be a massive reduction in immigration.
• When there has been a decision made that respects parliamentary sovereignty, that the Leave camp don't want to respect it, which is what they've argued for throughout the campaign.

So what's the problem?

 

[dosxuk]

If people don't like democracy because they don't always get the result that they want, then perhaps they should consider moving to one of the many countries which doesn't have a working democracy and see just how much they like that.

What is incompatible with liking democracy and wanting your voice heard? Just because 48% of voters chose one option doesn't mean their voices should count for nothing in the upcoming turmoil.

"You lost, shut up" is the sort of thing you hear in countries which don't do democracy. "You argued for a sovereign parliament, so parliament should be involved in the negotiations" is unlikely to be heard in those countries.

 

[DarloRich]

If people don't like democracy because they don't always get the result that they want, then perhaps they should consider moving to one of the many countries which doesn't have a working democracy and see just how much they like that.

What on earth are you talking about?

No one is suggesting the annulment of the vote to leave. That vote has taken place and, stupidly in my mind, people chose to leave. However I respect that a majority of people, stupid as I think they are, exercised their right to vote to leave so we must leave.

Fine. We are leaving. Now how are we going to leave and/or what is our relationship with the EU going to be like in the future. We cant have our sovereign parliament decide that though. They might give you a result you don't like...............

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Remain have pointed out that:

• Farage said that a 52/48 win for Remain would be 'unfinished business'.
• Senior figures on the Leave side have straight away said that £350m a week won't be going to the NHS.
• Senior figures on the Leave side have said that there won't be a massive reduction in immigration.
• When there has been a decision made that respects parliamentary sovereignty, that the Leave camp don't want to respect it, which is what they've argued for throughout the campaign.

So what's the problem?

The problem is that both sides are as bad as each other. Both insist on shouting in the playground until the other side admits defeat. Having their voice heard isn't actually the issue.

I suggest that we put them all on a spaceship, alongside the hairdressers, interior designers and marketing consultants, and let them go colonise another planet.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

"You lost, shut up" is the sort of thing you hear in countries which don't do democracy.

Well, no, because you wouldn't get asked in the first place.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Just because 48% of voters chose one option doesn't mean their voices should count for nothing in the upcoming turmoil.

I agree entirely, but I didn't suggest a simple in/out referendum with a simple majority vote. The man that did ran off first thing the morning after, as soon as he realised what he had done.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What on earth are you talking about?

No one is suggesting the annulment of the vote to leave.

Not in as many words, but by subverting, delaying, sowing doubt in the minds the stupid (as you insist on referring to that 52% of the population who could be bothered voting).

 

[dosxuk]

I agree entirely, but I didn't suggest a simple in/out referendum with a simple majority vote.

Yet you're suggesting that people who want our democratically elected parliament to be given input into the way we handle our exit dislike democracy. It sounds very much like you wish they'd just be quiet and let the winners get on with organising things.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

We cant have our sovereign parliament decide that though. They might give you a result you don't like...............

I've made no comment on the role of parliament in the process, nor of the recent legal case re triggering Article 50. It is bound up in complex legal and parliamentary niceties of which I have limited knowledge.

I expect parliament to take note of the result of the advisory referendum and negotiate accordingly. I do not expect them to try and get round an exit vote by giving us remain by another name. However, as has been said already, no-one actually knows what most remainers or leavers actually want, because we were not presented with a remain case, nor a leave case. Hard or soft exit or remain? Had the vote gone the other way, by the same percentages, would that be a vote for 'hard remain' with immediate total acceptance of all EU policies / procedures - join the Euro, open borders etc? Perhaps many remainers might not be too keen on that and, had they known, would have changed their vote to a leave one?

As a mere voter, given the choice I voted. If the powers that be do not like how I voted, they should not have presented me with an open goal, placed the boots on my feet and put the ball at my feet!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yet you're suggesting that people who want our democratically elected parliament to be given input into the way we handle our exit dislike democracy. It sounds very much like you wish they'd just be quiet and let the winners get on with organising things.

No, I made no comment on the involvement of parliament, nor of the recent legal case re triggering Article 50.

 

[DarloRich]

I've made no comment on the role of parliament in the process, nor of the recent legal case re triggering Article 50. It is bound up in complex legal and parliamentary niceties of which I have limited knowledge.

I expect parliament to take note of the result of the advisory referendum and negotiate accordingly. I do not expect them to try and get round an exit vote by giving us remain by another name. However, as has been said already, no-one actually knows what most remainers or leavers actually want, because we were not presented with a remain case, nor a leave case. Hard or soft exit or remain? Had the vote gone the other way, by the same percentages, would that be a vote for 'hard remain' with immediate total acceptance of all EU policies / procedures - join the Euro, open borders etc? Perhaps many remainers might not be too keen on that and, had they known, would have changed their vote to a leave one?

As a mere voter, given the choice I voted. If the powers that be do not like how I voted, they should not have presented me with an open goal, placed the boots on my feet and put the ball at my feet!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


No, I made no comment on the involvement of parliament, nor of the recent legal case re triggering Article 50.

According to the Kippers we already had open borders and total assimilation into the EU to the point that our Parliament was no longer sovereign so hard remain wouldn't have made much difference

I expect the government to do the best deal they can for everyone in the country in relation to our future relations with the EU. I expect that deal to be presented to sovereign Parliament for scrutiny, debate and challenge and then to be voted upon by our elected representatives.

That we leave has been decided. How we form our future relations with the EU has not. I am fairly certain most people wont get the result they think they voted for.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

According to the Kippers we already had open borders and total assimilation into the EU to the point that our Parliament was no longer sovereign so hard remain wouldn't have made much difference

I expect the government to do the best deal they can for everyone in the country in relation to our future relations with the EU. I expect that deal to be presented to sovereign Parliament for scrutiny, debate and challenge and then to be voted upon by our elected representatives.

That we leave has been decided. How we form our future relations with the EU has not. I am fairly certain most people wont get the result they think they voted for.

Perhaps the reins could be handed over to Comrade Corbyn and "Momentum" team in order that a fully co-ordinated Socialist five-year Brexit plan could be formulated...

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Somehow, I think that had remain won, the whole thing would have been over by the coming of the US election. Cameron would still be in no 10, the pound would be cruising along at $1.40 or so, Farage would (probably) still be leading UKIP, etc. The most vocal eurosceptics would keep on going on about it (just as the contingent of "remoaners" are now) but for the vast majority of the country who really don't care much about this at all, it'd be business as usual.

$1.40. OMG. Were doomed. I remember when it was $2.00. How did this country get so bad.

 

[Domh245]

$1.40. OMG. Were doomed. I remember when it was $2.00. How did this country get so bad.

$1.40 was a worst case estimate - on the evening on the 23rd June it was approaching $1.50. As for why it wasn't $2.00 beforehand, the answer would seem to lie in the events of late 2008

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

$1.40. OMG. Were doomed. I remember when it was $2.00. How did this country get so bad.

When I was born in 1945, there were four dollars to the pound and those of my age group on this website will recall a certain British coin in circulation being colloquially called "half a dollar".

 

[meridian2]

What is incompatible with liking democracy and wanting your voice heard? Just because 48% of voters chose one option doesn't mean their voices should count for nothing in the upcoming turmoil.

"You lost, shut up" is the sort of thing you hear in countries which don't do democracy. "You argued for a sovereign parliament, so parliament should be involved in the negotiations" is unlikely to be heard in those countries.

Democracy, democratic processes and decisions are constant and they do not alter just because one side feels 'aggrieved' or 'less than half the population voted'. The 48% had a chance to make their case heard by way of that petition set up after the referendum result, just as Ms May was defeated by the legal challenge over triggering A50. Both represent how we are privileged to live in a democratic society as both had a chance to be heard, even if both cases were defeated.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

$1.40 was a worst case estimate - on the evening on the 23rd June it was approaching $1.50. As for why it wasn't $2.00 beforehand, the answer would seem to lie in the events of late 2008

Also bear in mind that the very fact of having the referendum had already depressed the value of the £ - it was higher a year earlier and noticeably started falling when it became evident that a referendum would happen in 2016 - presumably because of the uncertainty the referendum caused. So the massive fall since 23 June is a fall on top of an already slightly depressed state.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

However, as has been said already, no-one actually knows what most remainers or leavers actually want, because we were not presented with a remain case, nor a leave case. Hard or soft exit or remain? Had the vote gone the other way, by the same percentages, would that be a vote for 'hard remain' with immediate total acceptance of all EU policies / procedures - join the Euro, open borders etc? Perhaps many remainers might not be too keen on that and, had they known, would have changed their vote to a leave one?

I don't think that's really true on the remain side. Almost noone was campaigning for further integration (what you describe as a hard remain) so it's fairly obvious that the only thing seriously on the cards on the Remain side was broadly keeping the status quo on Europe. The uncertainty was almost entirely on the Leave side, with two very different versions of Leave on offer.

I would suggest that there is a very strong case for saying that that was another flaw in the referendum: There were really three choices on offer: Hard Brexit, Soft Brexit and Remain. (And if you wanted, I guess you could've add Hard Remain as a 4th choice, but I think it's fairly obvious that very few people would've voted for that). The fact that two of those choices were merged in the ballot into just one option was arguably rather silly and has allowed too many politicians to pretend there's a mandate for hard Brexit when there isn't - because that wasn't what was asked.

 

[bramling]

Yet you're suggesting that people who want our democratically elected parliament to be given input into the way we handle our exit dislike democracy. It sounds very much like you wish they'd just be quiet and let the winners get on with organising things.

I think a lot of the problem is disproportionately many MPs are thought to be in favour of the EU, in many cases at odds with the majority of their constituents. In some cases the reverse is also true. Perhaps this is partly why it took so long for a referendum to occur.

If people trusted MPs to reflect the will of the majority then I think people would be much more trusting of parliament to deliver something satisfactory.

It doesn't help that a few high-profile names, e.g. Tim Farron and Owen Smith, are quite obviously talking about doing everything possible to remain in.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If a decisive result with a substantial majority either way was required, the referendum should have been done that way i.e. 60%, or 75% one way or the other. Macaroon thought he would win, but win narrowly, so he didn't favour that. The remainers chose to have a referendum, the type of referendum, the date, the question on the paper, they have themselves to blame.

Some remainers! I don't think it's very fair to tar everyone with the brush of David Cameron's actions, which many remainers at the time were arguing were not sensible. (I for one was arguing on railforums long ago that a referendum was not a good way to decide this kind of complex issue)

If people don't like democracy because they don't always get the result that they want, then perhaps they should consider moving to one of the many countries which doesn't have a working democracy and see just how much they like that.

That's also unfair. The trouble is that this argument that we should all accept Brexit because slightly less than 50% voted remain is predicated on a pretty naïve idea of democracy: Namely, the idea that if you get one vote more than the other side, that gives you the right to do whatever you like, including stomping all over the lives of other people, if they are in a minority. The correct term for that is not 'democracy' but 'tyranny of the majority' (John Major was criticised for using that term a week or so ago but he was actually spot on). I would say that true democracy is more subtle - it's based on listening to what people want, but then taking actions that are as far as possible in the interests of the majority while at the same time avoiding persecution of the minority. It's a much fuzzier concept, but is quite well captured by our parliamentary system, in which people have a say by electing representatives, and those representatives then make decisions. It's not well captured by referenda (which is one reason that I was arguing against a referendum well over a year ago).

If you doubt those arguments, consider how you would feel if the referendum had actually been 'that all EU citizens living in the UK should be tortured to death' and had (hypothetically) been passed? Would you still be arguing that democracy demands that that is what the Government should now do?

True democracy would therefore take into account the needs of those whose lives are likely to be ruined by a hard Brexit, and would not ride roughshod over those people just because slightly more than 50% voted for it. It's possible that in practice that might well mean we still end up with a Brexit, but it would certainly not be a hard Brexit that destroyed the rights of people to live where they wish.