EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Was the person who stood for the Labour Party in the Richmond Park by-election the same person who has written railway books?

 

[Domh245]

Was the person who stood for the Labour Party in the Richmond Park by-election the same person who has written railway books?

Correct. He also ran as a candidate for Labour's nomination for the London Mayoral elections, but lost in the second round of votes.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Was the person who stood for the Labour Party in the Richmond Park by-election the same person who has written railway books?

Correct. It was Christian Wolmar, the guy behind this rather impressive collection.

 

[northwichcat]

It's an interesting point. Why should we all share the same government and ruler, just because we (mostly) share the same island?

What's interesting is while Northern Ireland remained part of the UK that was really due to the numbers who had moved across from Scotland identifying themselves as British not Irish. If Scotland left the UK that would strengthen the case for a unified Ireland. Then it would just be a case of whether Wales wanted to go independent.

 

[Aldaniti]

Officially the Conservatives are registered as a party under the name of Conservative and Unionist Party, yet they must have set a record for the number of divisions they created in less than 2 years and with having a vote on relaxing Sunday trading laws they aren't trying hard to conserve things either! Maybe they should just be called "And Party"

Oh, agreed! It's a while since the Conservatives have conserved anything of value. I'm glad a few of us do humour!

 

[Trog]

The liberal democrats have said they want a referendum on the arrangements reached for leaving the EU after the article 50 negotiations. That seems quite reasonable to me. How can calling for a referendum be "invalidating" "democratic credentials"?

Seems like a potential disaster to me what happens if the second referendum result says no we don't like that arrangement lets stay in, then the EU say sorry you triggered article 50 bugger off we don't want to play with you anymore. Or it could create an incentive for the EU to offer a crap deal to the UK, in the hope that they could then manipulate the UK electorate into voting to stay in to avoid it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I hope you're not trying to defend a government forcing through their own answers to the most important decisions the UK has taken for many decades without any form of democratic mandate. Because that would be truly staggering for a country that supposedly voted to "take back control". There was nothing at all in the conservative party manifesto about any of this.

I was commenting on your claim that the PM lacked legitimacy because she was not elected. We also have a representative democracy where we elect MP's who we believe represent our views and they then govern on our behalf. That is their democratic mandate, they don't need to go back to the voters for guidance. If you don't like what an MP votes for you vote for someone different the next time in the hope that they will more closely follow your views.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What's interesting is while Northern Ireland remained part of the UK that was really due to the numbers who had moved across from Scotland identifying themselves as British not Irish. If Scotland left the UK that would strengthen the case for a unified Ireland. Then it would just be a case of whether Wales wanted to go independent.

Have you forgotten that while of Scottish origin the protestant majority population in Northern Ireland are strong on the union and the historical link with the Prince of Orange. The Prince of Orange was invited over to replace the Catholic King James mainly by the English, Scotland and Ireland were the heartland of support for the deposed Stuart Kings. So in the event of a split up I would expect Northern Ireland to tend to stick with England.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Have you forgotten that while of Scottish origin the Protestant majority population in Northern Ireland are strong on the union and the historical link with the Prince of Orange. The Prince of Orange was invited over to replace the Catholic King James mainly by the English, Scotland and Ireland were the heartland of support for the deposed Stuart Kings. So in the event of a split up I would expect Northern Ireland to tend to stick with England.

Would a sudden second historical invite to the current House of Orange in whose country EC membership still resides, be one way to achieve a matter of established precedent?

Always remember that famous motto...."The future's bright, the future's Orange"...

 

[anme]

I was commenting on your claim that the PM lacked legitimacy because she was not elected. We also have a representative democracy where we elect MP's who we believe represent our views and they then govern on our behalf. That is their democratic mandate, they don't need to go back to the voters for guidance. If you don't like what an MP votes for you vote for someone different the next time in the hope that they will more closely follow your views.

But you're missing the point. The referendum was held because the question of remaining or not in the EU was considered so important that a specific vote was needed. According to you, this should never happen in the UK. Are you arguing the result of the referendum should be ignored and we leave the decision to MPs after all?

Now the UK has chosen to leave, the range of options are huge. At one end, the UK could remain in the EEA, which is not very different to being in the EU. At another possible end, it means the UK adopting an ultra-Thatcherite model and unilaterally dropping all import tariffs and maybe other trade barriers, which would cut prices in the shops but destroy a great deal of British industry - plenty of tory MPs are in favour of this option, about 80 signed an open letter to this end recently. Another option sees the UK following Trump-like policies and imposing many more trade barriers - this would likely raise prices of many goods but might lead to more manufacturing in the UK. And there are many more options.

The point is that these questions are much much bigger than whether to stay in the EU or not. And a referendum was considered necessary to answer that question. Don't you think we should at least have an election, where parties can present their ideas in their manifestos and the public can vote on the direction to go? Remember that NONE of this was contained in the manifesto of any party (*) at the last election, and you have NOT had the chance to influence it.

I am really really staggered that no-one seems to care about this. Seriously amazed. Now - prove me wrong by writing what you think should happen.

(*) To be fair, I suspect UKIP probably had something about it - anyone care to dig it up?

 

[AlterEgo]

UKIP manifesto summary 2015: http://www.ukip.org/ukip_manifesto_summary

To be fair, UKIP at least outline what a post-EU Britain looks like to them.

 

[Senex]

What's interesting is while Northern Ireland remained part of the UK that was really due to the numbers who had moved across from Scotland identifying themselves as British not Irish. If Scotland left the UK that would strengthen the case for a unified Ireland. Then it would just be a case of whether Wales wanted to go independent.

And if Scotland left the UK, it would certainly make a good case for them taking Northern Ireland with them rather than leaving it behind for the English and Welsh to "enjoy" subsidising and putting up with the Presbyterian religious bigotry. Of course Ireland should be re-united -- it should never have been divided.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

.... then the EU say sorry you triggered article 50 bugger off we don't want to play with you anymore.

And is that so implausible, given what a bad member of the club Britain has been for the last forty years, always thinking it needed (and deserved) special treatment?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The point is that these questions are much much bigger than whether to stay in the EU or not. And a referendum was considered necessary to answer that question. Don't you think we should at least have an election, where parties can present their ideas in their manifestos and the public can vote on the direction to go? Remember that NONE of this was contained in the manifesto of any party (*) at the last election, and you have NOT had the chance to influence it.

Absolutely!

 

[PHILIPE]

The Liberals won the Richmond seat because the Conservatives did not field a candidate and, irrespective of the Heathrow extension issue, the Conservative voters did not vote for a candidate who deserted the party. With all due respect to Christian Woolmar, Jeremy Corbyn and his associates have done serios damage to the Labour Party. So, who was left - the Liberal candidate who then jumped at the opportunity to attack Brexit and say the vote was a reflection of the opposition to Brexit because she is a Remoaner. She stated that she was representing her constituents, the majority of whom who had voted against Brexit in the Referendum. The General Election and this by-election were to elect a person to represent their constituency but the Referendum on June 23rd was a vote relevant to the country as a whole. Ms Olsen said she would oppose the triggering of Article 50 which, ignoring my last sentence, shows her as anti democratic and wanting to prevent Brexit at all costs just ignoring the views of the majority.

 

[Howardh]

The Liberals won the Richmond seat because the Conservatives did not field a candidate and, irrespective of the Heathrow extension issue, the Conservative voters did not vote for a candidate who deserted the party. With all due respect to Christian Woolmar, Jeremy Corbyn and his associates have done serios damage to the Labour Party. So, who was left - the Liberal candidate who then jumped at the opportunity to attack Brexit and say the vote was a reflection of the opposition to Brexit because she is a Remoaner. She stated that she was representing her constituents, the majority of whom who had voted against Brexit in the Referendum. The General Election and this by-election were to elect a person to represent their constituency but the Referendum on June 23rd was a vote relevant to the country as a whole. Ms Olsen said she would oppose the triggering of Article 50 which, ignoring my last sentence, shows her as anti democratic and wanting to prevent Brexit at all costs just ignoring the views of the majority.

Isn't she actually implementing the views of her constituency if she votes against A50??
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
regarding the EU, what's the status of the Isle of Man, and will that change after Brexit? Keep reading about Scotland and possible independence, but our islands such as the IOM and the Channel Isles, not to mention Gibraltar, all have some kind of special status I understand.

 

[DarloRich]

The Liberals won the Richmond seat because the Conservatives did not field a candidate and, irrespective of the Heathrow extension issue, the Conservative voters did not vote for a candidate who deserted the party.

Clearly on any listening to media coverage this isnt the case. People used the by election as a litmus test on brexit. A strongly remain area decided they wanted to punish Goldsmith ( and his Tory chums by extension) for being a leave man.

Goldsmith wanted the issue to be Heathrow - it quickly become something else. I know the Tories want to suggest it was some kind of punishment from voters for desertion from the one true Tory gospel but it obviously wasn't.

With all due respect to Christian Woolmar, Jeremy Corbyn and his associates have done serios damage to the Labour Party.

you reckon? Polling less voters than your registered members ( mandate mandate, MANDATE!) in the area and losing your deposit is pretty poor.

So, who was left - the Liberal candidate who then jumped at the opportunity to attack Brexit and say the vote was a reflection of the opposition to Brexit because she is a Remoaner. She stated that she was representing her constituents, the majority of whom who had voted against Brexit in the Referendum. The General Election and this by-election were to elect a person to represent their constituency but the Referendum on June 23rd was a vote relevant to the country as a whole. Ms Olsen said she would oppose the triggering of Article 50 which, ignoring my last sentence, shows her as anti democratic and wanting to prevent Brexit at all costs just ignoring the views of the majority.

YES! There we go: the good old kippers refrain that anyone expressing an opinion that doesn't match theirs is un democratic. :roll:

To be clear: Your view is that someone elected on a pro European, remain ticket from a strongly remain voting constituency (70/30 ish in favour of remain) should disregard the people who put her there ( and their clearly expressed views) and follow, sheep, like into the kippers lobby because we had a referendum?

That doesn't sound very democratic.

 

[Trog]

But you're missing the point. The referendum was held because the question of remaining or not in the EU was considered so important that a specific vote was needed. According to you, this should never happen in the UK. Are you arguing the result of the referendum should be ignored and we leave the decision to MPs after all?

I think you are being more than a bit naïve here the reason the referendum was held was to shut the euro-sceptic MP's up once and for all. By holding a referendum which would result in a stay result, so the PM could say to them the people have spoken and want to stay in, so shut up about Europe.

The fact that there then seemed to be no plan of what to do when the result was leave seems to support that view so far as I can see.

 

[AlterEgo]

I think you are being more than a bit naïve here the reason the referendum was held was to shut the euro-sceptic MP's up once and for all. By holding a referendum which would result in a stay result, so the PM could say to them the people have spoken and want to stay in, so shut up about Europe.

The fact that there then seemed to be no plan of what to do when the result was leave seems to support that view so far as I can see.

True, but it also shows how unlikely that even the Leave camp thought a Leave vote would be.

Nobody has any idea what to do next.

 

[northwichcat]

UKIP manifesto summary 2015: http://www.ukip.org/ukip_manifesto_summary

To be fair, UKIP at least outline what a post-EU Britain looks like to them.

Although, as they never expected to win they could say what they wanted and not worry about whether it would be practical to implement them all - there's a lot of tax reductions there and they don't say how they will be funded. It looks like a manifesto that would most benefit the rich and higher earners but they've added in a few policies which they can use to sell themselves to the less well off.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Liberals won the Richmond seat because the Conservatives did not field a candidate and, irrespective of the Heathrow extension issue, the Conservative voters did not vote for a candidate who deserted the party.

In all likelihood Zac Goldsmith would have voted with the Conservative government on most issues but Sarah Olsen will vote against the Conservative government on a number of issues.

With all due respect to Christian Woolmar, Jeremy Corbyn and his associates have done serios damage to the Labour Party. So, who was left - the Liberal candidate

For Labour to win the Richmond seat it would require the Conservatives and Lib Dems to not put forward a candidate and for no independent to stand who is politically aligned with either of those parties. I imagine there were a number of voters who wanted to get rid of Zac Goldsmith and the best chance of doing so was by putting an X next to the Lib Dem candidate, even if they would normally vote Labour in a general election.

The General Election and this by-election were to elect a person to represent their constituency but the Referendum on June 23rd was a vote relevant to the country as a whole. Ms Olsen said she would oppose the triggering of Article 50 which, ignoring my last sentence, shows her as anti democratic and wanting to prevent Brexit at all costs just ignoring the views of the majority.

Bit of a contradiction there. Mrs Olsen is supposed to represent Richmond Park not the country as a whole, so as they voted Remain if she votes against triggering article 50 she is representing her constituents. If every MP votes on article 50 in the same way as the majority of their constituents in the referendum and we get a different result doesn't that show a problem with the way our political system works?

It would be interesting to know what my MP George Osborne would do in a vote on article 50. The majority of Tatton constituents voted Remain and he was one of the most high profile politicians campaigning for Remain. If he voted to trigger article 50 he can be accused of not listening to his constituents (again), while if he votes to not trigger article 50 he can be accused of ignoring the majority of the population (again) or he could not vote, which is my personal prediction.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

regarding the EU, what's the status of the Isle of Man, and will that change after Brexit? Keep reading about Scotland and possible independence, but our islands such as the IOM and the Channel Isles, not to mention Gibraltar, all have some kind of special status I understand.

Isle of Man and Channel Islands are fully independent from the UK so won't be directly affected.

Gibraltar is a UK overseas territory and is only a member of the EU due to the UK's membership. Gibraltar residents got to vote in the referendum and something like 98% voted Remain. That has led to Spain calling for joint sovereignty of Gibraltar so it can remain in the EU after the UK leaves.

Potentially leaving the EU could be a massive problem for Gibraltar as it would allow Spain to charge for border crossings - something they've proposed in the past but the EU has blocked.

 

[Trog]

I would say that if an MP stated in their personal manifesto before they were elected either before or after the referendum that they intended always to vote in a pro EU manner. That there would be nothing undemocratic about them voting against triggering article 50, as they have a personal mandate from their constituents to behave in that way.

Except perhaps if their constituents had voted heavily for exit at the referendum since the MP was elected, and even that being balanced by the earlier statement would only make it a grey area.

 

[AM9]

I would say that if an MP stated in their personal manifesto before they were elected either before or after the referendum that they intended always to vote in a pro EU manner. That there would be nothing undemocratic about them voting against triggering article 50, as they have a personal mandate from their constituents to behave in that way.

Except perhaps if their constituents had voted heavily for exit at the referendum since the MP was elected, and even that being balanced by the earlier statement would only make it a grey area.

It might be the case that many who voted for leaving in the referendum feel as the penalties of leaving are revealed, that they would be better served by us staying in the EU. Under those circumstances, they would likely vote for an election candidate who was seeking a mandate to do everything in their power to stop us leaving or at least minimise the chance of the most damaging type of settlement.

 

[furnessvale]

It might be the case that many who voted for leaving in the referendum feel as the penalties of leaving are revealed, that they would be better served by us staying in the EU. Under those circumstances, they would likely vote for an election candidate who was seeking a mandate to do everything in their power to stop us leaving or at least minimise the chance of the most damaging type of settlement.

It could also be that many who voted to remain, hoping to obtain socialist policies from the EU that their own UK government would not give them, may have a change of heart as they see the swing to the right gathering momentum in Europe.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

It could also be that many who voted to remain, hoping to obtain socialist policies from the EU that their own UK government would not give them, may have a change of heart as they see the swing to the right gathering momentum in Europe.

Both my wife and I voted "Remain" and I can assure you that "socialist policies" were about as far removed from our individual mindsets as could be possibly said to be the case...

Now which rail union was it (that has been described on this very website as the "Champion of Socialism") who decided that they would back the stance of the "Leave" campaign?

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

The Liberals won the Richmond seat because the Conservatives did not field a candidate and, irrespective of the Heathrow extension issue, the Conservative voters did not vote for a candidate who deserted the party. With all due respect to Christian Woolmar, Jeremy Corbyn and his associates have done serios damage to the Labour Party. So, who was left - the Liberal candidate who then jumped at the opportunity to attack Brexit and say the vote was a reflection of the opposition to Brexit because she is a Remoaner. She stated that she was representing her constituents, the majority of whom who had voted against Brexit in the Referendum. The General Election and this by-election were to elect a person to represent their constituency but the Referendum on June 23rd was a vote relevant to the country as a whole. Ms Olsen said she would oppose the triggering of Article 50 which, ignoring my last sentence, shows her as anti democratic and wanting to prevent Brexit at all costs just ignoring the views of the majority.

A slight correction. Her name is Sarah OLNEY - as in the English town. Not some Scandi name.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It could also be that many who voted to remain, hoping to obtain socialist policies from the EU that their own UK government would not give them, may have a change of heart as they see the swing to the right gathering momentum in Europe.

Not a POV that I've heard from any remoaner. The views have generally been

A) sums don't make sense to leave
B) practical reasons involving work or wives/husbands/partners of different nationalities
C) believing closer European links make us safer

 

[furnessvale]

Both my wife and I voted "Remain" and I can assure you that "socialist policies" were about as far removed from our individual mindsets as could be possibly said to be the case...

Now which rail union was it (that has been described on this very website as the "Champion of Socialism") who decided that they would back the stance of the "Leave" campaign?

Well that's two remain votes accounted for.

However, at the time there was more than one contributor on threads in this and other forums, busily promoting the idea that remaining in the EU would deliver socialist policies that our own government wouldn't.

I distinctly remember responding that this was the most morally bankrupt reason I had heard for remaining. I also commented that a currently left wing EU would not necessarily remain that way.

 

[deltic]

Will be interesting to see if UKIP can win the Sleaford by-election- the government will then end up fighting on two fronts trying to placate its MPs that hold seats in both hard remain and hard leave areas at a time of a slowly diminishing majority. I see Labour was second in Sleaford in 2005 but will it end up losing its deposit again this time?

 

[Howardh]

Will be interesting to see if UKIP can win the Sleaford by-election- the government will then end up fighting on two fronts trying to placate its MPs that hold seats in both hard remain and hard leave areas at a time of a slowly diminishing majority. I see Labour was second in Sleaford in 2005 but will it end up losing its deposit again this time?

The country will be at each others throats for years to come, especially if a hard Brexit starts to cost jobs, means tax rises, poorer NHS, lesser pensions, work 'till you're 70 etc etc.
Now that might not happen of course and we end up with the Utopia Kingdom, but just to be on the safe side and make BOTH Remainers and Leavers unhappy, May will (should??) take the ultra-middling option of a soft Brexit and then at least she re-unites the Kingdom as the cahnces are most of us are against it; but will accept it as the least-worst option!! And keeps Scotland happy. And Gibraltar if we retain FoM keeping Spain at bay.

 

[furnessvale]

The country will be at each others throats for years to come, especially if a hard Brexit starts to cost jobs, means tax rises, poorer NHS, lesser pensions, work 'till you're 70 etc etc.
Now that might not happen of course and we end up with the Utopia Kingdom, but just to be on the safe side and make BOTH Remainers and Leavers unhappy, May will (should??) take the ultra-middling option of a soft Brexit and then at least she re-unites the Kingdom as the cahnces are most of us are against it; but will accept it as the least-worst option!! And keeps Scotland happy. And Gibraltar if we retain FoM keeping Spain at bay.

Soft Brexit is only Brexit in the minds of remainers.

AIUI Soft Brexit means remaining IN the single market. This means accepting all EU laws and directives, jurisdiction of the ECJ, freedom of movement, customs union and no independent free trade agreements with other countries outside the EU.

How can this be described as any form of Brexit?

 

[EM2]

Soft Brexit is only Brexit in the minds of remainers.

AIUI Soft Brexit means remaining IN the single market. This means accepting all EU laws and directives, jurisdiction of the ECJ, freedom of movement, customs union and no independent free trade agreements with other countries outside the EU.

How can this be described as any form of Brexit?

Best ask the man in charge of it all:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38168942
David Davis: UK may pay for access to EU single market

The UK would consider making payments to the EU after it leaves the bloc to secure the best possible access to the EU single market, Brexit Secretary David Davis has said.
Mr Davis told MPs the "major criterion" was getting the best access for goods and services to the European market.
"And if that is included... then of course we would consider it."
But Brexit-backing Tory Peter Bone said "people would be absolutely outraged" if the UK continued to pay the EU.
Later, in a speech to CBI Wales in Cardiff, Mr Davis sought to reassure business leaders that immigration controls after Brexit will not be imposed "in a way that it is contrary to the national and economic interest".
On Thursday in the Commons, Labour MP Wayne David asked Mr Davis: "Will the government consider making any contribution in any shape or form for access to the single market?"
Mr Davis replied: "The major criterion here is that we get the best possible access for goods and services to the European market - and if that is included in what you are talking about, then of course we will consider it."

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The country will be at each others throats for years to come, especially if a hard Brexit starts to mean a poorer NHS....

That surely cannot be the case, unless I imagined the sentiment expressed in very large letters on the side of the "Leave" campaign bus that was said to be seen during the run up to the Referendum..."£350 million more a week to the NHS"....

 

[northwichcat]

Soft Brexit is only Brexit in the minds of remainers.

AIUI Soft Brexit means remaining IN the single market. This means accepting all EU laws and directives, jurisdiction of the ECJ, freedom of movement, customs union and no independent free trade agreements with other countries outside the EU.

How can this be described as any form of Brexit?

Pre-referendum Farage was going on about how we could be like Norway or Sweden if we left the EU and still trade with the EU like we currently do but not be a member. A lot of people pointed out if we did that then we would have to accept laws and directives made by the EU but wouldn't get a chance to influence them. However, people were stupid enough to listen to Farage and not what opponents said so we might well get a 'soft Brexit' which doesn't have the full benefits of being in the EU or the full benefits of not being in the EU.

People forget that the reason we don't seem to have as much influence on the EU as we'd like is because of the number of UKIP MEPs who don't bother voting.

If you want to see what influence an individual country can have look at how much influence just one region of Belgium had on a trade deal between the EU and Canada. The deal couldn't be signed until they were happy despite all other countries and regions of Belgium being happy.

 

[Domh245]

we might well get a 'soft Brexit' which doesn't have the full benefits of being in the EU or the full benefits of not being in the EU

At least then Theresa May will have united the country in being annoyed by the outcome!

 

[furnessvale]

Pre-referendum Farage was going on about how we could be like Norway or Sweden if we left the EU and still trade with the EU like we currently do but not be a member. A lot of people pointed out if we did that then we would have to accept laws and directives made by the EU but wouldn't get a chance to influence them. However, people were stupid enough to listen to Farage and not what opponents said so we might well get a 'soft Brexit' which doesn't have the full benefits of being in the EU or the full benefits of not being in the EU.

People forget that the reason we don't seem to have as much influence on the EU as we'd like is because of the number of UKIP MEPs who don't bother voting.

If you want to see what influence an individual country can have look at how much influence just one region of Belgium had on a trade deal between the EU and Canada. The deal couldn't be signed until they were happy despite all other countries and regions of Belgium being happy.

Thank you for pointing out why an independent UK, free of the restrictions of the EU, would be in a much better position to negotiate free trade deals which suited both parties, rather than having to buy off some peasant farmers in Belgium, Bulgaria or anywhere else.