EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[Puffing Devil]

You're forgetting that only 34% of the electorate actually voted to Remain. If it was that important to the electorate then Remain would have won 63% to 37%

That doesn't change the fact that only 37% voted to leave. 37% who voted for a variety of reasons, influenced by a campaign which was illegally overfunded. If the "missing" 29% had wanted to leave, they would have voted for it.

 

[Geezertronic]

That doesn't change the fact that only 37% voted to leave. 37% who voted for a variety of reasons, influenced by a campaign which was illegally overfunded. If the "missing" 29% had wanted to leave, they would have voted for it.

And if it was that important to Remain, the "missing" 29% could have also voted to Remain as well. It is no good assuming they wanted to Remain or Leave, they didn't vote so missed out on having their say. They are the people who swung this referendum result by not voting either way.

The 37% and 34% electorate figures do not take that into consideration which is why 52% & 48% are more accurate as they were people who actually bothered to vote and have their say, regardless of whether it was to Remain or to Leave

 

[northwichcat]

Co-founder of Vote Leave, Douglas Carswell has tweeted support for Britain being in the EFTA post-Brexit.

Being in EFTA after leaving the EU is not a retreat from Brexit. I’d (sic) be sensible

https://twitter.com/DouglasCarswell/status/1014956380233584640

 

[northwichcat]

And if it was that important to Remain, the "missing" 29% could have also voted to Remain as well. It is no good assuming they wanted to Remain or Leave, they didn't vote so missed out on having their say. They are the people who swung this referendum result by not voting either way.

I recall the day after the EU referendum vote a window cleaner came in to my place of work. A colleague asked him if he voted and he said he hadn't as he didn't think that being in the EU or not would affect window cleaners as in his opinion there would be plenty of windows to clean either way. Of course what he didn't understand is the amount of work he gets does depend on the strength of economy - no-one gets called in to clean windows of unused buildings and those that are occupied get cleaned less often if the occupants have less money to spend.

 

[dosxuk]

And if it was that important to Remain, the "missing" 29% could have also voted to Remain as well. It is no good assuming they wanted to Remain or Leave, they didn't vote so missed out on having their say. They are the people who swung this referendum result by not voting either way.

The 37% and 34% electorate figures do not take that into consideration which is why 52% & 48% are more accurate as they were people who actually bothered to vote and have their say, regardless of whether it was to Remain or to Leave

True, until people start batting "will of the people" around, or start taking the result as a win/lose type situation. If either side had got 50% of the electorate to vote, then you could be talking about having a mandate to completely implement the chosen option, but with such a close result it's no where near that simple. All the referendum result actually told us, is that the country was pretty much split down the middle on whether being in the EU or not is the best route forward.

 

[AM9]

And if it was that important to Remain, the "missing" 29% could have also voted to Remain as well. It is no good assuming they wanted to Remain or Leave, they didn't vote so missed out on having their say. They are the people who swung this referendum result by not voting either way.

The 37% and 34% electorate figures do not take that into consideration which is why 52% & 48% are more accurate as they were people who actually bothered to vote and have their say, regardless of whether it was to Remain or to Leave

Had the referendum been a choice between two options where either would change the counmtry's position in the future then that argument holds. However, by not bothering to vote, it can be interpreted that up to 29% * of the electorate was quite happy with the way things were so didn't see the need to vote. I think that with there being no compulsion to vote at all in the UK, the tendency is for those who don't want to see change to not bother. The public knew what living in a country that is a paid-up member of the EU was like so they probably didn't even listen to the claims of either side in the referendum campaign.
* excepting those who were prevented from voting by events on the day or their circumstances during the election.

 

[mmh]

Had the referendum been a choice between two options where either would change the counmtry's position in the future then that argument holds.

It was.

However, by not bothering to vote, it can be interpreted that up to 29% * of the electorate was quite happy with the way things were so didn't see the need to vote.

No, you don't ever get to choose what people who didn't bother to vote want, even if the status quo coincides with your own preference. What they might or might not think is completely unknown, and doesn't matter in the slightest.

I think that with there being no compulsion to vote at all in the UK, the tendency is for those who don't want to see change to not bother.

Nonsense. If someone doesn't want change they should, and do, vote for the status quo.

 

[northwichcat]

Had the referendum been a choice between two options where either would change the country's position in the future then that argument holds.

It was.

I don't think most people were aware the Conservative manifesto said they would either take us out of the EU or keep us in and implement the reforms whatever the result. If 3% turned out to vote and there was one vote in it, the Conservatives would have broken their manifesto claim if they hadn't implemented the result. However, the impression Farage and other prominent Brexiteers were giving was that leave losing by a small margin would not be the end of the matter - so logically leave winning by a large margin shouldn't either.

Also worth remembering there was no option for the public to say to the Conservatives - those reforms aren't the ones we want, go back and talk the EU about reforms which benefit Britain, not ones aimed to prevent Conservatives defecting to UKIP. The public either had to accept the reforms or reject the EU altogether.

 

[WelshBluebird]

It was.

No it wasn't.
It was one option to change, and one option to keep as is.

 

[WelshBluebird]

No, you don't ever get to choose what people who didn't bother to vote want, even if the status quo coincides with your own preference. What they might or might not think is completely unknown, and doesn't matter in the slightest.

That logic applies to both "sides" though. So the 37% v 34% is a better way of describing the situation (rather than 52% v 48%), especially when such a small margin is being taken to mean "the will of the people".

 

[mmh]

That logic applies to both "sides" though.

Of course, but conveniently the "apathy means actively wanting the status quo" (which clearly doesn't make sense) theory aids the poster's individual view on what the best result was.

So the 37% v 34% is a better way of describing the situation (rather than 52% v 48%), especially when such a small margin is being taken to mean "the will of the people".

"Will of the people" is a trite phrase and I wouldn't defend it. Worth noting in a discussion about turnout that the referendum had the highest turnout of any national vote since the 1992 general election.

 

[mmh]

No it wasn't.
It was one option to change, and one option to keep as is.

No, things will change as a result of either leaving or staying in the EU. They'll change in different ways, but the EU is not a static, fixed arrangement. It will evolve, it will expand, it will become more powerful.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Of course, but conveniently the "apathy means actively wanting the status quo" (which clearly doesn't make sense) theory aids the poster's individual view on what the best result was.

"Will of the people" is a trite phrase and I wouldn't defend it. Worth noting in a discussion about turnout that the referendum had the highest turnout of any national vote since the 1992 general election.

I'd agree with you on that, though it is does wear pretty thin when all we here about is how we must honour the vote regardless of consequences as its the will of the people etc etc. Maybe, just maybe, politicians should take a step back and look at what is actually best for the country? And as Farage himself said, a 52% - 48% result is unfinished business.

They'll change in different ways, but the EU is not a static, fixed arrangement. It will evolve, it will expand, it will become more powerful.

But that same change would happen if we didn't have the referendum.
So one side of the vote was to do nothing, and the other side was toe change (leave).

 

[EM2]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/...e-no-free-trade-deals-with-america-hs5k827p3#
Theresa May tells Brexiteers there can be no free trade deals with America

Theresa May will ask her cabinet to sign off on a new Brexit plan tomorrow which will restrict the UK’s ability to strike free-trade deals with countries outside Europe, including the US.

In an attempt to make ministers acknowledge the trade-offs facing the government a draft text of a white paper calls for the UK to “maintain a common rulebook for all goods including agri-food” to maintain existing trade.

The document explicitly states that the deal “would not allow the UK to accommodate a likely ask from the US in a future trade deal” as the UK would be unable to recognise the US’s “array of standards”.

The rest of the article is paywalled.

 

[NSEFAN]

But that same change would happen if we didn't have the referendum.
So one side of the vote was to do nothing, and the other side was toe change (leave).

Indeed change will still happen, but with an important difference. By remaining in the EU we would be able to influence it. Now it seems we will have to play along without having any say at all. It strikes me as a less democratic outcome, but such is the will of the people I guess.

 

[EM2]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44747445

The deal is done. Or at least the deal that allows this fraught and complicated process to move to the next stage.

Downing Street is claiming tonight that by agreeing the Chequers Statement, that the UK now has a new offer to put to the EU, an evolved and credible set of proposals to put to the rest of the continent.

It is not the clean break that many Brexiteers had argued for.

It envisages an end to unlimited EU immigration yes, but sketches out a very close relationship with regard to EU law for much of the economy, and a complicated, but shared approach to customs where the UK and the rest of the continent will work closely together.

By sequestering the Cabinet all day and then releasing the agreement, it is impossible at this stage to ascertain how much resistance there was inside.

It's feasible that there was brutal argument. It's likely that there was push-back. It's almost inevitable too that Brexiteers will mumble and mutter in the coming days, in public perhaps, and in private definitely, that the deal is not what they want, not what, they believe millions of people voted for.

It is almost still possible that in the next few days one of their number decides it is better to walk than accept the deal.

But for No 10 tonight, the importance is that they can claim that an agreement has been reached.

Theresa May has plumped for a much closer relationship with the EU than many Conservatives desired. Agreeing tonight makes it harder for those who will be deeply unhappy with the proposals.

But the prime minister still has ministers who don't believe in the proposals that she has managed to get them to agree. And a vocal group in her party who threaten, almost every day, to withdraw support if she takes this path.

Toughing it out today is one thing. Selling it to her party and then the rest of the EU awaits.

So two years after we apparently 'all know what we voted for', the Cabinet have finally reached an agreement on what they want.

 

[mmh]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44747445


So two years after we apparently 'all know what we voted for', the Cabinet have finally reached an agreement on what they want.

I knew what I was voting for. I wouldn't be so arrogant to say to you that you didn't know what you were voting for. You voted a different way. That's your right. Why are people who you disagree with less informed than you?

That the current government and the EU negotiators may or not may not be competent doesn't change that.

 

[mmh]

Edit: deleted duplicate post

 

[Busaholic]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-44747445


So two years after we apparently 'all know what we voted for', the Cabinet have finally reached an agreement on what they want.

This 'agreement' reminds me of the Tory leadership contest when IDS got elected because half of them couldn't stomach Ken Clarke becoming leader, and the other half couldn't bear Michael Portillo, so they elected a 'compromise' whom everyone knew was utterly useless and would condemn them to purgatory for a few more years. Everyone, even May, knows this is entirely unworkable and is just an attempt to keep the strong and stable one in office (her best friend wouldn't describe it as power) for a few more weeks. In this regard, they are probably wrong: in any case the EU will ridicule this, for the good reason that it's ridiculous, the ravings of fantasists.

 

[Howardh]

So May has now got the whole cabinet to agree to something the EU won't agree to. Well, it's a start, I'd say half-way to staying in altogether. If we can get two-thirds of the way I'd finally be happy.
Especially if Rees-Mogg is furious.

 

[EM2]

I knew what I was voting for.

So is that statement from the Government what you voted for?

 

[mmh]

As much as I love the nostalgia of the the Conservative party potentially tearing themselves apart over Europe, yet again, it's the last thing the country needs right now.

It's more serious than in the past (although any poor bugger who lost their house during Lamont's flirt with the ERM wouldn't agree)

It's not a party political issue, and people trying to make it one don't help. We're leaving the EU because that was the referendum result. We could argue forever about whether that was sensible or not, and the circumstances behind it being called. It was though.

Whether you agree with it or not, surely all of us should want the best possible outcome now. It feels to me like the vocal remainers actually want the worst to happen, just so they can be proved right.

That, I think, is disgraceful.

 

[mmh]

Edit: another duplicate message deleted. Sorry folks

 

[EM2]

Whether you agree with it or not, surely all of us should want the best possible outcome now.

But do you think that this is the best possible outcome? Because I certainly don't.

 

[Busaholic]

As much as I love the nostalgia of the the Conservative party potentially tearing themselves apart over Europe, yet again, it's the last thing the country needs right now.

It's more serious than in the past (although any poor bugger who lost their house during Lamont's flirt with the ERM wouldn't agree)

It's not a party political issue, and people trying to make it one don't help. We're leaving the EU because that was the referendum result. We could argue forever about whether that was sensible or not, and the circumstances behind it being called. It was though.

Whether you agree with it or not, surely all of us should want the best possible outcome now. It feels to me like the vocal remainers actually want the worst to happen, just so they can be proved right.

That, I think, is disgraceful.

We only had a referendum in order to keep the Conservative Party from ripping itself apart, so, in that sense, it was entirely a party political issue. On a personal level, up to about two months before the referendum I would have described myself as a reluctant remainer i.e. one who saw loads of faults in the EU but, on balance, thought it better to remain than leave. As the campaigns progressed, I realised that the main people behind the Leave campaigns were talking a load of garbage and that so many of them were unprincipled, with promises of billions for the NHS, etc. The Jo Cox murder also brought home to me the xenophobia that was going to be unleashed, so that by referendum day I was convinced leaving would be an unmitigated disaster, and absolutely nothing that has been said on the subject since then has caused me to revise my opinion. These proposals now, though Brexit-light perhaps, may not be as bad as some that could have been proposed, but are still unlikely to be accepted by the EU, so 'no deal' looms.

I certainly don't want disastrous things to happen to this country, but I don't see how they can be avoided, it's only a question of the scale of the disaster and how long it takes to come to fruition. On the centenary of the First World War, once again we are led by donkeys.

P.S. I lost my house in that period you quoted, and never really recovered financially.

 

[bramling]

We only had a referendum in order to keep the Conservative Party from ripping itself apart,

Whatever the rights or wrongs of Brexit, I don't agree that the referendum was about internal Conservative party politics. If anything it was more in response to a perceived electoral threat from UKIP.

So in other words the political system was responding to the electorate - exactly what it's supposed to do.

I'd suggest one factor in all this may well be failures of the Labour government during their time in power to show that concerns over the EU were being addressed, in particular over immigration.

 

[Howardh]

Well to get these proposals through the EU we need another fudge, this time on freedom of movement for EU workers and ourselves. We could remove "freedom" and replace with "ability" ...to move and as that's next to meaningless it should suit both sides. No point in having goods flying through borders if the people moving them around, business and travellers are held up because they have the wrong visa or something, and establishments like the NHS (for example) should be able to employ EU's quickly and at will without having to go through undue and unnecessary beauracracy.

 

[northwichcat]

I knew what I was voting for.

So you know you voted to leave the EU in the way the Conservative government thought was best and if they decide on soft Brexit or hard Brexit you know either way they'll have delivered what you voted for.

 

[AlterEgo]

Don’t forget a lot of people voted to Leave as a big F*** You to metropolitan liberalism and nothing else.

 

[northwichcat]

Whatever the rights or wrongs of Brexit, I don't agree that the referendum was about internal Conservative party politics. If anything it was more in response to a perceived electoral threat from UKIP.

So in other words the political system was responding to the electorate - exactly what it's supposed to do.

I was only after 2 Conservative MPs defected to UKIP and got re-elected as UKIP MPs, when the Conservatives didn't have a majority in Westminster, that the EU referendum got on the agenda. The 2014 EU election result was meaningless as far as the Conservative Party were concerned as anti-EU parties did well across Europe, that was a message for the EU to reform if it wanted to survive, not for one country to have a referendum on pulling out of it.