EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[bussnapperwm]

The electorate voted to leave the EU, but we had no say in what leaving looked like. Many who voted to leave aren't happy with the mess that has been presented so far.

I voted Leave, hoping for a fair and ordinary divorce from Brussels, "sharing the kids", splitting the debts between both parties.

Instead I'm regretting my vote because of how monumental the cock ups for Brexit has been.

Are you saying that the electorate voted in the full knowledge that they had no say in what leaving looked like. Then they deserve to reap what they have sown for still deciding to vote the way they did.

We were screwed over by Cameron and now because of May and her babbling bumbling band of baboons, we are screwed.

Boris as PM would have been better.

It is making the GTR situation look like a spat out dummy.

 

[AndrewE]

wiser

It was the majority verdict of the British electorate who voted in favour of leaving the EU in the referendum...

I note your careful phrasing, but it hides the fact that it wasn't actually. It should be remembered that fractionally over a third voted to leave, fractionally under to stay in and about a third abstained or were too confused to vote. Given the fantasies that were peddled by the leave campaign and the fact that a lot of leave voters are now sadder but wiser I find it amazing that Brexiteers keep insisting that "The country voted to leave." I think they are feeling vulnerable and afraid that someone might point to the Emperor's new clothes. Especially as technically it was only an advisory referendum (rather than mandating the government.) Also, given the far-reaching & almost unprecedented consequences (apart from losing WW2 perhaps,) I would have thought that at least a 60/40 split of votes cast would have been needed to justify such a momentous change.

 

[Bromley boy]

Are you saying that the electorate voted in the full knowledge that they had no say in what leaving looked like. Then they deserve to reap what they have sown for still deciding to vote the way they did.

It was obvious to anyone with any common sense that “leaving” must mean leaving in accordance with both the spirit and the letter of the word - ie leaving the EU itself and its major institutions.

We have since had a GE where the government returned to power explicitly included leaving the EU, the single market and the customs union as part of its election manifesto.

Any attempt to retreat from that would be both undemocratic and most likely unconstitutional!

 

[Darandio]

It should be remembered that fractionally over a third voted to leave, fractionally under to stay in and about a third abstained or were too confused to vote.

I don't really think that matters now. In the immediate aftermath, maybe, but not now. The issue at hand is how it's all been handled since, it's carnage and as @Class 172 Fan rightly says, we have been well and truly screwed.

 

[Bromley boy]

wiser
I note your careful phrasing, but it hides the fact that it wasn't actually. It should be remembered that fractionally over a third voted to leave, fractionally under to stay in and about a third abstained or were too confused to vote. Given the fantasies that were peddled by the leave campaign and the fact that a lot of leave voters are now sadder but wiser I find it amazing that Brexiteers keep insisting that "The country voted to leave." I think they are feeling vulnerable and afraid that someone might point to the Emperor's new clothes. Especially as technically it was only an advisory referendum (rather than mandating the government.) Also, given the far-reaching & almost unprecedented consequences (apart from losing WW2 perhaps,) I would have thought that at least a 60/40 split of votes cast would have been needed to justify such a momentous change.

This is all completely wrong - sorry. The same argument has been run over and over again.

If the vote had gone the way you wanted you wouldn’t be attacking it!

 

[AndrewE]

We have since had a GE where the government returned to power explicitly included leaving the EU

The government that didn't get a majority, you mean? The one that is only in because it is propped up by bribing a maverick extreme minority party...

 

[najaB]

Are you saying that the electorate voted in the full knowledge that they had no say in what leaving looked like.

It appears that way, yes.

Then they deserve to reap what they have sown for still deciding to vote the way they did.

Unfortunately, those of us who voted to remain have no choice but to come along for the ride.

 

[AndrewE]

I don't really think that matters now. In the immediate aftermath, maybe, but not now. The issue at hand is how it's all been handled since, it's carnage and as @Class 172 Fan rightly says, we have been well and truly screwed.

Except that if the deal turns out to be lose/lose (and we are bright enough to recognise that) the EU have pointed out that the request to leave can be withdrawn. Money down the drain, goodwill lost and all that, but it would be the best outcome.

 

[najaB]

Any attempt to retreat from that would be both undemocratic and most likely unconstitutional!

Undemocratic, possibly (I don't think so but that's neither here nor there), but it's difficult for something to be unconstitutional when we don't have a written constitution.

 

[Aictos]

We now have Hunt as Foreign Secretary, despite his handling of the NHS least it's anyone but Bojo in the position.

 

[AndrewE]

This is all completely wrong - sorry.

Don't you accept the figures then? 17,410,742 to leave, 16,141,241 to remain and 27.8% (12,948,018) didn't vote.

 

[Bromley boy]

The government that didn't get a majority, you mean? The one that is only in because it is propped up by bribing a maverick extreme minority party...

Doesn’t matter, it is still the government of the U.K (I agree it’s doing a p*ss poor job at the moment).

We have:

1.a leave vote from the 2016 referendum stating we would leave the EU itself;

2. a government in power which ran with leaving the EU, the single market and the customs union as part of its election manifesto.

 

[Bromley boy]

Don't you accept the figures then? 17,410,742 to leave, 16,141,241 to remain and 27.8% (12,948,018) didn't vote.

The majority of those who voted voted to leave. That’s all that matters. The views of those who were ineligible to vote, or those who didnt bother to do so, are unknown and completely irrelevant.

The turnout was one of the highest for any electoral event in recent memory and was run in the full expectation (on both sides) that the result would be implemented.

It’s incredibly frustrating to be having these same arguments some two years later.

Do you believe every election result is null and void then, simply because a few million people can’t or won’t vote, or does that only apply to votes which don’t go your way?

 

[najaB]

It’s incredibly frustrating to be having these same arguments some two years later.

I don't want to put words in @AndrewE's mouth, but it's equally frustrating to hear people talk of Brexit as if it were the inviolate, undeniable and clearly expressed will of the People.

It was a close vote, with the outcome well within the margins of error. I accept that it fell on the Leave side of the coin, it would be nice if committed Brexiteers would be just as honest.

 

[AndrewE]

It’s incredibly frustrating to be having these same arguments some two years later.

Do you believe every election result is null and void then, simply because a few million people can’t or won’t vote, or does that only apply to votes which don’t go your way?

No, a general election is an election of candidates in constituencies (if ineptly done.) This was an advisory referendum - based on propaganda that has turned out to be false - and given the momentous changes it will bring, to say nothing of the turmoil in the 2 biggest parties, I don't see why a substantial majority wasn't taken as the trigger.
I think a few of the most vociferous proponents scent big personal commercial gains to be made and have conned others into following them with specious jingoistic hysteria. Most of the problems allegedly from "Europe" are of our own making, either because our politicians proposed it first but hadn't got the guts to admit it, or because of ludicrous over-restrictive implementation of EU directives by Westminster.

 

[Howardh]

The majority of those who voted voted to leave. That’s all that matters. The views of those who were ineligible to vote, or those who didnt bother to do so, are unknown and completely irrelevant.

The turnout was one of the highest for any electoral event in recent memory and was run in the full expectation (on both sides) that the result would be implemented.would

It’s incredibly frustrating to be having these same arguments some two years later.

Do you believe every election result is null and void then, simply because a few million people can’t or won’t vote, or does it only apply to votes which don’t go your way?

We're having these arguments because the vote was so close. The same figures the other way - would the leavers accept it and stay quiet for ever and a day?? No way! Should have been a 2/3rds majority to put the thing to bed once and for all, but it's in the past, and we are where we are but don't ask me where that is.

All I know is reading the political commentators, even if May is challenged it looks like she would win a confidence vote amongst her own MP's which means it doesn't go to the members, and the hard-liners would be well and truly stuffed, and have to accept the softest of Brexits - if any at all. Would the Brexit voters then be hypocritical and demand a further referendum which they haven't wanted? Has the so-called "will of the people" changed?

None of this would have happened if a cross-party committee had been elected to go to the negotiations, not only batting for Brexit but batting for the 16.4m and those that were slightly too young to vote and their futures depend on this. And take it out of party lines.

All this was forecasted by, ahem, us project fearers. Could anything be more fearsome than the total shambles we are in now, as parties, voters and a country?? As Dick Emery (who could have done a better job than Davies) would have said.."dad, I got it wrong".

But on the bright side most of us (sorry. Lerwick) are enjoying EU summer weather!! My central heating bill for the last month is £0 - other than the standing charge. can't ever remember that...

 

[Ianno87]

Doesn’t matter, it is still the government of the U.K (I agree it’s doing a p*ss poor job at the moment).

We have:

1.a leave vote from the 2016 referendum stating we would leave the EU itself;

2. a government in power which ran with leaving the EU, the single market and the customs union as part of its election manifesto.

2. A government that, with that manifesto, lost its previous outright majority as a result

Are you saying that the electorate voted in the full knowledge that they had no say in what leaving looked like. Then they deserve to reap what they have sown for still deciding to vote the way they did.

Or at least an electorate, equally on both sides, who had little to no idea that 'leaving' could be quite so complicated...

 

[Bromley boy]

Undemocratic, possibly (I don't think so but that's neither here nor there), but it's difficult for something to be unconstitutional when we don't have a written constitution.

With all due respect, that’s completely wrong, as I’m sure you well know!

Just because the U.K. constitution isn’t codified doesn’t mean that matters can’t be clearly seen as either constitutional or not.*

The referendum wasn’t legally binding but it was run on the basis that the result would be implemented. Nobody voting in the referendum believed the result wouldn’t be implemented - that eventuality has only ever been suggested after the event by remainers who cannot stomach the result and will perform any number of tortured arguments to discredit it.

It would be constitutionally unthinkable for the government not to call a general election when appropriate, just as it would be unthinkable for the queen to appoint anyone other than who she was “advised” to as PM. Even the prominence of the PM role itself is largely established by custom and practice since its origins in the 18th century.

*The U.K.’s system isn’t perfect but it’s mature, stable, and effective. Keep in mind the US has a written constitution and also has the death penalty, trump in the Whitehouse, appalling social inequality etc. A written constitution doesn't necessarily = a better constitution.

 

[Busaholic]

Boris is now unfettered to go and lie in front of the Heathrow runway bulldozers. PLEASE can we have a special lottery with tickets at £5 a time with half a dozen winners given the task of driving those bulldozers. I'd remortgage my house to buy sufficient tickets to get a go.

 

[najaB]

With all due respect, that’s completely wrong, as I’m sure you well know!

True. The UK 'constitution' is the body of laws and precedents built up over the course of centuries.

Just because the U.K. constitution isn’t codified doesn’t mean that matters can’t be clearly seen as either constitutional or not.

Also true. However....

The referendum wasn’t legally binding

So not following the result cannot be unconstitutional!

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

We were screwed over by Cameron and now because of May and her babbling bumbling band of baboons, we are screwed.

Boris as PM would have been better.

It is making the GTR situation look like a spat out dummy.

Yet another "ostrich head in the sand" observation that uses any arguments to conveniently ignore the hard fact that the decision to leave the EC by a majority vote in the referendum was made by the electorate.

 

[Ianno87]

With all due respect, that’s completely wrong, as I’m sure you well know!

Just because the U.K. constitution isn’t codified

The referendum wasn’t legally binding but it was run on the basis that the result would be implemented. Nobody voting in the referendum believed the result wouldn’t be implemented - that eventuality has only ever been suggested after the event by remainers who cannot stomach the result and will perform any number of tortured arguments to discredit it.

I voted remain, and had the result been a narrow remain victory, I still expected that it would have been sufficient to at least trigger a renegotiation of the UK's relationship with Brussels, and/or serious consideration of EU reform. Sort of the result I guess I really wanted (I.e. Give the EU a bit of a kick up the proverbial backside)

 

[Bromley boy]

So not following the result cannot be unconstitutional!

That doesn’t follow.

It wouldn’t be illegal for the queen to appoint someone other than the leader of the party entitled to form a government as PM, but it would certainly be unconstitutional.

 

[Ianno87]

Yet another "ostrich head in the sand" observation that uses any arguments to conveniently ignore the hard fact that the decision to leave the EC by a majority vote in the referendum was made by the electorate.

The referendum was so half-baked and rushed by Cameron (on the assumption he'd win), that nobody on either side really knew or understood the full implications of what they were voting for. So emotive issues largely drove the debate rather than giving people time to understand rational facts.

And the young were, frankly, ignored and barely engaged at all in the debate.

 

[bramling]

Yet another "ostrich head in the sand" observation that uses any arguments to conveniently ignore the hard fact that the decision to leave the EC by a majority vote in the referendum was made by the electorate.

I do think Cameron comes out of the whole affair poorly. Offered a referendum supposedly in good faith, then ran away after the result didn’t go his way, having clearly made zero plans to prepare for one of the two possible outcomes. Meanwhile Osborne continues to make petulant digs through his Evening Standard venture, clearly sour as the way events have sidelined him from the future he evidently hoped for himself.

Unfortunately history’s verdict on Cameron and Osborne doesn’t help us move forward. We desperately need leadership talent in both main parties, and at the moment we simply don’t have it. We’re stuck with a weak and ineffective prime minister, with domestic agenda in paralysis.

 

[Bromley boy]

I voted remain, and had the result been a narrow remain victory, I still expected that it would have been sufficient to at least trigger a renegotiation of the UK's relationship with Brussels, and/or serious consideration of EU reform. Sort of the result I guess I really wanted (I.e. Give the EU a bit of a kick up the proverbial backside)

I have a lot of sympathy with that viewpoint.

I was a reluctant leaver in many respects - but it has become increasingly obvious to me that the EU is more concerned about its own survival as a boys’ club/self appointed masters of the universe than it is about the best interests of its member states.

It has absolutely no interest in reforming itself or reflecting on its own shortcomings.

What sealed my leave vote was when Cameron attempted to repatriate powers and was sent back with his tail between his legs.

 

[bramling]

The referendum was so half-baked and rushed by Cameron (on the assumption he'd win), that nobody on either side really knew or understood the full implications of what they were voting for. So emotive issues largely drove the debate rather than giving people time to understand rational facts.

And the young were, frankly, ignored and barely engaged at all in the debate.

How on earth can anyone say the young were barely engaged? I can understand the point about voting age (although I disagree with it), but lack of engagement?

 

[Bromley boy]

And the young were, frankly, ignored and barely engaged at all in the debate.

But the turnout of the youngest voters was amongst the lowest of all demographics, IIRC.

They’re more interested in watching X factor and love island and chanting “oh Jeremy Corbyn”. But when required to get out of bed and head to a polling station to put a cross in a box they can’t be bothered!

That’s their right - but then they shouldn’t complain about a vote not going their way when many of them didn’t even bother to participate!

I say that as someone who isn’t exactly “old” himself!

 

[najaB]

That doesn’t follow.

It does follow. There's no law, so we'd have to fall back to precedent. And there's no precedent. Hence, no constitutional violation.

 

[najaB]

They’re more interested in watching X factor and love island and chanting “oh Jeremy Corbyn”. But when required to get out of bed and head to a polling station to put a cross in a box they can’t be bothered!

Generalise much?