EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[fowler9]

I certainly do not think that , but if you sliding kindly read just the above post it seems that’s seems to be, just as it seems to be certain extreme views which don’t belong anywhere in a modern society , on the leave and remain side. I firmly believe both sides are as bad as each other.

So you are saying the comment I was replying to isn't actually what you are saying even though everyone can read what I was replying to?

 

[Gooner18]

Why do Leavers so often have a poor grasp of English grammar?

So you are saying the comment I was replying to isn't actually what you are saying even though everyone can read what I was replying to?

Apologies the reply I’ve put in this reply was what I was referring to

 

[Groningen]

Traitor!? This not Turkey, Russia, North Korea or other non democratic countries. There have been in the Netherlands votes that went wrong and the government collapsed as a result of that.

 

[mmh]

Why do Leavers so often have a poor grasp of English grammar?

I've been trying to point out this approach neither helps nor converts anybody.

Feel free to carry on sneering though, the person you patronised is now more likely to vote to leave in any future ballot.

Every little helps.

Sigh.

 

[404250]

Why do Leavers so often have a poor grasp of English grammar?

Tolerant of foreigners as long as they don't make any mistakes with their spoken English.

 

[ComUtoR]

That's one thing the EU would allow an extension for

It still wouldn't change the referendum result and the intent is still to leave the EU. An extension isn't the EU revoking Article 50. Calling an election just floats us deeper down the river. It will also require a longer extension; which nobody wants.

A General Election serves little purpose other than political point scoring and will contribute to further uncertainty and further chaos. It still won't change the numbers either. We are a very divided country and it would take one party to get such an overwhelming majority to be able to win any deal vote through Parliament. Even then there is so much infighting that any new leader will need to unite their party. A General Election is probably the worst option.

 

[fowler9]

Apologies the reply I’ve put in this reply was what I was referring to

Well as long as you are only making massive generalisations about certain aspects of remainers then that is fine. Ha ha.

 

[Gooner18]

Well as long as you are only making massive generalisations about certain aspects of remainers then that is fine. Ha ha.

I am indeed , along with the massive generalisations from the other side lol

 

[EM2]

I've been trying to point out this approach neither helps nor converts anybody.

Feel free to carry on sneering though, the person you patronised is now more likely to vote to leave in any future ballot.

Every little helps.

Sigh.

But it's OK for Remainers to be tarred as 'traitors', 'malcontents', 'mutineers', and 'saboteurs', that are 'whining', and need to be 'crushed' because of their 'betrayal'? And that's just in the press.

 

[404250]

I'll generalise a bit:
99% of voters in the referendum had no decent knowledge of the topic. If we have another referendum this won't have changed much. Most of the UK population don't follow politics at all and have little to no understanding of economics.

 

[mmh]

That's one thing the EU would allow an extension for

I believe there's a ridiculous amount of misinformation from both "sides", but this is one that if it were true would surely annoy everyone, regardless of previous opinion.

Us having a general election or not is nothing to do with the EU or negotiations with them.

 

[404250]

I believe there's a ridiculous amount of misinformation from both "sides", but this is one that if it were true would surely annoy everyone, regardless of previous opinion.

Us having a general election or not is nothing to do with the EU or negotiations with them.

The EU are totally within their rights to decide how long an extension can be, and for what reason they allow it. A general election seems as good a.reason to allow an extension than anything else, and could well end up with Article 50 being revoked by the winning party or coalition.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The thing about staying in the EU is they generally fund projects in less well off areas and as such hep support a lot of places that really need the money, when we leave these places will suddenly have their funding cut off as do you really think that the conservatives care about the poorer areas? The EU does.
It's especially sad that some places that voted to leave had massive signs up showing work that was primarily EU funded.

Most of Wales, for instance. Wales really is a set of turkeys voting for Christmas under a misconception (knowing the Tories) that Westminster will replace that funding, which they are in my view unlikely to do.

 

[mmh]

I'll generalise a bit:
99% of voters in the referendum had no decent knowledge of the topic. If we have another referendum this won't have changed much. Most of the UK population don't follow politics at all and have little to no understanding of economics.

You'll generalise? No, you'll patronise. Yet again, doing that changes nothing.

I worry about what will happen next time we have a vote which actually changes anything.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ahh ok , so would you say Labour is more of a remain party ?if so they have a massive racial problem at the moment.
I may generalise and say labour is currently very , very left wing and is racist , intolerant and pushing anyone out who dares to have a different opinion to the socialist , momentum views ....

Corbyn wants to leave, and that's I believe mainly because EU membership would prevent him applying the state control and protectionist elements of policy he wants.

 

[404250]

You'll generalise? No, you'll patronise. Yet again, doing that changes nothing.

I worry about what will happen next time we have a vote which actually changes anything.

That's not patronising. I think you'll find many people openly admit to not following politics or economics because they're just not interested. Perfectly understandable position to have.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm not fully convinced that Remain would win such a referendum, though I think there's a very good chance that they will.

But in the end, the 2016 referendum was flawed because it put a definite option (keep the status quo) against a phrase 'leave the EU' that actually encompassed a whole variety of completely different outcomes. I'd say that there's a good argument that a 2nd referendum putting Remain against a definitely known version of Leave is perfectly respectful of the 1st referendum: It's basically saying, "52% voted to leave last time - without any clear idea of what 'Leave' meant. The Government has as a result spent 3 years coming up with the best version of Leave it can work out. This is it. Now that you know what the most deliverable/most favourable version of Leave means, do you want to go ahead?" If that means that Remain wins - then we'll know that more people wanted to Remain than wanted to proceed with the most deliverable Leave the Government could come up with.

I completely agree, and think this should have been stated that it would be the case from the outset. That is, the first referendum being a non-binding indicative "do we want to leave", and if that, as it did, said that we did, to have another (binding) referendum once the negotiations were complete to see if the country still wanted to proceed now they knew the full detail.

 

[edwin_m]

I completely agree, and think this should have been stated that it would be the case from the outset. That is, the first referendum being a non-binding indicative "do we want to leave", and if that, as it did, said that we did, to have another (binding) referendum once the negotiations were complete to see if the country still wanted to proceed now they knew the full detail.

That's an excellent idea, though I'm not aware of anyone except Rees-Mogg suggesting it before the event. Even better if the original question had been "Do we want to start negotiations on terms for leaving" as that would be less likely to be misinterpreted.

 

[Gooner18]

That's an excellent idea, though I'm not aware of anyone except Rees-Mogg suggesting it before the event. Even better if the original question had been "Do we want to start negotiations on terms for leaving" as that would be less likely to be misinterpreted.

While in theory that may sound a good idea , in reality I am not sure you could negotiate a good deal on the basis it will go back for another referendum

 

[Gooner18]

Corbyn wants to leave, and that's I believe mainly because EU membership would prevent him applying the state control and protectionist elements of policy he wants.

Of course he wants to leave , out of all the options I would rather stay in than have him as PM

 

[bramling]

I'll generalise a bit:
99% of voters in the referendum had no decent knowledge of the topic. If we have another referendum this won't have changed much. Most of the UK population don't follow politics at all and have little to no understanding of economics.

Out of the whole Brexit “debate”, this is the attitude which I find the most unpleasant. Why not just go the full way and say 99% of the population are too thick to vote, since that’s effectively what’s being implied?

 

[mmh]

I completely agree, and think this should have been stated that it would be the case from the outset. That is, the first referendum being a non-binding indicative "do we want to leave", and if that, as it did, said that we did, to have another (binding) referendum once the negotiations were complete to see if the country still wanted to proceed now they knew the full detail.

The problem there is it's only ever people who want to remain who use this argument, so it's treated with massive suspicion by those who wanted (past tense is important now) to leave.

Given where we are now, the most stupid thing that could happen is a referendum that effectively asks half the country to vote again on the same question.

The big failing of the "people's vote" campaign should be that they've never said what the question would be (I remember that argument from somewhere!)

I'd be all in favour of a second vote if I didn't think the only purpose is to overturn the first.
I

 

[edwin_m]

The problem there is it's only ever people who want to remain who use this argument, so it's treated with massive suspicion by those who wanted (past tense is important now) to leave.

Given where we are now, the most stupid thing that could happen is a referendum that effectively asks half the country to vote again on the same question.

The big failing of the "people's vote" campaign should be that they've never said what the question would be (I remember that argument from somewhere!)

I'd be all in favour of a second vote if I didn't think the only purpose is to overturn the first.
I

Any referendum would have to be on accepting a specific deal versus remaining, not a repeat of the general question from 2016. If another deal is considered preferable to May's deal then that would be the one in the question, but would have to be agreed with the EU first to confirm it could go ahead if accepted. The EU has said it doesn't want to negotiate further but they also said that a simple arrangement like adding the customs union to May's deal would be pretty straightforward.

Multiple options on the ballot are possible but complicated, as some kind of preference system would be needed to avoid similar options "splitting the vote".

While in theory that may sound a good idea , in reality I am not sure you could negotiate a good deal on the basis it will go back for another referendum

As opposed to the deal we've been offered without one, which seemed to be acceptable to hardly anyone when it first appeared and still doesn't get a majority in the Commons even when they are threatened with no deal and bribed with a chance at the Tory leadership. Knowing the deal needs to get the support of the voters might even concentrate minds, rather than flogging a dead unicorn for six months as May has.

 

[nidave]

That is just advising people to stay clear of certain areas , or again are you suggesting something?

Leave marches and their violent behaviour. Or is this due to the fall in demand for diesel as well???

 

[bramling]

The problem there is it's only ever people who want to remain who use this argument, so it's treated with massive suspicion by those who wanted (past tense is important now) to leave.

Given where we are now, the most stupid thing that could happen is a referendum that effectively asks half the country to vote again on the same question.

The big failing of the "people's vote" campaign should be that they've never said what the question would be (I remember that argument from somewhere!)

I'd be all in favour of a second vote if I didn't think the only purpose is to overturn the first.
I

I find the term “people’s vote” grates, why the need for a catchy term to describe a referendum?

And if 99% of the people are supposedly too thick to know anything about the subject, why give them a vote?

 

[404250]

Out of the whole Brexit “debate”, this is the attitude which I find the most unpleasant. Why not just go the full way and say 99% of the population are too thick to vote, since that’s effectively what’s being implied?

If you'd have read my earlier reply you'd know this wasn't what I meant. Every vote is equal, whether well informed or not. Intelligence wasn't mentioned at all, and you've decided to use the word thick yourself.

 

[Gooner18]

Leave marches and their violent behaviour. Or is this due to the fall in demand for diesel as well???

No it’s advising to avoid the area due to protests.
Nothing to do with the fall in demand for diesel , which is however one of the reasons Honda is shutting its plant , along with the current run of its civic coming to an end and of course with Honda wanting to centralise, cut costs , I have have no doubt the uncertainty of brexit has played a part ,not being able to plan , that’s due to PM’s making a right mess of it all.

 

[Gooner18]

Any referendum would have to be on accepting a specific deal versus remaining, not a repeat of the general question from 2016. If another deal is considered preferable to May's deal then that would be the one in the question, but would have to be agreed with the EU first to confirm it could go ahead if accepted. The EU has said it doesn't want to negotiate further but they also said that a simple arrangement like adding the customs union to May's deal would be pretty straightforward.

Multiple options on the ballot are possible but complicated, as some kind of preference system would be needed to avoid similar options "splitting the vote".

As opposed to the deal we've been offered without one, which seemed to be acceptable to hardly anyone when it first appeared and still doesn't get a majority in the Commons even when they are threatened with no deal and bribed with a chance at the Tory leadership. Knowing the deal needs to get the support of the voters might even concentrate minds, rather than flogging a dead unicorn for six months as May has.

I can see your points , however, in my view it would seriously weaken our hand when negotiating a deal, why would The EU give a good deal when they know giving us a bad Deal to put forward for a second referendum would stop us from not leaving. If you see my point.

 

[mmh]

M

Apologies. If it wasn't you. I raised this ages ago and can't remember who replied and didn't have time to check.

It might have been me. I've searched and haven't found the conversation but I do know I've criticised this before, probably with you.

 

[SHD]

That's an excellent idea, though I'm not aware of anyone except Rees-Mogg suggesting it before the event. Even better if the original question had been "Do we want to start negotiations on terms for leaving" as that would be less likely to be misinterpreted.

However there would still be a political difficulty with the second referendum. Unless there are only two options offered to the electorate (eg CU vs. No deal), you will hit Arrow’s impossibility theorem.