EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[Tetchytyke]

Reason I can’t be bothered to reply on this specific thread

Yet here you are, replying on this specific thread

 

[Killingworth]

The majority of those who voted. It was only 38% of the electorate.

And only 28% of all the people in the UK.

 

[EM2]

I remember that there was much wailing and gnashing of teeth from Leave voters about the £9m spent by the Government on the leaflet before the referendum.
But there's not been much from them about the £100m being spent on the 'Get Ready For Brexit' campaign. Hmmm...

 

[nlogax]

But there's not been much from them about the £100m being spent on the 'Get Ready For Brexit' campaign.

Why would they complain? It's helping the country prepare for the outcome Leave voters wanted. Y'know, whatever that actually was.

 

[dosxuk]

Why would they complain? It's helping the country prepare for the outcome Leave voters wanted. Y'know, whatever that actually was.

Is it actually helping prepare though? Everything I've seen carries a message of "some stuff might be changing, visit our website for more information". More than three years into this saga and we still don't know if we're actually going to leave or not.

 

[nlogax]

I should have been a little more obvious with the sarcasm. Having been through the Prepare site myself it's really next to useless.

 

[Bantamzen]

Has anyone actually looked at the "Getting ready for Brexit" site? I have, and it is totally reassuring. Sorry did I say reassuring, I meant its utter you-know-what. £100M for this, come on Brexiteers tell us how this is value for money when £9M on the original remain leaflets was an outrage....

https://www.gov.uk/prepare-eu-exit

 

[fowler9]

Has anyone actually looked at the "Getting ready for Brexit" site? I have, and it is totally reassuring. Sorry did I say reassuring, I meant its utter you-know-what. £100M for this, come on Brexiteers tell us how this is value for money when £9M on the original remain leaflets was an outrage....

https://www.gov.uk/prepare-eu-exit

At least we aren't waisting money on the undemocratic EU!

 

[VauxhallandI]

There signs above the motorway yesterday stating that Foreign freight may change 1st Nov.

More vague useless actions

 

[Bantamzen]

At least we aren't waisting money on the undemocratic EU!

I would agree with that, if it were true. But it is not. The phrase "undemocratic EU" has been trotted out way too often, and completely ignores how the EU works. But then ignoring facts is a common trait of Brexiteers.

 

[EM2]

fowler9 is not a Brexiteer, I think you have missed the sarcasm in their post.

 

[Bantamzen]

fowler9 is not a Brexiteer, I think you have missed the sarcasm in their post.

I know, but the point still stands.

 

[Howardh]

Does anyone know what Labour's Brexit policy is?? Is it any wonder the Libdems are catching them up if someone as interested in politics as me has to ask that on a railway messageboard??

 

[edwin_m]

I had a letter from the Labour candidate last week. Brexit wasn't mentioned until half way down the back, where there was a pledge to call a vote on a Tory or no deal Brexit. But I think the policy has changed since then.

 

[fowler9]

I know, but the point still stands.

Bang goes my career as a comedian. Ha ha.

 

[BananaRepublic]

Does anyone know what Labour's Brexit policy is??

Does the Labour Party know what their Brexit policy is ?

 

[DerekC]

Does the Labour Party know what their Brexit policy is ?

Tory and Labour leaderships have very similar Brexit policies -- the Tories to manipulate events to stay in power irrespective of the national interest and Labour to sit back and let things happen until they see an opportunity to get into power irrespective of the national interest. And that's because all politicians get infected with the same belief that their party and personal interest is the national interest.

 

[Kite159]

Does the Labour Party know what their Brexit policy is ?

Is it to head to the Winchester, have a nice cold pint, and wait for it to blow over?

 

[nlogax]

Is it to head to the Winchester, have a nice cold pint, and wait for it to blow over?

Right now I think that's a strategy that most of us would willingly employ, either side of the argument.

 

[Geezertronic]

The majority of those who voted. It was only 38% of the electorate.

The majority of those who voted is the correct wording and was 52/48 of the electorate who voted in favour of Leave.

And by the same calculation as yours only 35% of the electorate voted Remain. That argument will never wash unless 100% of the electorate vote which will never happen in a supposed democracy

 

[ainsworth74]

And by the same calculation as yours only 35% of the electorate voted Remain.

Which is sort of the point really. 38% of the electorate voted to leave (on some sort of basis) and 35% voted to remain and 27% didn't, for whatever reason, state a preference one way or the other. It looks even worse when you look at total UK population. These are hardly the numbers by which to scream "will of the people" at every verse end for either camp. And yet, for the leave camp especially, this is the constant refrain...

 

[najaB]

These are hardly the numbers by which to scream "will of the people" at every verse end for either camp. And yet, for the leave camp especially, this is the constant refrain.

Exactly! I don't dispute that more people voted to Leave that Remain, but it really rankles to constantly hear about how parliament is acting to "thwart the will of the people" when only 38% of people voted to leave, and it's undeniable that some of that 38% will have wanted to leave with a deal.

 

[Geezertronic]

Exactly! I don't dispute that more people voted to Leave that Remain, but it really rankles to constantly hear about how parliament is acting to "thwart the will of the people" when only 38% of people voted to leave, and it's undeniable that some of that 38% will have wanted to leave with a deal.

Unless voting is made mandatory and enforced, your opinion is mute because "the will of the people" can only be determined by members of the electorate who actually vote in elections/referendums and in the case of the EU Referendum, that was 52/48 - the non voters cannot and should not be considered as a vote for either Remain or Leave because they did not (or could not) vote.

Your opinion would also apply to any subsequent elections/referendums particularly a subsequent referendum on EU membership and if that went the way of Remain (if that was an option), that should be considered "the will of the people" to remain in the EU

 

[Bletchleyite]

Unless voting is made mandatory and enforced, your opinion is mute because "the will of the people" can only be determined by members of the electorate who actually vote in elections/referendums and in the case of the EU Referendum, that was 52/48 - the non voters cannot and should not be considered as a vote for either Remain or Leave because they did not (or could not)

Agreed. Without compulsory voting, the only sensible way to deal with non-voters is to assume total indifference.

 

[najaB]

Agreed. Without compulsory voting, the only sensible way to deal with non-voters is to assume total indifference.

Correct. But with a change of this magnitude it's not safe to assume that they are completely indifferent to what kind of Brexit we have. Especially since the options weren't clearly defined at the time.

Even ignoring the "Didn't votes", what about those Leave voters who believed the Leave campaign that no-deal wasn't a likely outcome? Don't they count?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Correct. But with a change of this magnitude it's not safe to assume that they are completely indifferent to what kind of Brexit we have. Especially since the options weren't clearly defined at the time.

Even ignoring the "Didn't votes", what about those Leave voters who believed the Leave campaign that no-deal wasn't a likely outcome? Don't they count?

I'd also agree with this. My view remains that the referendum should have either had two questions (do you want to leave? if we do, how do you want to leave?) or should have been AV/STV with Remain set against a set of likely leave options (WTO, EEA/EFTA, Theresa May style deal), which would have allowed discounting of any that proved to be impossible and move down to the next one. AV/STV would have been better, as it would have allowed expression of a view like "I'd rather leave with EEA/EFTA or a deal, but if we can't get a deal I'd rather Remain", which I suspect is not an entirely unusual view.

 

[edwin_m]

Unless voting is made mandatory and enforced, your opinion is mute because "the will of the people" can only be determined by members of the electorate who actually vote in elections/referendums and in the case of the EU Referendum, that was 52/48 - the non voters cannot and should not be considered as a vote for either Remain or Leave because they did not (or could not) vote.

In 2016 the Leave option was presented as a sunny upland populated by gently grazing unicorns, and only 52% of those who voted supported it. There were plenty of reasons not to vote, including assuming (as most did) that Remain would win or that it was really just an internal Tory issue not relevant to supporters of other parties. Those reasons applied more to Remain voters, which suggests (as subsequent opinion polls do that) when the choices on offer have become clearer the non-voters are more likely to have come down on the side of remaining. Note that I am not making assumptions here about what they thought - I'm pointing out that they ought to be asked properly.

 

[Wombat]

I'd also agree with this. My view remains that the referendum should have either had two questions (do you want to leave? if we do, how do you want to leave?) or should have been AV/STV with Remain set against a set of likely leave options (WTO, EEA/EFTA, Theresa May style deal), which would have allowed discounting of any that proved to be impossible and move down to the next one. AV/STV would have been better, as it would have allowed expression of a view like "I'd rather leave with EEA/EFTA or a deal, but if we can't get a deal I'd rather Remain", which I suspect is not an entirely unusual view.

I think the best approach to the referendum would have been to avoid holding it in the first place. If, for some ineffable reason, one feels that a referendum is utterly necessary, here's the question to ask:

"Do you want to leave the EU, or remain in the EU? If the majority votes to leave the EU we will negotiate a deal, and then we will hold a second referendum offering a choice between that deal and remaining in the EU".

But that's not what Cameron did, because he's a self-serving cretin.

 

[dosxuk]

But that's not what Cameron did, because he's a self-serving cretin.

That and the leave side of the argument wouldn't have agreed to a referendum under those terms.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That and the leave side of the argument wouldn't have agreed to a referendum under those terms.

Because some would argue, quite validly, that that isn't actually leaving. Hence my view that the second question was necessary.

That's the (not insubstantial but probably not a majority) subset who would essentially wish to reverse the result of the 1970s referendum on the basis of that having been mis-sold, which is also a valid argument.