EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[Bantamzen]

he knows exactly what he is doing and you and others are launching head first into the trap.

The comments were outrageous but are designed to deflect and distract. Don't allow that to happen. Sadly several labour MPS did exactly that yesterday making heartfelt, emotional and frankly pointless speeches on this subject. All it did was allow Johnson to deflect and steer the terms of the discussion and hammer home his narrative which is designed to win back Brexit company fans and get them to vote for him.

The strategy is clear: rile up the opposition so they press for a vote of no confidence and deliver a general election. That can only happen once no deal is blocked as an option.

Its all well and good saying that people opposed to BoJo's strategy try to refrain from reacting, although in a normal scenario it would be the right thing to do. Sadly these are not normal times, much like what is happening in the US the leader is going rogue whilst those people directly behind him who would normally act to temper the worst of him are too concerned about their own necks, & too scared to fall out of line. BoJo is playing to an audience, and that audience has all but shut down its common sense because it wants the shiny that BoJo is promising on the 31st October. All of which means he, like Trump is constantly pushing the line, & nobody that can immediately stop him is able or willing to do so.

Frankly I don't think the opposition sitting calmly back and letting them have their way is going to affect their plans one jot. Sure getting the opposition wound up and angry at them feeds their supporters, but that supporter base isn't going to have a say before the Brexit deadline now, so this government unchallenged goes into a win-win situation. Unchallenged they can sit back & wait for no-deal, challenged they can just blame the opposition, sit back and wait for no-deal. So the question is, how the hell do we stop this train, and if we can't where do we bail?

 

[radamfi]

So the question is, how the hell do we stop this train, and if we can't where do we bail?

How have such people of the past been stopped? Murder doesn't even seem to work, as there was a surge in far-right support after the assassination of Pim Fortuyn.

It required a world war to get rid of Hitler.

 

[Killingworth]

It required a world war to get rid of Hitler.

Whilst one can't say Boris is acting like Hitler or Stalin, yet, there are those traits of bombast, with idolising and slavish followers lapping at his feet. Reason doesn't work. The law gets brushed aside. Belittling the opposition is par for the course.

It's more than a shame that at this time of national need we have an ineffectual leader of the Labour party. Decent old chap, but NOT a credible alternative PM. For me Ian Blackford of the SNP would be a better interim choice.

 

[3141]

You can't spout on about "will of the people" when 62% of the electorate either voted against you or didn't give a preference either way.

With a slim majority conciliation and compromise is required, because otherwise you won't achieve anything.

I really dislike this "will of the people" stuff because, as you say, it's only some of the people who voted to leave. But a majority of those who voted did vote leave, which now makes it difficult to argue that we must remain, even though the economic case for doing so is strong. I agree with you that in the circumstances we have reached compromise is required, in which Bojo's rhetoric yesterday didn't show any interest. Does it now boil down to a compromise having to be made on the Irish border issue?

 

[najaB]

I really dislike this "will of the people" stuff because, as you say, it's only some of the people who voted to leave. But a majority of those who voted did vote leave, which now makes it difficult to argue that we must remain, even though the economic case for doing so is strong.

The case for the EU is so much more than the economic one. In the 61 years prior to the founding of the EEC, wars involving the UK and European countries include the Greek Civil War, WW2, the Latvian and Estonian Wars of Independence and WW1 which left tens of millions dead and displaced. Since 1958 we've been involved in the Cod Wars with Iceland. The same is likely true for other European countries.

I agree with you that in the circumstances we have reached compromise is required, in which Bojo's rhetoric yesterday didn't show any interest. Does it now boil down to a compromise having to be made on the Irish border issue?

The compromise is to get the best deal that we can get and put it to the people to choose.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The compromise is to get the best deal that we can get and put it to the people to choose.

I agree - that deal vs. remain (vs. WTO terms if you like, that won't get a majority). And make the referendum legally binding, i.e. surround it with legislation that automatically adopts the result into law without need for a separate Parliamentary vote.

Oh, and an outright ban on campaigning. We all know what's going on by now. An impartial leaflet put through every house's door detailing the options is enough.

While I'm disappointed in Bojo's rhetoric, I'm also annoyed at Parliament for rejecting that option so far. It's like they want a stalemate.

 

[edwin_m]

I really dislike this "will of the people" stuff because, as you say, it's only some of the people who voted to leave. But a majority of those who voted did vote leave, which now makes it difficult to argue that we must remain, even though the economic case for doing so is strong. I agree with you that in the circumstances we have reached compromise is required, in which Bojo's rhetoric yesterday didn't show any interest. Does it now boil down to a compromise having to be made on the Irish border issue?

There are other reasons to consider it's not the will of the people. In particular the vagueness of the Leave option in 2016, the lies told during the campaign, and the change in views demonstrated by opinion polls which now show a greater majority favouring remain than favoured leave at the time. I've pointed this out dozens of times but posters (not particularly you 3141) keep bringing it up - it's like the old line of repeating a lie often enough that it becomes the truth.

 

[Carlisle]

Oh, and an outright ban on campaigning. We all know what's going on by now. An impartial leaflet put through every house's door detailing the options is enough.
.

Should we request Russian help ? as they’ve past experience of organising very rapid referenda In places like Crimea.

 

[Ianno87]

There are other reasons to consider it's not the will of the people. In particular the vagueness of the Leave option in 2016, the lies told during the campaign, and the change in views demonstrated by opinion polls which now show a greater majority favouring remain than favoured leave at the time. I've pointed this out dozens of times but posters (not particularly you 3141) keep bringing it up - it's like the old line of repeating a lie often enough that it becomes the truth.

And we quite demonstably know more about leaving the EU means than we did in 2016. For example, Brexit secretaries who now realise that, in fact, Dover-Calais is quite important.

 

[najaB]

Should we request Russian help ? as they’ve past experience of organising very rapid referenda In places like Crimea.

I don't think that @Bletchleyite wants to shut down discussion or dissension in quite that manner, just that the experience of the 2016 referendum has shown that there are more than enough lies and half-truths to be thrown around or plastered on the side of a bus.

Rather than treating it as an election campaign (aka a popularity contest) it needs a more sober, measured approach to get the rhetoric out of it and lower the temperature of debate to something more reasonable.

 

[EM2]

One point which is setting my 'spidey-senses' tingling...
If there is not a vote of no confidence, Johnson will take that to mean that the House has confidence in his Government, and must therefore back him to deliver Brexit as he wishes.

 

[Struner]

Wasn’t that Raab? Foreign secretary now? Makes you wonder whether he’s able to point out a country on a globe.
EDIT: this was in reply to

And we quite demonstably know more about leaving the EU means than we did in 2016. For example, Brexit secretaries who now realise that, in fact, Dover-Calais is quite important.

 

[najaB]

If there is not a vote of no confidence, Johnson will take that to mean that the House has confidence in his Government, and must therefore back him to deliver Brexit as he wishes.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

I think even BoJo has the ability to recognise that the only thing keeping him in the PM's chair at the moment is the October 31st deadline.

 

[Geezertronic]

That isn't the point, though, is it.

You can't spout on about "will of the people" when 62% of the electorate either voted against you or didn't give a preference either way.

With a slim majority conciliation and compromise is required, because otherwise you won't achieve anything.

Only 48% of the Electorate voted Remain, and the people who did not vote did not exercise their chance to have their say either way. You can only get to your point if voting is made mandatory and enforced by law. Governments are elected on far less of those eligible to vote

 

[EM2]

Only 48% of the Electorate voted Remain, and the people who did not vote did not exercise their chance to have their say either way. You can only get to your point if voting is made mandatory and enforced by law. Governments are elected on far less of those eligible to vote

That still doesn't make it 'the will of the people', it can only be that if everyone gives their opinion. It's the will of some of the people, or maybe the will of the voters.

 

[Carlisle]

I don't think that @Bletchleyite wants to shut down discussion or dissension in quite that manner, just that the experience of the 2016 referendum has shown that there are more than enough lies and half-truths to be thrown around or plastered on the side of a bus.
(

True, on a serious note I’d actually prefer a brief period before a 2nd referendum & feel there’s almost no appetite for several months of campaigning first

 

[Ianno87]

I don't think that @Bletchleyite wants to shut down discussion or dissension in quite that manner, just that the experience of the 2016 referendum has shown that there are more than enough lies and half-truths to be thrown around or plastered on the side of a bus.

Rather than treating it as an election campaign (aka a popularity contest) it needs a more sober, measured approach to get the rhetoric out of it and lower the temperature of debate to something more reasonable.

But print anything fact-based that happens to show the EU in a positive light and it's decried as 'propaganda' by Leavers.

The UK is no longer capable of understanding facts, reason, evidence or logic.

 

[3141]

The case for the EU is so much more than the economic one. In the 61 years prior to the founding of the EEC, wars involving the UK and European countries include the Greek Civil War, WW2, the Latvian and Estonian Wars of Independence and WW1 which left tens of millions dead and displaced. Since 1958 we've been involved in the Cod Wars with Iceland. The same is likely true for other European countries.

I agree that a collaborative organisation such as the EEC/EU may be an important factor in favour of peace and discouraging war. But it's very difficult to say how much of the absence of European conflicts since 1957 is due to the EEC/EU, especially in its earlier years before it greatly expanded. The only conflict I seriously think may have been avoided because of EU membership is Spain not having occupied Gibraltar. We did become involved in the former Yugoslavia. A possible factor is that European countries no longer have colonial interests they might wish to fight over. We and others haven't been deterred from military activities outside Europe. But on a relatively small scale, because we're no longer the major military and economic power that we were in the later nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth.

 

[bramling]

That still doesn't make it 'the will of the people', it can only be that if everyone gives their opinion. It's the will of some of the people, or maybe the will of the voters.

It’s the will of the electorate, the electorate generally being regarded as a proxy for the population as a whole. Have a better solution? Allow newborn babies and prisoners to vote?

 

[fowler9]

What bothered me recently was a guy on Facebook sharing what he believes is the Lisbon Treaty. It was so outlandish that even Johnson or Rees-Mogg couldn't get away with arguing it was true but this guy had hundreds of acolytes swearing it was the genuine thing. It is almost no wonder people voted leave reading that rubbish. Then you have to factor in people who believe in God and Satan, Antivaxers and the Chemtrail and 9/11 conspiracy theorists and it is no wonder we are up sh*t creek.

 

[fowler9]

We have gone through the renaissance, the age of reason etc. etc. etc. and thanks to the internet come right back around to believing what some nutter down the road said. If it's on the internet it must be true.

 

[muz379]

hat isnt correct. The advice given was consistent with precedent to that point. The Supreme Court introduced new precedent with their decision. That is what happens sometimes and i think the focus on the advice is unhelpful unless that advice was NOT to prorogue

We actually do not know what the advice was because it was not released so you have no way of saying it was consistent with precedent. But I think it reasonable to assume given the facts that Boris is quoted as asking the AG for advice on prorogation , and then went ahead and attempted to prorogation , coupled with with Geoffrey Cox's statements on the matter that the AG did advise the Prime minister that what he attempted to do was Lawful , the supreme court ruled it Unlawful meaning the advice that it was Lawful was incorrect and thus worthless . I was not really focussing on it anyway , It was merely a tongue in cheek comment about Cox's evident rage when he was speaking in parliament . There is no point arguing about the advice , the court has ruled on the matter .

But print anything fact-based that happens to show the EU in a positive light and it's decried as 'propaganda' by Leavers.

The UK is no longer capable of understanding facts, reason, evidence or logic.

Yeah well we can thank the anti intellectualism of people like Gove . Who I interestingly heard on the radio just yesterday attempting to use the opinions of legal academics to discredit the Supreme court decision , so he is interested in what experts have to say when it suits ?

It’s the will of the electorate, the electorate generally being regarded as a proxy for the population as a whole. Have a better solution? Allow newborn babies and prisoners to vote?

Slightly off topic , but I do think some types of prisoners should be able to vote , particularly them serving short sentences or due for release soon .

 

[Struner]

A side note, I’m aware of it, but what’s wrong with prisoners having the right to vote?

It’s the will of the electorate, the electorate generally being regarded as a proxy for the population as a whole. Have a better solution? Allow newborn babies and prisoners to vote?

 

[najaB]

But it's very difficult to say how much of the absence of European conflicts since 1957 is due to the EEC/EU, especially in its earlier years before it greatly expanded.

I agree. But the point is that the economic goal of the EU is secondary to it's role in fostering interdependencies in Europe rather than competition.

That's why De Gaulle was opposed to the UK joining the coal and steel community - he knew that we would see it primarily on an economic, transactional basis.

 

[EM2]

It’s the will of the electorate, the electorate generally being regarded as a proxy for the population as a whole.

By whom?

Allow newborn babies and prisoners to vote?

Can't see any reason why prisoners shouldn't be able to vote.
But it doesn't alter the fact that the votes cast to leave (and to remain) cannot be 'the will of the people'.
More people go to watch Nottingham Forest than Notts County. Is that the will of the people?

 

[DaleCooper]

It’s the will of the electorate, the electorate generally being regarded as a proxy for the population as a whole. Have a better solution? Allow newborn babies and prisoners to vote?

The electorate is all the people entitled to vote.

 

[najaB]

Can't see any reason why prisoners shouldn't be able to vote.

I think any prisoner whose remaining term is less than the expected lifetime of the body being elected should be allowed to vote.

I'm not sure about those on long sentences though.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Only 48% of the Electorate voted Remain, and the people who did not vote did not exercise their chance to have their say either way.

Indeed. But that still isn't my point. Who "won" the (non-binding) referendum is irrelevant.

38% is not "the will of the people".

Nor, for that matter, is 51.8%, unless you wish to argue 48.2% of the voters are not people?

 

[Ianno87]

The electorate is all the people entitled to vote.

And part of my vote is effectively on behalf of the interests of my children. It's their future that Brexit will screw up. So in their case, proportionately the electorate (in terms of my vote) does not represent them.

 

[najaB]

What I still don't understand is why people who bang on about "the will of the people" have against a confirmatory referendum. If "the will of the people" is to leave then we'll vote that way.

I'd really love it if someone could explain it to me.