The 2019 General Election Result and Aftermath

[Enthusiast]

Thereby illustrating exactly the point I made in #567 about the Brexiter's view of compromise.

So perhaps you could let me know how much compromise there would have been if the result had been 52:48 to remain. What would have been done to satisfy the requirements of the disappointed Leavers? The question was binary. We either leave or remain. Anything that simply removes our name from the list of members is not leaving. Leaving means adopting the status of a normal (i.e. non-EU) country. There's nothing "religious" about it. The electorate was asked a question and was told its decision would be implemented. It's scarcely the fault of voters if the UK government is not competent enough to fulfil that pledge because it didn't get the answer it expected. Hopefully this new one will be a little more successful.

 

[ainsworth74]

Leaving means adopting the status of a normal (i.e. non-EU) country.

Like Norway or Switzerland you mean? They're non-EU countries....

 

[Esker-pades]

I disagree.

I don’t know a single person, on either side of the Brexit divide, who would vote differently if the 2016 referendum was rerun today. If anything, views have become more entrenched and polarised than ever.

Your anecdotes, however numerous are not representative of the population, nor should they be used as substantive evidence.

As Jo Swinson just learned the hard way, 17.4million people are fed up of being talked down to, patronised and insulted. 3.5 years on, they’re most certainly fed up with rerunning the same arguments that were repeated ad nauseum in the run up to the referendum (the referendum which, as seems to be forgotten, the leave side won).

Two major things:
1. The Leave Campaign told serious lies.
2. The Leave Campaign has been fined for breaking electoral rules.

Of course, there are loads of other things, but they are substantive arguments about Leave v Remain policy, not the actions of the campaign which won.

Had remain won the referendum, what compromise would have been offered to leavers, exactly? None! We would have been told to simply shut up and go away.

Nigel Farage literally said "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681

 

[Starmill]

The Supreme Court ruled that the PM had acted unlawfully. Quite a difference from illegally.

There's a difference on paper, perhaps. But the principle of something being 'against the law' is commonly used and understood, and applies in both cases.

 

[Ferret]

Mr Corbyn has scribed an article for The Guardian. I think he’s been stuffed by the headline writer (which will not have been JC). “We won the argument”, reads the first part of the headline. Oh dear.

 

[Starmill]

Your satisfaction with such an arrangement proves that it is not leaving at all.

Wow.

In that case, I take it you speak for everyone who voted Leave, now?

(btw has the healing of the country begun yet?)

 

[43066]

This is certainly common "wisdom" now, but in 2016 I can remember very very clearly that the argument was that things would economically more prosperous when the UK was outside the European Union.

Any suggestion that this wasn't the case was immediately branded "project fear", called lies and discredited.

A question for me here is this: if your thinking is accurate here, and we're significantly poorer post-Brexit, was it right for 52% of the country to take resources away from the remainder, possibly lots of resources, in order to support their goals of national identity?

We were also told by the remain camp that a leave victory would cause the world to collapse, an immediate recession etc. None of which came to pass.

Your last paragraph is an interesting one - and highlights the fundamental misunderstanding many remainers have of why leave voters voted as they did. As a property owner in London, my leave vote was quite possibly against my own economic self interest.

Some things run way deeper than how much equity is in my property, or a few % points of GDP growth.

 

[Starmill]

Had remain won the referendum, what compromise would have been offered to leavers, exactly? None! We would have been told to simply shut up and go away.

Well you've made a mistake there because Remain was already a compromise. It was called the Cameron Renegotiation and it was a serious change in the relationship. There was a lot more in it than the Commission would have wanted to give, for political reasons, because all of the other member states wanted us to stay.

 

[Starmill]

Some things run way deeper than how much equity is in my property, or a few % points of GDP growth.

I know, that was the point of my question.

I was asking you how much of my money you would like in order for you to gain strengthening of your national identity, while at the same time diminishing my own. Either in £ or as a % of the economy will do?

 

[43066]

Well you've made a mistake there because Remain was already a compromise. It was called the Cameron Renegotiation and it was a serious change in the relationship. There was a lot more in it than the Commission would have wanted to give, for political reasons, because all of the other member states wanted us to stay.

My view of the “Cameron negotiation” was that nothing substantive was achieved. In fact, him being sent back with his tail between his legs, largely sealed my leave vote.

 

[43066]

I know, that was the point of my question.

I was asking you how much of my money you would like in order for you to gain strengthening of your national identity, while at the same time diminishing my own. Either in £ or as a % of the economy will do?

How much of your money are you willing to give me? Name your price, I’m all ears.

 

[Ferret]

My view of the “Cameron negotiation” was that nothing substantive was achieved. In fact, him being sent back with his tail between his legs, largely sealed my leave vote.

I called this at the time; Cameron came back with nothing and it emboldened the leave side. As a remain-inclined person, I was bloody furious with Juncker et al, and Cameron.

 

[Starmill]

How much of your money are you willing to give me? Name your price, I’m all ears.

Ok thanks

 

[43066]

I called this at the time; Cameron came back with nothing and it emboldened the leave side. As a remain-inclined person, I was bloody furious with Juncker et al, and Cameron.

Agreed! If the EU had been less intransigent, I might have voted remain.

 

[Starmill]

My view of the “Cameron negotiation” was that nothing substantive was achieved. In fact, him being sent back with his tail between his legs, largely sealed my leave vote.

I called this at the time; Cameron came back with nothing and it emboldened the leave side. As a remain-inclined person, I was bloody furious with Juncker et al, and Cameron.

Well the changes weren't nothing, which is what would have happened if the Conservatives had received very slightly less support in 2015, and they were significant on balance, just because you didn't like them it doesn't change that.

In particular, the end to 'ever closer union' was quite a big deal for the national identity points of view.

 

[Starmill]

Agreed! If the EU had been less intransigent, I might have voted remain.

They plainly weren't intransigent. A fair negotiation took place. You simply didn't like the outcome.

 

[43066]

Ok thanks

I suppose the question really is: if I voted against my own economic self interest, for something I believe in, why on earth should I consider yours?

 

[Starmill]

I suppose the question really is: if I voted against my own economic self interest, for something I believe in, why on earth should I consider yours?

Ok thanks

 

[43066]

They plainly weren't intransigent. A fair negotiation took place. You simply didn't like the outcome.

You’re right, I didn’t. That’s why I voted leave.

 

[ainsworth74]

Okay gentle reminder to keep it civil and also to avoid any attempts at provoking or deliberately winding up other members. I'd like to think that no-one is doing any such thing and certainly no posts have yet broken any Forum Rules but it's worth recalling that emotions on this subject and several others in the political realm are very high right now so it would be very easy to go just a little too far.

Be nice to each other!

 

[Ferret]

Well the changes weren't nothing, which is what would have happened if the Conservatives had received very slightly less support in 2015, and they were significant on balance, just because you didn't like them it doesn't change that.

In particular, the end to 'ever closer union' was quite a big deal for the national identity points of view.

Cameron went out with a wish list. How many of those wishes were granted?

 

[43066]

Your anecdotes, however numerous are not representative of the population, nor should they be used as substantive evidence.

The largest Tory majority since 1987, from an election campaign run on a distinctly leave ticket, tends to suggest otherwise.

 

[Starmill]

Cameron went out with a wish list. How many of those wishes were granted?

Enough to make a good compromise between the rights of the UK and the rights of the rest of the member states, for a certainty. The whole point of compromise was that he would never get everything he wanted.

 

[Starmill]

The largest Tory majority since 1987, from an election campaign run on a distinctly leave ticket, tends to suggest otherwise.

Although the popular vote was still with Remain and 2nd Ref supporting parties by about 52/48.

You can claim legitimacy for any mandate which you like.

 

[Ferret]

Enough to make a good compromise between the rights of the UK and the rights of the rest of the member states, for a certainty. The whole point of compromise was that he would never get everything he wanted.

Name them.

 

[43066]

Although the popular vote was still with Remain and 2nd Ref supporting parties by about 52/48.

You can claim legitimacy for any mandate which you like.

With respect, the popular vote wasn’t with remain in 2016. That remains the purest indication we have of the will of the people of this country.

With respect to the election, you can’t simply add up the votes of all the losing parties and claim that was the “popular vote”. Like it or not, first past the post is the system we have. In any case, wasn’t the Labour leader a brexiteer?

I never quite understood Labour’s position on Brexit. Neither did a great many other people it would seem. Hence the crushing (in favour of leave) Tory majority.

 

[Starmill]

Name them.

Say please and I'm sure I can organise a link for you.

 

[43066]

Okay gentle reminder to keep it civil and also to avoid any attempts at provoking or deliberately winding up other members. I'd like to think that no-one is doing any such thing and certainly no posts have yet broken any Forum Rules but it's worth recalling that emotions on this subject and several others in the political realm are very high right now so it would be very easy to go just a little too far.

Be nice to each other!

Point taken - I have spent the last 3.5 years arguing about this in my personal life with close friends and family - as I’m sure we all have.

Somehow it never gets old!

 

[Starmill]

With respect to the election, you can’t simply add up the votes of all the losing parties and claim that was the “popular vote”.

That's exactly what the term is generally understood to mean!

In any case, wasn’t the Labour leader a brexiteer?

No?

 

[Enthusiast]

There's a difference on paper, perhaps. But the principle of something being 'against the law' is commonly used and understood, and applies in both cases.

No it doesn't. Mr Johnson did not act "against the law". He acted beyond his powers. Acting against the law to most people means committing a criminal offence and is completely different. If people are under the impression he did something against the law they are badly informed.

Well you've made a mistake there because Remain was already a compromise. It was called the Cameron Renegotiation and it was a serious change in the relationship. There was a lot more in it than the Commission would have wanted to give, for political reasons, because all of the other member states wanted us to stay.

It was nothing like a serious change to our relationship. It comprised seven proposals. One of them (the "Emergency Brake" on EU migrants' access to in-work benefits) could only be imposed with the EU's agreement and then only for a temporary period. Mr Cameron failed in his original demand to ban migrant workers from sending child benefit money back home. The proposal to protect the status of the City of London as a financial centre outside the Eurozone was watered down at the insistence of the French so as to make it effectively worthless. The only concession he secured that was of any substance was a commitment to exempt the UK from "ever closer union". Since Leavers were presumably not happy with the existing state of the union that was hardly a compromise. In short, Mr Cameron asked for next to nothing and got somewhat less than that. In no way did they go any way towards "leaving" as the compromises proposed for Remainers (such as remaining in the Customs Union and Single Market) went towards "remaining".