EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[Tetchytyke]

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.

A sober, reasoned, approach wouldn't work for the Brexitists though. It relies on facts and evidence, rather than emotions and nebulous ideas like "sovereignty".

I've just seen the Brexit Party broadcast tonight and a significant chunk of it was lies or heavily distorted facts. "Betrayal" by MPs featured heavily. How can we have a reasoned approach when the Brexitists don't want one and dismiss any warnings about the unknown as "project fear".

Brexitists won't allow the heat to be taken out of the debate because their whole campaign relies on heat. It relies on anger, lies, mistrust and distortion. There is no reasoned argument in favour of Brexit.

 

[najaB]

There is no reasoned argument in favour of Brexit.

I'm starting to think that might be the case...

 

[Geezertronic]

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%.

By your reckoning, if the result was reversed then there wouldn't have been a mandate to remain in the EU

By my reckoning, it would have been "the will of the people" to remain in the EU

Unless you force 100% of people to vote, you will never get your version

 

[Tetchytyke]

The advice given was consistent with precedent to that point.

a) we don't know what the advice was and b) proroguing in such a fashion is unprecedented.

Other than that...

 

[najaB]

Unless you force 100% of people to vote, you will never get your version

A supermajority those who vote or a simple majority of the electorate would be pretty clear. Neither would require everyone to vote.

 

[Tetchytyke]

if the result was reversed then there wouldn't have been a mandate to remain in the EU

There certainly wouldn't have been a mandate for Hard Remain, bringing in the Euro and Schengen, if the vote had been reversed.

But would you Brexitists have stopped bitching, and started waving those EU flags, if you'd lost? Or would you have carried on with your campaign of lies?

Even funnier, I can't help but note how, on the other side, a wafer-thin majority is being portrayed as a mandate for Hard Brexit, trashing everything, ignoring our pre-existing commitments and telling the Irish to go f*** themselves. The mandate is to Leave, but no specific version of Leave was presented. May provided a version of Leave and your Fundamentalist Brexitists voted against it as a "betrayal"!

Whichever way you slice it, a 1.8% majority is not "the will of the people". For that ypu would need a supermajority.

 

[EM2]

By your reckoning, if the result was reversed then there wouldn't have been a mandate to remain in the EU

There would be. Just as there is currently a mandate to leave (but only to leave, not for any particular method of leaving). It's the packaging of this mandate as 'the will of the people' that grates.

 

[najaB]

The latest I've heard is that the PM may try to invoke the Civil Emergency Act on October 18th with the hope of being able to avoid requesting an extension and tying up Parliament for long enough for no-deal Brexit to happen.

Referenced in this video:

 

[Geezertronic]

But would you Brexitists...

Who is "you Brexitists" and since when did you read my mind how I voted?

 

[muz379]

By your reckoning, if the result was reversed then there wouldn't have been a mandate to remain in the EU

By my reckoning, it would have been "the will of the people" to remain in the EU

Unless you force 100% of people to vote, you will never get your version

Had remain won , the result would have been to do nothing . I do not remember anybody during the referendum arguing that a vote for remain would have been a vote to join the EURO , start driving on the right and join the EU army which has not even been founded yet .

I remember hearing lots of voices for "remain and reform" which I personally think is a laughable idea but it was generally expected if the result of the referendum had been remain the status quo would have been continued .Cameron Indicated that had we voted remain the EU would have implemented the terms of the agreement he had reached with the EU prior to the referendum giving even more concessions to the UK . I think some people involved in the discourse of leaving have forgotten that we actually already had plenty of concessions from the EU and out of all member states perhaps had some of the best terms of membership already . Is it any suprise we now find it hard to get a decent deal after years of being difficult and demanding as members ?

The problem has been because the vote was to leave , which is a massive change and had lots of different variables . The issues we are now having are also because the vote was only indicative of a desire to leave , not how many of those that voted to leave think that we should have a withdrawal agreement , how many wanted us to leave without an agreement , how many had issues with migration and thus wanted an end to freedom of movement and harsher control on non EU nations as well , how many had no issues with migration so wanted to open up our migration policy to all nations on a non preferential basis . There is no indication of how many support the idea of leaving without a deal , and I think it reasonable that in absence of any indication from the result that we look at the campaign material and commentary of those involved in the official campaign . That was overwhelmingly that we should retain single market access and leave under the terms of a withdrawal agreement . I know plenty who voted leave who wanted this , I know a small minority who thought all along we should have stuck two fingers up to the EU the day after the referendum . I suspect many people who know leave voters find the same .

The latest I've heard is that the PM may try to invoke the Civil Emergency Act on October 18th with the hope of being able to avoid requesting an extension and tying up Parliament for long enough for no-deal Brexit to happen.

Referenced in this video:

I would treat that with somewhat of a pinch of salt , this idea of declaring an emergency under the civil contingencies act was also an idea mooted earlier this month as a way for the PM to circumvent the terms of the fixed term parliament act and foce an election by non other than Nick Griffin the former chairman come president of the BNP . [sarcasm] A man well known for holding such academically revered views like holocaust denial[/sarcasm] .

 

[Geezertronic]

There would be. Just as there is currently a mandate to leave (but only to leave, not for any particular method of leaving). It's the packaging of this mandate as 'the will of the people' that grates.

I agree, I was responding to the specific post I replied to which insinuated that as only 72.21% of the electorate voted, that could not be classed as any mandate regardless of who "won"

 

[Killingworth]

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?

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

Percentages mean little when emotions run riot. 28% of the population in 2016 voted to leave. Some of that 65 million have since died, some have since registered to vote, some who voted wouldn't vote again, and some who didn't vote then would now in a new ballot. Various opinion polls come out with different votes but all suggest a new vote would be likely to get a very close result, either way.

Most of the time "the people" have no interest in politics and vote according to the tribal herd into which they were born, slightly amended by life experience.This has become a little different. We seem to be stuck in two tribal camps where the facts were long since mangled out of recognition and the 'just get on with it whatever the price' mood is taking hold.

The number who read the entire manifesto of all the competing parties might be numbered in hundreds at best, but possibly as low as none! Yet once elected all candidates claim that we voted for all clauses in their manifesto. We didn't. We voted for a variety of reasons, not least tactical to keep a party out or personal because we respected a particular candidate.

We rely on our MPs to make considered judgements taking account of changing circumstances as time passes. Where that leaves us at present is in a mess. Both Tories and Labour said they'd honour the woolly interpretation of the referendum. Once confronted with the details reality has kicked in. The situation has changed but the tone has got ugly.

The Tory party wants to push on regardless. The LibDems want to stop the process and remain. Labour are all over the place. The SNP are for remain. The popular press seems committed to leave. We're all over the place. Making any changes in this climate is dangerous, yet making none has dangers too. Hand wringing solves nothing.

What to do? In times gone by an urgent external crisis might take our attention away from matters at home. A foreign war has proved useful for diverting attention and getting out of trouble - recall our PM before and after the Falklands. Curiously that was a time when Labour had what was then considered their most ineffective leader. Brexit is Boris's Falklands and Corbyn his Foot. A miracle may be needed to dislodge them both for they're equally responsible for clearing or constructing this mess.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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.

Yes, precisely this.

 

[ainsworth74]

But would you Brexitists have stopped bitching, and started waving those EU flags, if you'd lost? Or would you have carried on with your campaign of lies?

Well we can get it from arch-Brexiteer Nigel Farage what would have happened in the event of a narrow Remain victory:

The Ukip leader said a small defeat for his leave camp would be “unfinished business” and predicted pressure would grow for a re-run of the 23 June ballot.

Farage told the Mirror: “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.”

(Emphasis added)

Source

Funny how 52-48 to Remain would have been "unfinished business" but 52-48 to leave is the "will of the people" and an unassailable mandate for a no-deal Brexit without even a whisper of there being any need for a second referendum.

 

[muz379]

The Tory party wants to push on regardless. The LibDems want to stop the process and remain. Labour are all over the place. The SNP are for remain. The popular press seems committed to leave. We're all over the place. Making any changes in this climate is dangerous, yet making none has dangers too. Hand wringing solves nothing.

I disagree with this strongly ,my view on the various statements below but I think it fair to say SNP Aside you cannot just pick an MP of any party and presume their position based upon their party unlike most other situations .

The Tory party wants to push on regardless

Some of the Tory party , in particular some ERG members wish that we leave without a deal .
Some Tory party members including the PM think that we should leave under the terms of a withdrawal agreement but if one cannot be secured by the 31st October then we should leave without a deal
Some Tory party members including those that campaigned for remain and former members of the cabinet believe that we should only leave under the terms of a withdrawal agreement and that no deal should be taken off the table entirely

Lets not forget that one of the primary reasons this referendum took place was because it was Conservative party policy at the 2015 general election because the issue of continuing EU membership was ripping the Tory party apart including resulting in the defection of MP Douglas Carswell in late 2014

The LibDems want to stop the process and remain

This was the policy that the party agreed at their conference after a vote on the matter
but we have seen some Lib Dem MP's in the house indicating they would vote for the terms of a withdrawal agreement , even the leader herself said she would back such an agreement if it came packaged with a committent to carry out a referendum giving the public the option between that agreement and remaining

Labour are all over the place

I think the current Labour party policy is that we need a general election . But the party will only support motions to make his happen in the event that a delay to the Brexit deadline of 31st October is obtained in order that we not leave without a deal .

I think most if not all Labour MP's are opposed to the idea of leaving without a deal and would wish to prevent that occuring .

The party is clear to my mind that during that election if it happened it would campaign for a new public vote on brexit , specifically on leaving with a deal or remaining .

Some prominent MP's argue instead the party should back remain but this is contrary to the official position of the party and at odds it appears with vast numbers of the membership .

The only mess in my view is that there is no consensus over what the parties official position should be in that referendum . Which I think to be fair mirrors the position in the last referendum .

The SNP are for remain

This I do actually agree on as the SNP are probably the most coherent .

Party policy is that the party backs remain but insists if the UK does leave the EU then the best deal must be reached with Scottish interests given a priority . But their MP's voted against giving the government power to "trigger" article 50 , and against the withdrawal agreement all 3 times .

 

[Killingworth]

I disagree with this strongly ,my view on the various statements below but I think it fair to say SNP Aside you cannot just pick an MP of any party and presume their position based upon their party unlike most other situations .


Some of the Tory party , in particular some ERG members wish that we leave without a deal .
Some Tory party members including the PM think that we should leave under the terms of a withdrawal agreement but if one cannot be secured by the 31st October then we should leave without a deal
Some Tory party members including those that campaigned for remain and former members of the cabinet believe that we should only leave under the terms of a withdrawal agreement and that no deal should be taken off the table entirely

Lets not forget that one of the primary reasons this referendum took place was because it was Conservative party policy at the 2015 general election because the issue of continuing EU membership was ripping the Tory party apart including resulting in the defection of MP Douglas Carswell in late 2014


This was the policy that the party agreed at their conference after a vote on the matter
but we have seen some Lib Dem MP's in the house indicating they would vote for the terms of a withdrawal agreement , even the leader herself said she would back such an agreement if it came packaged with a committent to carry out a referendum giving the public the option between that agreement and remaining



I think the current Labour party policy is that we need a general election . But the party will only support motions to make his happen in the event that a delay to the Brexit deadline of 31st October is obtained in order that we not leave without a deal .

I think most if not all Labour MP's are opposed to the idea of leaving without a deal and would wish to prevent that occuring .

The party is clear to my mind that during that election if it happened it would campaign for a new public vote on brexit , specifically on leaving with a deal or remaining .

Some prominent MP's argue instead the party should back remain but this is contrary to the official position of the party and at odds it appears with vast numbers of the membership .

The only mess in my view is that there is no consensus over what the parties official position should be in that referendum . Which I think to be fair mirrors the position in the last referendum .


This I do actually agree on as the SNP are probably the most coherent .

Party policy is that the party backs remain but insists if the UK does leave the EU then the best deal must be reached with Scottish interests given a priority . But their MP's voted against giving the government power to "trigger" article 50 , and against the withdrawal agreement all 3 times .

My point, rather lost in all that verbiage was "We're all over the place."

 

[Tetchytyke]

I was responding to the specific post I replied to which insinuated that as only 72.21% of the electorate voted, that could not be classed as any mandate

"Mandate" =/= "will of the people". Crumbs, is misunderstanding something this basic the level we've sunk to in this country?

If your majority is 1.8%, if you don't compromise you don't achieve anything. You certainly don't achieve anything by labelling your opponents "traitors", telling them to "get over it", and attempting to trample all over them. And you certainly don't achieve anything if you spend your time claiming a 1.8% majority means the losers have no say, which is precisely what the "will of the people" nonsense is designed to communicate.

Who is "you Brexitists" and since when did you read my mind how I voted?

The only people claiming a 1.8% victory is the "overwhelming will of the people", and gives Brexitists carte blanche to do whatdver they want, are Brexitists and their apologists.

 

[edwin_m]

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.

The EU has a normalizing and moderating effect, as it will only admit countries that broadly confirm to norms of democracy and the rule of law - and no border disputes. That's one reason why both the far left and the far right tend to hate it.

I've posted before that within living memory almost every EU member has been at war with one of the others, and most have been occupied or an occupier. But more recently than that:

• Spain, Portugal and Greece were military dictatorships into the 1970s. Only five years before joining the EU Spain experienced an attempted military coup.
• The eastern European members were under communist rule until the 1990s and three now EU members were actually part of the Soviet Union.
  
• EU membership by the UK and Ireland has been a major contributor to de-escalating the centuries-old confict which was regularly killing people into the 1990s​
• The countries of the former Yugoslavia were at war with each other into the current century. All are now either EU members or seeking to join.
• Ukraine and Turkey have land borders with the EU but have military conflicts with their other neighbours within the past five years.

So in fact war is closer in time and space than it might at first glance appear when viewed from our position of relative safety (due in part to EU membership). Only a decade or so before joining, nearly every current EU member was at war or under occupation.

 

[Geezertronic]

The only people claiming a 1.8% victory is the "overwhelming will of the people", and gives Brexitists carte blanche to do whatdver they want, are Brexitists and their apologists.

So a differing point of view is in your opinion an apologist view? That says a lot about you I think....

 

[Tetchytyke]

My point, rather lost in all that verbiage was "We're all over the place."

The country is all over the place. It will be when a 1.8% majority is being characterised as "the will of the people" and that the losers should just roll over and agree to anything and everything.

The country is largely split down the middle, but with pockets of strong feeling in different areas. It's going to be hard to unravel. But it won't be unravelled by labelling 48.2% of the electorate as remainer traitors.

 

[edwin_m]

Some Tory party members including the PM think that we should leave under the terms of a withdrawal agreement but if one cannot be secured by the 31st October then we should leave without a deal

The beliefs of the PM are impossible to discern, beyond seeking the personal advancement of one B Johnson. Many believe he is not seriously interested in a withdrawal agreement at all, as evidenced by the lack of negotiation with Brussels until he found himself cornered into having to ask for an extension unless a deal was struck.

Some Tory party members including those that campaigned for remain and former members of the cabinet believe that we should only leave under the terms of a withdrawal agreement and that no deal should be taken off the table entirely

But any MPs who acted on such a belief last week were slung out. If there are any more it's pretty unlikely they will stick their heads above the parapet. So I think it's safe to assume a vote for any Tory is a vote for hard Brexit.

This was the policy that the party agreed at their conference after a vote on the matter but we have seen some Lib Dem MP's in the house indicating they would vote for the terms of a withdrawal agreement , even the leader herself said she would back such an agreement if it came packaged with a committment to carry out a referendum giving the public the option between that agreement and remaining

I don't think we've seen any of them voting for any deal that isn't subject to such a referendum. They may now be thinking that the a policy of unilaterally revoking was a mistake. But I think it's safe to say that a vote for any LibDem is a vote to stop Brexit.

Some prominent [Labour] MP's argue instead the party should back remain but this is contrary to the official position of the party and at odds it appears with vast numbers of the membership.

The vast majority of individual Labour members support remaining, and this may also be so of many previous Labour voters even in constituencies that voted to leave. Many MPs do but some don't, either because they geuninely believe in Brexit or because they believe their constituents demand it. Most importantly the coterie around Corbyn are mostly Leavers but want to make sure someone else gets the blame for it. ​

 

[Tetchytyke]

So a differing point of view is in your opinion an apologist view?

It's so much easier to argue with those straw men that you invent isn't it?

 

[muz379]

My point, rather lost in all that verbiage was "We're all over the place."

quite , but it is somewhat unprecedented to have such a collapse of traditional parliamentary party politics over such a complex issue

Yes there have been rebel MP's , government defeats and even dissenting votes from MP's of the same party in the past . But never in such a prolonged and vicious way .

So a differing point of view is in your opinion an apologist view? That says a lot about you I think....

I think it is fair to say that the argument that leaving without a deal is the will of the people is controversial , otherwise we would not be having this discussion right now . So those supporting such a controversial argument are by the basic definition of the term apologists .

 

[edwin_m]

So a differing point of view is in your opinion an apologist view? That says a lot about you I think....

Some of us may see why other people might hold a particular point of view even if we don't personally agree with it. That's called empathy. But it's very hard to understand why people might support Brexit without having any reason except that in a referendum over three years ago a narrow majority supported it based on a campaign of lies. That's called groupthink.

 

[Killingworth]

Well we can get it from arch-Brexiteer Nigel Farage what would have happened in the event of a narrow Remain victory:



(Emphasis added)

Source

Funny how 52-48 to Remain would have been "unfinished business" but 52-48 to leave is the "will of the people" and an unassailable mandate for a no-deal Brexit without even a whisper of there being any need for a second referendum.

And it was a Brexiteer who started the petition for a second vote when he thought they'd lost; https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/241584

 

[Geezertronic]

It's so much easier to argue with those straw men that you invent isn't it?

Argue a straw man argument with a straw man argument you mean?

I think it is fair to say that the argument that leaving without a deal is the will of the people is controversial , otherwise we would not be having this discussion right now . So those supporting such a controversial argument are by the basic definition of the term apologists .

Some of us may see why other people might hold a particular point of view even if we don't personally agree with it. That's called empathy. But it's very hard to understand why people might support Brexit without having any reason except that in a referendum over three years ago a narrow majority supported it based on a campaign of lies. That's called groupthink.

What I was trying to discuss (rather than argue) was that regardless of the result of the vote, it has to be taken as the result was despite what percentage of the electorate voted. That is the same in any referendum over election. The turnout of IndyRef was high at 84.59% but the missing 600,000 votes could have swung the result closer to a Yes win or further to a No win, but without 100% turnout neither side can claim it

The EU Ref had Leave with the majority in 2016 no matter how slim that was. Any discussion on the form Brexit takes (or indeed if it revoked) is not something I have discussed although I like many others have stated that any further delay in resolving Brexit either way is causing the UK as a whole more pain and uncertainty

 

[najaB]

What I was trying to discuss (rather than argue) was that regardless of the result of the vote, it has to be taken as the result was despite what percentage of the electorate voted.

I don't think that anyone is saying that, numerically, the result was anything other than what it was: a majority vote for leaving the EU.

What I, and I believe others, are objecting to is the constant use of the phrase "the will of the people" for such a slim margin of victory. Especially when it's used to make the argument for the most damaging form of Brexit given that it's an undeniable fact that some proportion of the Leave voters chose to vote that way because they were promised that we would leave with a deal.

 

[GusB]

Oh, where to begin. I went through the whole IndyRef thing back in 2014, and there were similar arguments at the time. We can debate the actual numbers until the cows come home. Will of the people, will of the electorate, will of the population - ultimately the only number we have to go by is the percentage of the electorate who turned out to vote on the day, and there was a slim majority in favour of one particular outcome. None of us can make any assumptions about how a) those who were registered to vote but didn't and b) those who weren't registered to vote would have voted. Neither side can legitimately claim "will of the people".

I voted remain. While I would prefer that we did remain, I accept that of those who could be bothered to vote, a slim majority voted in favour of leave. That's fair enough. and I'd be prepared to accept a compromise. The "Norway option" would have been palatable to me, as would a bi-lateral "Swiss option". We would have left the EU, but retained similar trading arrangements. Of course, this wouldn't have suited the hardcore leavers. We must not cross the Red Lines.

With the original Indyref, I'd have been content (but not necessarily happy with) a better devolution settlement, full-fiscal autonomy and a more federal structure for the UK as a whole. There was always a halfway solution, but we've only been presented with nothing but yes/no/in/out choices, and that leaves no room for any kind of compromise at all. "It's my way or the highway" seems to be the order of the day, and if we continue with that attitude we're getting nowhere.

 

[edwin_m]

What I was trying to discuss (rather than argue) was that regardless of the result of the vote, it has to be taken as the result was despite what percentage of the electorate voted. That is the same in any referendum over election. The turnout of IndyRef was high at 84.59% but the missing 600,000 votes could have swung the result closer to a Yes win or further to a No win, but without 100% turnout neither side can claim it

The EU Ref had Leave with the majority in 2016 no matter how slim that was. Any discussion on the form Brexit takes (or indeed if it revoked) is not something I have discussed although I like many others have stated that any further delay in resolving Brexit either way is causing the UK as a whole more pain and uncertainty

I agree with you that the vote was what it was and no assumption can be made about how the non-voters would have voted.

However the non-voters are important in the sense that there are good reasons to believe that a larger proportion of them would now vote to remain, if the vote was re-run today based on the terms of exit we are actually going to get. That's not to overturn the 2016 result, but it's one of several reasons why it can't be taken as the definitive answer three years on. It would be more democratic to ask for the people's view again based on what we know now.

I also agree on the pain and uncertainty. However just leaving the EU won't be the end of that, especially if there's no deal. There will be many years of negotiation to get us back to somewhere near the trading position we currently enjoy, as well as the slinging of copious blame and betrayal myths when it turns out the promised sunlit uplands don't actually exist. Revoking Brexit won't be painless either, but if done on the basis of a new referendum it supersedes the 2016 result and largely kills off the "will of the people" argument that seems to be the only justification still standing to go ahead with this utterly disastrous policy.

 

[Killingworth]

Without a groundswell of support for remaining we're stuck with leaving and making the best of it.

If I could see a 70% vote to remain I'd be for a second referendum. It would take months to organise. Bearing in mind how badly the remain team presented their case in 2016 I'd doubt their ability to overcome the 'let's get on with it' view of the many unable to comprehend the complexity of the task

It has all the hallmarks of the jingoistic approaches to foreign wars in the 18th and 19th century. Let's hope we do indeed have the weapons to survive.

Fog in the Channel, continent cut off.

Interesting that even Farage thinks we should extend.