EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[TheKnightWho]

There was a referendum held on whether we should leave Europe or not. The majority voted for Brexit. That's it, full stop, the government now gets on with the exit negotiations. If anybody who voted Brexit is not happy with the final terms, hard luck. Similarly the Remainers should stop whingeing about the referendum result and stop showing themselves up as bad losers.

Given UKIP didn't shut up for years and years, despite a democratic decision that we should stay, it really is a bit rich.

The idea that democracy stops after the vote is an incredibly undemocratic position to hold. Democracy is about discourse far more than it is about the ballot box, and saying "that's it, full stop" is just a way to try and shut down criticism of what is, frankly, a really stupid decision.

 

[Tetchytyke]

There was a referendum held on whether we should leave Europe or not.

There was a referendum held about whether we should join Europe. That didn't stop UKIP and its predecessors from constantly banging on about it.

Leaving aside the fact that I don't believe the decision was a "mandate" no matter how many kippers yell LOSER LOSER LOSER at me, democracy doesn't end with the vote. Not least, of course, because nobody actually got to vote for the type of Brexit they wanted.

The problem isn't with referenda or the British public themselves, rather it's that we wait for decades then ask people to vote on forty years of complex constitutional, political and economic change in one go.

I kind of agree and kind of don't.

The issue with referenda is that they reduce complicated decisions to a simple yes/no answer. Membership of the EU isn't that simple a decision to make: you can not like the EU because it is too libertarian, or you can not like the EU because it isn't liberal enough, or you can not like the EU because you hate the Poles. There's no ability to express nuance.

I have a lot of issues with the EU, but voted to Remain, so apparently this means I love Merkel or something. The racists who voted Brexit to "send the buggers back" probably won't get what they want either. No nuance.

It was the same with Scottish independence: there wasn't an option to express a preference from a variety of options, it was simply yes or no.

Having got away by the skin of his teeth with two cack-handed referenda in his first Parliament, Cameron pushed his luck too far this time. Which is why we have a Prime Minister nobody voted for telling us that "Brexit means Brexit" without actually bothering to either justify herself or do anything about it.

 

[burneside]

There was a referendum held about whether we should join Europe. That didn't stop UKIP and its predecessors from constantly banging on about it.

Leaving aside the fact that I don't believe the decision was a "mandate" no matter how many kippers yell LOSER LOSER LOSER at me, democracy doesn't end with the vote. Not least, of course, because nobody actually got to vote for the type of Brexit they wanted.



I kind of agree and kind of don't.

The issue with referenda is that they reduce complicated decisions to a simple yes/no answer. Membership of the EU isn't that simple a decision to make: you can not like the EU because it is too libertarian, or you can not like the EU because it isn't liberal enough, or you can not like the EU because you hate the Poles. There's no ability to express nuance.

I have a lot of issues with the EU, but voted to Remain, so apparently this means I love Merkel or something. The racists who voted Brexit to "send the buggers back" probably won't get what they want either. No nuance.

It was the same with Scottish independence: there wasn't an option to express a preference from a variety of options, it was simply yes or no.

Having got away by the skin of his teeth with two cack-handed referenda in his first Parliament, Cameron pushed his luck too far this time. Which is why we have a Prime Minister nobody voted for telling us that "Brexit means Brexit" without actually bothering to either justify herself or do anything about it.

There was never ever a vote on whether we should join "Europe", Ted Heath took us into the Common Market and then two years later under a Labour government we had a referendum on whether we should remain a member. Of course, two years is hardly any time at all to judge if something is good or bad, so people voted for the status quo. Forty three years later, they have reviewed the situation and decided we are better off out.

And I do wish you would refrain from calling Brexit voters "kippers". Considering UKIP received 4 million votes at the last election it is quite obvious the majority of 17m people who voted for Brexit are not kippers.

 

[yorksrob]

I kind of agree and kind of don't.

The issue with referenda is that they reduce complicated decisions to a simple yes/no answer. Membership of the EU isn't that simple a decision to make: you can not like the EU because it is too libertarian, or you can not like the EU because it isn't liberal enough, or you can not like the EU because you hate the Poles. There's no ability to express nuance.

I have a lot of issues with the EU, but voted to Remain, so apparently this means I love Merkel or something. The racists who voted Brexit to "send the buggers back" probably won't get what they want either. No nuance.

It was the same with Scottish independence: there wasn't an option to express a preference from a variety of options, it was simply yes or no.

Having got away by the skin of his teeth with two cack-handed referenda in his first Parliament, Cameron pushed his luck too far this time. Which is why we have a Prime Minister nobody voted for telling us that "Brexit means Brexit" without actually bothering to either justify herself or do anything about it.

I suppose my point is that our current relationship with the EU is infact a collection of incremental treaties and decisions which, apart from the original (thank you Harold) citizens have never had any choice over. What little say the public has had in these decisions has been wrapped up in our imperfect domestic politics whereby even if you were lucky enough to have lived in one of the marginal constituencies, you would have probably been voting according to a host of domestic concerns.

If on the other hand, the public had been asked to ratify each of these decisions, I've no doubt the British public would have been more than capable of deciding on these strands. Unfortunately "the Ministry" always thought it knew best and look where that's got it.

 

[miami]

i wonder if the result has been 52-48 remain, and then the leading remain campaigners came out and said their promises were a load of lies, if the leave supporters would have "shut up about it"

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-wants-second-referendum-7985017
"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.”

Many agree with Nige. 52-48 is unfinished business.

 

[Harbon 1]

I don't think remainers should be denied the right to argue the case. Do we all just accept every policy and action an elected government makes with no resistance?

I also believe that since the EU is/was a current thing at the time of the referendum, not voting would have shown support for it. If we agree with something or enjoy it, we kick up much less of a fuss than if we want to change it (just look at trip adviser reviews as an example). I understand however that those who didn't vote couldn't show their views as they did not present an official one.

As a citizen and child of this country, I am ashamed and embarrassed of what has come of the country since the vote to leave.

 

[radamfi]

Farage is complaining that the EU might be going ahead with a European military headquarters, now possible because the UK will not be able to veto it any more. Farage should butt out. It's got nothing to do with the him or anyone in the UK. He's got what he wants so let the rest of Europe get on with doing what they want to do.

 

[J-2739]

Farage is complaining that the EU might be going ahead with a European military headquarters, now possible because the UK will not be able to veto it any more. Farage should butt out. It's got nothing to do with the him or anyone in the UK. He's got what he wants so let the rest of Europe get on with doing what they want to do.

I have to agree with you there.

 

[ainsworth74]

Until Article 50 is invoked (and even after that) we remain members of European Union so why should our represents be forced to sit quietly and not represent us as they have been sent to do?

Whether or not Farage should have been even elected to do that is another issue!

 

[radamfi]

Until Article 50 is invoked (and even after that) we remain members of European Union so why should our represents be forced to sit quietly and not represent us as they have been sent to do?

Whether or not Farage should have been even elected to do that is another issue!

I have some sympathy with this view but you could argue it is similar to telling your separated spouse what to do after you are divorced.

 

[ungreat]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SFjfbL1KWNI



The mentality of most Leave voters..

 

[burneside]

I don't think remainers should be denied the right to argue the case. Do we all just accept every policy and action an elected government makes with no resistance?

I also believe that since the EU is/was a current thing at the time of the referendum, not voting would have shown support for it. If we agree with something or enjoy it, we kick up much less of a fuss than if we want to change it (just look at trip adviser reviews as an example). I understand however that those who didn't vote couldn't show their views as they did not present an official one.

As a citizen and child of this country, I am ashamed and embarrassed of what has come of the country since the vote to leave.

I have seen this lunacy on another forum whereby the Remoaners claim all the non-votes for their own side. Ridiculous beyond belief.

 

[AlterEgo]

I have seen this lunacy on another forum whereby the Remoaners claim all the non-votes for their own side. Ridiculous beyond belief.

Quite.

By that line of thinking everyone who didn't vote at the last General Election loves the Tories.

 

[Domh245]

Quite.

By that line of thinking everyone who didn't vote at the last General Election loves the Tories.

The General Election isn't a (nominally*) binary choice. At the GE there are a plethora of parties who can be voted for, so assigning non voters to any particular party can't really be done. At a referendum they either support one side or the other (excluding spoiling the ballot), so to lump them in with the "status quo" group isn't an unreasonable thing to do, although the correct thing to do would be lumping them with the ballot spoilers as a group of indifferents/unimpressed with it all and those who can't read simple instructions.


* There are of course 4 ways to vote in a binary referendum such as the EU referendum: yes, no, abstain, spoil.

 

[Harbon 1]

I have seen this lunacy on another forum whereby the Remoaners claim all the non-votes for their own side. Ridiculous beyond belief.

You're not going to change a thing if you're not going to input towards a result. Who's opinions were the non-voters siding with?

If you wanted to change something, you would voice your opinion on the matter and put forward your name to change whatever it was you didn't agree with. If someone isn't bothered about the outcome they can't be seen to be wanting to change anything.

 

[radamfi]

If we get a soft Brexit, keeping the benefits that we currently enjoy such as freedom of movement, that would arguably be better than the UK being part of the EU as the EU can progress easier without the UK causing problems.

 

[Harbon 1]

If we get a soft Brexit, keeping the benefits that we currently enjoy such as freedom of movement, that would arguably be better than the UK being part of the EU as the EU can progress easier without the UK causing problems.

I agree. The UK is free to make its own trade deals which will be lucrative but also suited to meet the UKs requirements, with the EU free to do the same without that annoying child throwing a tantrum :P

However I feel the EU will stamp its feet and deny the UK the rights it had before which I believe is the most likely outcome. That doesn't stop us making strong trade deals with producers and consumers worldwide though. The only issues that may cause would be lack of available workforce in the future, which could lead to stagnation of the economy.

The UK tourist industry is bound to see a boost with holidays abroad becoming more expensive also.

 

[burneside]

You're not going to change a thing if you're not going to input towards a result. Who's opinions were the non-voters siding with?

If you wanted to change something, you would voice your opinion on the matter and put forward your name to change whatever it was you didn't agree with. If someone isn't bothered about the outcome they can't be seen to be wanting to change anything.

The rules of the game stipulate you turn up at a polling station to cast your vote, if you do not then your opinion (whatever it may be) is not recorded or counted. Your logic of claiming the missing votes to suit your own ends is perverse.

 

[Harbon 1]

The rules of the game stipulate you turn up at a polling station to cast your vote, if you do not then your opinion (whatever it may be) is not recorded or counted. Your logic of claiming the missing votes to suit your own ends is perverse.

Where did I state which side I voted for?

Regardless of which way I or anyone else voted, if I/we did not turn up, we would be choosing to not change anything since the vote was in order of that.

The votes suiting one side rather than another is not important since they were not cast and therefore have no impact on the outcome. But if you do not vote to change something then it will not be changed.

If we had been voting to join the EU, non voters would have been seen to be happy with the way it has been up to now, as they would have not voted for a change. It works both ways.

If a situation is ongoing and you don't vote to change it, you don't want it to change. If you did, you would make the effort to vote to change it.

 

[miami]

The "no vote == vote for inaction" philosophy is certainly the one the government believes in - hence the trade union act.

Quite.

By that line of thinking everyone who didn't vote at the last General Election loves the Tories.

The Tories weren't in government from 2010-2015, it was a glorious coalition government, with MPs representing the majority of votes cast. In 2015 the ravages of the tory right gained all the power.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I have some sympathy with this view but you could argue it is similar to telling your separated spouse what to do after you are divorced.

If and when we issue article 50 yes, but as things stand we're not only an EU member, we will be for the next 1000 years.

 

[burneside]

Where did I state which side I voted for?

Regardless of which way I or anyone else voted, if I/we did not turn up, we would be choosing to not change anything since the vote was in order of that.

The votes suiting one side rather than another is not important since they were not cast and therefore have no impact on the outcome. But if you do not vote to change something then it will not be changed.

If we had been voting to join the EU, non voters would have been seen to be happy with the way it has been up to now, as they would have not voted for a change. It works both ways.

If a situation is ongoing and you don't vote to change it, you don't want it to change. If you did, you would make the effort to vote to change it.

Having just reread your post #2796 I realise you could not have voted as you are a child, which explains your very naive and simplistic view of how our voting process works.

 

[Harbon 1]

Having just reread your post #2796 I realise you could not have voted as you are a child, which explains your very naive and simplistic view of how our voting process works.

I won't look for an answer to my question since you've turned to insults.

 

[radamfi]

If and when we issue article 50 yes, but as things stand we're not only an EU member, we will be for the next 1000 years.

At this current point the UK has told its wife that he wants a divorce and has moved out to a flatshare. Article 50 is just the day that the divorce papers are issued. If you tell the wife you want a divorce, you don't expect your wife to make future plans with you in them and you shouldn't be surprised if she makes plans without you. Certainly, the EU should be able to make the most of its new found freedom and it would be best to make plans as early as possible. Britain is a troublemaker and the EU should be pleased to be rid of it.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The rules of the game stipulate you turn up at a polling station to cast your vote, if you do not then your opinion (whatever it may be) is not recorded or counted. Your logic of claiming the missing votes to suit your own ends is perverse.

Unless it's a Trade Union ballot for strike action, in which case this Government is quite happy to claim that anyone who abstained is not in favour of a strike.

Whether abstentions should be counted or not is a moot point. The issue is that Brexit people cannot claim a mandate as holding "the will of the British people" when approximately 65% of the British people did not vote for Brexit.

They won the vote, and for that I blame Cameron for bringing in such an absolutely moronic question in the first place. The referendum, and the question, just sums up the arrogant incompetence of the man. But it is a very long way from winning an advisory referendum to claiming to represent the "will of the British people".

And that's before we consider that everyone on the Leave side has a different view of what6 Brexit is. Daniel Hannan is claiming that the Leave vote is about the EU's regulatory structure and has nothing to do with the common market or free movement of labour. Nigel Farage, predictably, is claiming the vote is all about abolishing immigration and the free movement of labour. When Leave can't agree what Brexit is, and the unelected Cruella de Vil is too busy dealing in tautology and hot air to bother explaining it, it just makes one despair. But then this, no doubt, is all part of "Project Fear", and we should instead be rejoicing in having "taken back control" through a succession of failed politicians (hello Boris) who've all scuttled back under their rocks.

 

[burneside]

Just as with the Scottish referendum, the EU vote did not come with any strings attached regarding qualified a qualified majority, one vote would have been enough; 1.3 million is a landslide. The Remoaners can complain all they like, Brexit is coming whether they like it or not.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I see it is now being reported that former EU President Herman Van Rompuy is saying that no meaningful Brexit negotiations can take place until after the German general election next autumn. This just confirms what we have all know for years, the Germans are running the whole stinking outfit. Roll on Brexit.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37369917

 

[Tetchytyke]

Just as with the Scottish referendum, the EU vote did not come with any strings attached regarding qualified a qualified majority

It didn't.

It should have.

It's why Cameron is the biggest disaster we've ever had as a PM.

1.3 million is a landslide.

No it isn't.

The Remoaners can complain all they like, Brexit is coming whether they like it or not.

It hasn't happened yet, we're no closer to it, and the vote was nearly five months ago.

Still, it's good to see Farage "taking back control"...by doing precisely **** all.

 

[burneside]

It didn't.

It should have.

It's why Cameron is the biggest disaster we've ever had as a PM.



No it isn't.



It hasn't happened yet, we're no closer to it, and the vote was nearly five months ago.

Still, it's good to see Farage "taking back control"...by doing precisely **** all.

The vote was less than three months ago, you can't even state basic facts correctly. Farage is not a member of the government, what do you expect him to be doing regarding Brexit?

 

[Tetchytyke]

Farage is not a member of the government, what do you expect him to be doing regarding Brexit?

Carry out his promises.

I know, it's novel for a kipper politician to understand that concept (Robert Kilroy-Silk says hi) but still.

 

[burneside]

Carry out his promises.

I know, it's novel for a kipper politician to understand that concept (Robert Kilroy-Silk says hi) but still.

I don't think you understand this at all. Farage is not even an MP, let alone part of the government.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Farage is not even an MP, let alone part of the government.

You mean Farage was promising things he couldn't deliver?

Colour me shocked.