EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[TheKnightWho]

So you admit that the claim "wisdom comes from education" is at best misleading and at worst completely false?

Only if you have a childishly simple idea of education.

I don't remember the question "How should the country be run?" appearing anywhere on the ballot paper.

Sorry, did the vote have no bearing on how the country is run now?

 

[Gutfright]

Should I point to the lack of education amongst Brexiters being evidence that they don't know what they're talking about?

Only if you have a childishly simple idea of education.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Only if you have a childishly simple idea of education.

Sorry, is that education relevant to running the country? I don't think so.

Nice try though.

 

[northwichcat]

Economists are predicting the news that May will become PM now will be good for the pound's value due to us not having to wait until the autumn for a decision and an experienced person who's likely to commit to a 'soft Brexit' being the new leader.

However, they are still predicting the Bank of England will cut the interest rate to 0.25% due to Brexit before the end of the week. So the people trying to get on to the property ladder are screwed over by Brexit but the ones who already have their own property and are repaying a mortgage get an even better deal than their already very good deal.

 

[Bletchleyite]

0.5% to 0.25% makes half of no difference to savings interest, it's next to nothing anyway.

 

[EM2]

And remember that "leave" voters are much older than "remain" voters. Many will sadly have died in a couple of years and, ironically, will no longer be around to impose their views on the young.

My 85yo gran, 81yo great-uncle, 78yo great-aunt, 68yo wife, 65yo uncle, 62yo auntie, 60yo auntie and 46yo me all voted Remain.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Intelligence is not the same as wisdom.

The group with the wisdom of experience generally thinks that leaving is for the best.

The n00bs generally feel like remaining is a good idea.

Nice try though. Better luck next time!

But most of the n00bs have access to technology to carry out research into the issues, whereas many of those with the wisdom of experience do not.

 

[anme]

On one hand we have a group with the wisdom of experience, a group with grandchildren they care deeply about who they want to give the best possible future.

On the other hand we have a bunch of n00bs with little or no experience of the adult world.

Which of these groups are best placed to decide the future of the country?

As you would know if you read my post and didn't twist my words, I wasn't debating whether old people or young people are better at running the country. I was pointing out that a lot of leave voters will, sadly, be dead by the time the UK actually leaves the EU. (Maybe even enough that we no longer have a majority for leaving, but that's a discussion for another time). My point was to speculate on the effect this would have on the next referendum - whether to join the EEA (or something similar) or go for full isolation.

Do you think we should have a referendum along those lines? If not, why not? How would you vote?

 

[Gutfright]

As you would know if you read my post and didn't twist my words, I wasn't debating whether old people or young people are better at running the country. I was pointing out that a lot of leave voters will, sadly, be dead by the time the UK actually leaves the EU. (Maybe even enough that we no longer have a majority for leaving, but that's a discussion for another time). My point was to speculate on the effect this would have on the next referendum - whether to join the EEA (or something similar) or go for full isolation.

Do you think we should have a referendum along those lines? If not, why not? How would you vote?

When does this hypothetical referendum take place, before or after negotiations?

If it's before the negotiations and the question is "Should The UK join the EEA?", my answer would be "No, now go out and negotiate a proper deal you lazy so-and-so"

If the hypothetical referendum is after the negotiations, then it would depend on what sort of package(s) were on the table.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Well at least we've got a leader again. Sure, only 199 people voted for her, but that's democracy we've won back from the EU!

You make this simplistically-worded statement sound like just of few of the hoi polloi were involved, instead of being so precise as you normally are and actually stating who these people actually are and the position each of them holds.

Democracy is indeed a strange animal to behold and with this in mind, is it not the case that we vote for Members of Parliament to act on our behalf in the House of Commons, in the full knowledge that as an elected Member of Parliament, sometimes their personal judgement is brought into play, in matters concerning the death penalty where their personal view overrules the view of their electorate.

At least, the Government in power follows accepted standards in noting the current tradition of the Members of Parliament as trustees of their own electorate and is not subjugated to the machinations of extreme left-wing believers that Members of Parliament are just elected for ceremonial purposes only and that any real decision making should be one made by the committees of like-minded believers that seem to so often be found in the ranks of Momentum.

 

[anme]

When does this hypothetical referendum take place, before or after negotiations?

If it's before the negotiations and the question is "Should The UK join the EEA?", my answer would be "No, now go out and negotiate a proper deal you lazy so-and-so"

If the hypothetical referendum is after the negotiations, then it would depend on what sort of package(s) were on the table.

But what the f... kind of deal do you want?! You MUST have thought about this! You cannot go into negotiations without some idea of what you want out of them!

Would *you* accept both being in the single market *and* free movement, or neither? In the end, that will be the question. I would like you to answer it.

 

[AlterEgo]

Intelligence is not the same as wisdom.

The group with the wisdom of experience generally thinks that leaving is for the best.

The n00bs generally feel like remaining is a good idea.

Nice try though. Better luck next time!

The level of debate on this forum....

 

[miami]

Democracy is indeed a strange animal to behold and with this in mind, is it not the case that we vote for Members of Parliament to act on our behalf in the House of Commons

Last week only 199 of the 650 MPs believed Theresa May was the person to run the country. The whips, and the threat of deselection, keep another 150 in line, and 320 of them can just whitter on with no real power.

At least, the Government in power follows accepted standards in noting the current tradition of the Members of Parliament as trustees of their own electorate and is not subjugated to the machinations of extreme left-wing believers that Members of Parliament are just elected for ceremonial purposes only and that any real decision making should be one made by the committees of like-minded believers that seem to so often be found in the ranks of Momentum.

Until Leadsome resigned this morning it was going off to Tory party members to decide, I see no difference between that and the Labour system that elected Corbyn last year (and like you I'm a fan of corbyn -- those ex-labour voters have to go somewhere)

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

And by what measure do they have more wisdom? Wisdom comes through education.

Being 71 years of age, I feel that I can offer some personal perspective on "wisdom comes through education"

I attended St Bede's College, Manchester, which at that time still had boarders, from the age of 11 onwards in 1956 and the education offered there was of the highest order. I then attended Manchester University where I obtained my First in Mathematics. I would say that the education as such taught me an appreciation of value-led thought, but this was only to be understood as preparing the groundwork for matters in real life outside the confines of educational establishment.

Wisdom then comes with putting this groundwork into effect when dealing with matters of a wide spectrum of life both at home and abroad and the formulation of a personal perceived wisdom that comes from years of life that is based upon those lifetime experiences.

My own personal wisdom when I left Manchester University in 1966 most certainly was not the same personal wisdom that I had when I retired as Senior Head of Projects at the consultancy in 2010.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

When does this hypothetical referendum take place, before or after negotiations?

If it's before the negotiations and the question is "Should The UK join the EEA?", my answer would be "No, now go out and negotiate a proper deal you lazy so-and-so"

If the hypothetical referendum is after the negotiations, then it would depend on what sort of package(s) were on the table.

That wording you state above that I have emboldened, should it appear upon this hypothetical ballot paper, would most probably be totally ignored by many casting their vote, as actually occurred in the recent referendum, when those voters went to vote with a totally different premise ingrained in their mind-set.

Who is to say such a matter would not occur again?

 

[EM2]

Wisdom does come from education. Not necessarily formal education, but education that comes from things you have discovered, mistakes you have made, research you have done and many other sources.
You can do a lot of that, or none, or any amount in between, and you can do it when you're young or old.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Wisdom does come from education. Not necessarily formal education, but education that comes from things you have discovered, mistakes you have made, research you have done and many other sources.
You can do a lot of that, or none, or any amount in between, and you can do it when you're young or old.

Exactly.

 

[Garmoran]

Intelligence is not the same as wisdom.

The group with the wisdom of experience generally thinks that leaving is for the best.

The n00bs generally feel like remaining is a good idea.

Nice try though. Better luck next time!

Interesting to note the role-reversal when compared to the Scottish Independence referendum. Then it was the youngsters who were more willing to risk an unpredictable economic future and the older voters who were more cautious. Or did the Leave voters in England and Wales really think that they were voting to go back into a familiar past?

 

[anme]

Interesting to note the role-reversal when compared to the Scottish Independence referendum. Then it was the youngsters who were more willing to risk an unpredictable economic future and the older voters who were more cautious. Or did the Leave voters in England and Wales really think that they were voting to go back into a familiar past?

To be honest, having read this forum for several weeks before and after the referendum, and reading reams of text by leave supporters, I'm still no clearer what they thought they were voting for, or what they want.

Not a single one of them has ever answered the question of what should happen next - I must have asked it 50 times without response (beyond one very strange poster who said the question "doesn't make sense" or more bizarrely is "for the politicians"). Even the most basic questions of whether we should stay in the single market, and whether we should do so if it means keeping full freedom of movement (*) are never answered.

It's hard to have any respect for people so clearly unable explain their own actions. But again I challenge them to explain, even in the most basic terms, what they want to see now.

(*) I think we should keep freedom of movement regardless of the single market - it's an amazing right and privilege for us all.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Maybe we should start with three very simple questions. Given we are leaving the EU:

1. Independently of anything else, do you think the UK should stay in the single market - i.e. the free movement of goods, services and capital?

2. Independently of anything else, do you think the UK should respect the free movement of people - i.e. both UK citizens retaining the right to live and work elsewhere in the EU; and EU citizens retaining the reciprocal right to live and work in the UK?

3. If it's all or nothing - i.e. either staying in the single market AND respecting free movement of people; or neither - do you accept them both, or should the UK reject both and fully go its own way?

 

[Rich McLean]

I think the likely outcome will be EEA with the 4 Freedoms.

However, Article 50 will be invoked, and May and her team will fight hard to keep in the Single Market and restrict FoM, but in the end when time is running out, the options will be:

1. Becoming a Member of the EEA and accept the 4 Freedoms
2. Revert to WTO rules.

The consequences of each will be understood a lot better by that time, more facts will be out in the open, where it will either be voted on in Parliament, or dare I say it, another referendum.

However, if Parliament vote for it, its likely to be overwhelmingly in favour of Option 1, but could risk losing a GE, or Option 2, which provides less risk of losing a GE but would be at a greater risk of the economy. I think a Parliament vote is far more likely due to the Economy at that point being far more important.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Wisdom does come from education. Not necessarily formal education.

In my posting, it was obvious that I was referring to formal education in the first part of my posting from what I had posted there.

When a certain personage made reference to "Education, education, education" what do you think was meant by the meaning of those words.

 

[EM2]

In my posting, it was obvious that I was referring to formal education in the first part of my posting from what I had posted there.

I know that that is what you were referring to, Paul. My post was a riposte to an earlier post from Gutfright and why I explicitly did not quote you.

 

[Busaholic]

To be honest, having read this forum for several weeks before and after the referendum, and reading reams of text by leave supporters, I'm still no clearer what they thought they were voting for, or what they want.

Living in Cornwall I have been able to see and hear for myself the messages that went out from the Brexiteers, including as they did 5 of the 6 MPs representing Cornish constituencies, all Tories of course, and understand why the Boris battlebus chose the county for its launch.
The message was all negative, how the EU, Brussels, Eurocrats, bureaucrats, Siamese cats for all I know, was blighting 'our' lives and getting rid of them was a patriotic duty which would allow us to 'govern ourselves' and save us that fabled £350 million per week which could/would be spent in the NHS instead.
I have been quite surprised to learn how many of my local acquaintances voted Leave, but if and when they have stated the reasons they have, with one exception, been seduced by the simplistic and negative messages as above, or giving the 'Establishment' a kick. The exception was one who gave a (rather extreme, in my view, to an almost paranoid extent) left wing view of the EU only existing to further the cause of monopoly capitalism, but then I've never known a conspiracy theory he doesn't subscribe to!
The point is there were never enough Remainers feeling positively euphoric about the EU or our place in it, for obvious reasons, to counter the Leavers. Most of us Remainers probably adopted an 'on balance' view, even though the balance may have been tipped much more in one direction. That is why Cameron and his advisers were so stupid (a) to have called a referendum and (b) having done so, not ensured that such a momentous decision could not be made without at least a clear majority of 20%.

 

[Senex]

The point is there were never enough Remainers feeling positively euphoric about the EU or our place in it, for obvious reasons, to counter the Leavers.

I think that's a crucial point. Over the years our politicians and media have done very little indeed to present anything very much positive about the EU to us, and many of the activities of Brussels have not greatly commended themselves to us. So there is no strong well of support to draw on -- and I say that with great regret as a died-in-the-wool EU enthusiast!

That is why Cameron and his advisers were so stupid (a) to have called a referendum and (b) having done so, not ensured that such a momentous decision could not be made without at least a clear majority of 20%.

I wonder what history's judgement on Cameron will be. I suspect it will not be at all favourable and that he will be seen as the weak prime minister who failed to take on his Eurosceptics and who had the stupidity to stage a referendum without laying down criteria for minimum participation and a threshold for a decision. Will he be in the running for the honour of being the worst Tory PM since WW2?

 

[Mvann]

The problem with history is that it gets revised to often.

For me, my problem with the EU is that it was not what we originally signed up for. We joined the EEC, which was mainly a trade organisation. It was not for harmonisation of countries into a United States of Europe. I don't see why we need a European army hq. I don't see why we need a Brussels coastguard and border agency. It is a complete waste of money. There are other things that need reforming in what is now the EU. Reform was never gonna happen without something like a leave vote happening. The referendum wasn't legally binding. If the momentum for the reforms that has been in the news actually happens, then that completely changes the EU question for a lot of people and could be said to make the result void, and it could be argued for another referendum as remain was, for me, do I want to remain in the EU as it is now knowing what it's stated aims were.

 

[TheKnightWho]

The problem with history is that it gets revised to often.

For me, my problem with the EU is that it was not what we originally signed up for. We joined the EEC, which was mainly a trade organisation. It was not for harmonisation of countries into a United States of Europe. I don't see why we need a European army hq. I don't see why we need a Brussels coastguard and border agency. It is a complete waste of money. There are other things that need reforming in what is now the EU. Reform was never gonna happen without something like a leave vote happening. The referendum wasn't legally binding. If the momentum for the reforms that has been in the news actually happens, then that completely changes the EU question for a lot of people and could be said to make the result void, and it could be argued for another referendum as remain was, for me, do I want to remain in the EU as it is now knowing what it's stated aims were.

How is cooperation a waste of money? Particularly on the coast-guard business when certain countries have been shirking responsibility.

And you really do seem to have a hang-up over this army business.

 

[Rich McLean]

The EU Army idea is basically a replacement for NATO on this side of the Atlantic (there will still be a NATO). It's sole purpose is to share resources and to act as a force against major super powers (Russia etc), as 27 Nation states being commanded from one HQ is more effective than each Country having their own agenda.
It also avoids the situation. where some states go "I'm Alright Jack", and sit it out. It gives the EU power to declare war where all 27 will be required to take part, but doesn't change the structure of each Nation states armed forces and they are still free to go about their normal commitments.

 

[anme]

The problem with history is that it gets revised to often.

For me, my problem with the EU is that it was not what we originally signed up for. We joined the EEC, which was mainly a trade organisation. It was not for harmonisation of countries into a United States of Europe. I don't see why we need a European army hq. I don't see why we need a Brussels coastguard and border agency. It is a complete waste of money. There are other things that need reforming in what is now the EU. Reform was never gonna happen without something like a leave vote happening. The referendum wasn't legally binding. If the momentum for the reforms that has been in the news actually happens, then that completely changes the EU question for a lot of people and could be said to make the result void, and it could be argued for another referendum as remain was, for me, do I want to remain in the EU as it is now knowing what it's stated aims were.

This paranoid and ill informed nonsense is exactly why Europe will be much better off without the UK.

And you STILL haven't told us what you want instead! Do you agree with me and Gutfright that EEA membership is the only way forward, retaining full single market access and full freedom of movement?

 

[Senex]

For me, my problem with the EU is that it was not what we originally signed up for. We joined the EEC, which was mainly a trade organisation. It was not for harmonisation of countries into a United States of Europe.

Yes, when we joined the club it was just the EEC. But as a full member of that club -- and one of the larger and potentially more influential members -- we had a full say in the way in which it developed and we assented to the changes that were made, signing up to the various treaties along the way. Are you saying that once we had joined, the rules should never have been changed further? Are you saying that the British representatives have simply not been very good at looking after this state's interests? Or are you arguing for a change from a system in which our elected representatives make decisions on international relations on our behalf to one where any significant changes in our international relationships are subject to a popular vote (which could only be by referendum, as more often than not there is no clear split between the two parties on these issues)?
I personally don't understand the position that seems to hold that what we signed up to in 1973 must be set in aspic -- the world just doesn't work like that.

 

[yorksrob]

Yes, when we joined the club it was just the EEC. But as a full member of that club -- and one of the larger and potentially more influential members -- we had a full say in the way in which it developed and we assented to the changes that were made, signing up to the various treaties along the way. Are you saying that once we had joined, the rules should never have been changed further? Are you saying that the British representatives have simply not been very good at looking after this state's interests? Or are you arguing for a change from a system in which our elected representatives make decisions on international relations on our behalf to one where any significant changes in our international relationships are subject to a popular vote (which could only be by referendum, as more often than not there is no clear split between the two parties on these issues)?
I personally don't understand the position that seems to hold that what we signed up to in 1973 must be set in aspic -- the world just doesn't work like that.

The problem is that unlike in other countries, the politicians (with the honourable exception of Harold), civil servants and business leaders didn't bother to attempt to find out what level of cooperation the public were happy with, let alone bring them along with them, instead relying on a representative democracy that doesn't even manage to represent 75% of the country.

I don't believe that the majority of the British public have ever had a philosophical commitment to ever closer union, and whether we'd voted in or out, the question would still have been what the optimum level of semi-detachment was and whether it was achievable. I suppose that one of the sad things is that we have made things more difficult for our fellow members who also don't believe in the centralist agenda.

 

[northwichcat]

0.5% to 0.25% makes half of no difference to savings interest, it's next to nothing anyway.

It had been expected to go back up to 1% this year, so instead of typically getting £250 interest on a £25,000 deposit, it'd be £62.50.

 

[Mvann]

This paranoid and ill informed nonsense is exactly why Europe will be much better off without the UK.

And you STILL haven't told us what you want instead! Do you agree with me and Gutfright that EEA membership is the only way forward, retaining full single market access and full freedom of movement?

Actually I had told you what I wanted way back up thread. And no it's not the only way forward. But I presume what you mean is that it I the best option going forward.