EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[Bromley boy]

How on earth can anyone say the young were barely engaged? I can understand the point about voting age (although I disagree with it), but lack of engagement?

Agreed.

They were no more or less engaged than any other demographic - why should they have been? Whether they chose to vote or not is down to them.

It smacks of a sense of entitlement. Why should people need to be “engaged” to vote in an election or referendum - surely they should be self motivated to do so?

It does follow. There's no law, so we'd have to fall back to precedence. And there's no precedent. Hence, no constitutional violation.

But there is precedent - none other than the remain victory in the non-binding referendum in the 1970s! Which was duly implemented by the then government (Jeremy Corbyn voted leave in that one, apparently!).

If the result of that vote was followed, so should the result of the 2016 vote.

If you are happy that the result of the 1970s vote was implemented, why do you consider it ok for the 2016 vote to be disregarded?

 

[Bromley boy]

Generalise much?

You tell me.

What were the “young” voter turnout figures in 2016? IIRC they were amongst the lowest of all demographics.

Are there any figures to prove me wrong?

 

[bnm]

What has happened today is good news all round. Even if there's some further ructions and short term pain.

A weakened PM waving her Chequers piece of paper at a laughing EU. An EU who's negotiating position is even stronger now that hard line brexiters have been sidelined. Even if the Chequers white paper gets past our parliament it won't be seen as a worthy basis for negotiation with the EU. Their position is quite rightly hardening after seeing the UK dither for too long.

Hard line brexiters have been marginalised by the resignations today. They don't have the numbers to force Theresa May either to harden her position or out of office. The hard liners would have been better served if Boris and David stayed inside the tent.

The most likely outcome is no deal. Both within the Tory party and with the EU.

When that is put to parliament it'll be voted down and the UK will remain in the EU, badly wounded and weakened, but still in. That's when the government will fall and the parties can then manifesto their plans for a future relationship with Europe. If that splits the Conservatives, so much the better. Yes, UKIP will potentially rise, phoenix like, but not to any great position of strength. No one party will command a majority and a coalition will be back. That's no bad thing.

Remember, you read it here first.

Alternatively, Theresa May does fall, and we can all join Jacob Rees-Mogg on a handcart to hell.

 

[najaB]

If you are happy that the result of the 1970s vote was implemented, why do you consider it ok for the 2016 vote to be disregarded?

Because, at 67% for vs 32% against the will of the people was well clear of the noise. It was also very clear what was being voted for.

 

[Bromley boy]

The most likely outcome is no deal. Both within the Tory party and with the EU.

When that is put to parliament it'll be voted down and the UK will remain in the EU, badly wounded and weakened, but still in. That's when the government will fall and the parties can then manifesto their plans for a future relationship with Europe. If that splits the Conservatives, so much the better. Yes, UKIP will potentially rise, phoenix like, but not to any great position of strength. No one party will command a majority and a coalition will be back. That's no bad thing.

Remember, you read it here first.

We didn’t read it here first - there’s nothing particularly radical in anything you’ve said there! But that isn’t necessarily a good outcome for democracy.

The U.K. is becoming increasingly polarised and divided - that is not a good thing for anybody. I think you are dangerously underestimating the frustration a great many voters feel in this country - as evidenced by the leave vote.

If those disenchanted voters are again defied by the political establishment that has already failed them, that provides a fertile bed for political extremism.

Just look at what has happened electorally in Greece and Italy recently. Do you want similar here? Be very careful what you wish for!

Because, at 67% for vs 32% against the will of the people was well clear of the noise. It was also very clear what was being voted for.

No it wasn’t clear what was being voted for - unless you’re suggesting the EU in its current form still resembles the 1970s EEC?

As with much of the older generation - my own (baby boomer) father voted remain in the 1970s and is now an ardent leaver. He feels he was lied to in the 1970s given how the EU has grown tentacles and metastasised in the intervening years...

 

[najaB]

No it wasn’t clear what was being voted for - unless you’re suggesting the EU in its current form still resembles the 1970s EEC?

I am not. But the question on the 1975 ballot wasn't "Do you think the UK should be part of the European Union of 2016?" Please at least attempt to make sense.

 

[Ianno87]

How on earth can anyone say the young were barely engaged? I can understand the point about voting age (although I disagree with it), but lack of engagement?

Turnout among the young was lower. Ergo = Less engaged.

Alot of the debate at the time was (rightly or wrongly) seemingly entirely around immigration and the supposed £700m a week for the NHS - topics (**sweeping generalisation alert**) that probably, generally speaking, don't concern/excite/rile the young nearly as much as older generations. They were, entirely understandably, going after older voters who, traditionally, *do* vote in stronger numbers.

If senior politicians came out and said "you are voting on keeping your right to live and work in Europe for the next 40 years of your career", it would've meant alot more to the young. But not one did in any noticeable way.

 

[Bromley boy]

I am not. But the question on the 1975 ballot wasn't "Do you think the UK should be part of the European Union of 2016?" Please at least attempt to make sense.

No indeed, it was a vote to remain in the EC as it then was. It has changed somewhat since. As such, was it not right and proper to have a further vote in 2016?

The point (which you’ve obviously missed ) being that those votes were both simple majority votes based on snapshots in time, both legally unenforceable, but both equally valid, both conducted on the basis that the result would be implemented.

That provides the precedent you were asking for, does it not?

I’ll ask again, since you've ignored the question, if it was right for the result of a simple majority non binding vote in the 1970s to be implemented, why is it wrong for the result of the 2016 vote, conducted on exactly the same terms, to be implemented?

And, to spike your guns, I assume you know what a simple majority vote is, so don’t bother replying about how the majority was smaller in 2016 - it’s utterly irrelevant.

 

[SilentGrade]

When that is put to parliament it'll be voted down and the UK will remain in the EU, badly wounded and weakened, but still in.

Parliament voting down the government deal does not automatically mean the UK will remain in the EU though. Parliament can vote how it likes, but without the consent of the other EU27 we will leave with no deal.

 

[Ianno87]

Agreed.

They were no more or less engaged than any other demographic - why should they have been? Whether they chose to vote or not is down to them.

It smacks of a sense of entitlement. Why should people need to be “engaged” to vote in an election or referendum - surely they should be self motivated to do so?

Interesting use of "entitlement" there (can't beat a bit of millennial-bashing, I suppose...)

In the same way I suppose I'd be 'entitled' in a general election to expect to want to vote for the candidate who bothered to explain why I should vote for them. It's got to mean something to me to be worthy of my vote.

 

[Bromley boy]

Interesting use of "entitlement" there (can't beat a bit of millennial-bashing, I suppose...)

In case you didn’t realise, I’m a millennial myself (albeit a well educated and informed one) .

In the same way I suppose I'd be 'entitled' in a general election to expect to want to vote for the candidate who bothered to explain why I should vote for them. It's got to mean something to me to be worthy of my vote.

I certainly can’t answer that for you.

You can vote for whomever you want to, or even stand for election yourself.

Have you done so?

 

[Bromley boy]

Turnout among the young was lower. Ergo = Less engaged.

Ergo = disengaged from the world around them and lazy.

Their choice not to participate in the vote.
Massively hypocritical to come back and complain about the result now.

 

[bnm]

As such, was it not right and proper to have a further vote in 2016?

No, it wasn't right and proper we had a referendum in 2016. We were in the EU, an integral part of it. Yes, it changed over time, but the UK were in there shaping those changes, negotiating our 'red lines' and generally doing okay as part of the club. We weren't there sitting quietly on the sidelines while the rest of the EU did us over by straightening our cucumbers, banning our miles and pints, or just generally winding up Richard Littlejohn (not that that's a bad thing). We were often vociferous when we disagreed with a particular direction, successfully moderating the worst federalist tendancies.

We are a representative democracy where referendums are quite rightly rare, and in the case of 2016, used as a tool by a spineless Prime Minister who wouldn't stand up to the eurosceptics in his party. Instead using the electorate to fight a proxy war on his behalf. David Cameron was deeply mistaken in his belief that the referendum would settle the matter in his party once and for all. The last two years have proved that.

He should have had the balls to tell his party that the his manifesto pledge was to remain in the EU. The UKIP threat was overplayed - they'd never have got near real power, even had the Tories split and some of the more swivel eyed loonies on the right defected to UKIP.

 

[mmh]

Because, at 67% for vs 32% against the will of the people was well clear of the noise. It was also very clear what was being voted for.

Everyone can use wikipedia. For the percentage lovers, the 2016 referendum turnout still had the largest turnout since the 1992 general election and significantly higher than the 1975 referendum.

(I don't really understand what a vote 40 years ago has to do with anything though)

 

[Bromley boy]

No, it wasn't right and proper we had a referendum in 2016. We were in the EU, an integral part of it. Yes, it changed over time, but the UK were in there shaping those changes, negotiating our 'red lines' and generally doing okay as part of the club. We weren't there sitting quietly on the sidelines while the rest of the EU did us over by straightening our cucumbers, banning our miles and pints, or just generally winding up Richard Littlejohn (not that that's a bad thing). We were often vociferous when we disagreed with a particular direction, successfully moderating the worst federalist tendancies.

We weren’t sufficiently vociferous in disagreeing with any of it. As evidenced when DC went out to repatriate powers - and was sent back with his tail between his legs.

The EU is intransigent, unwilling to change, fundamentally wishes to preserve itself at all costs - over and above the interests of its member states - that is my fundamental issue with it.

A club that dictates its own terms is not a club I wish my country to be any part of.

It was supposed to be a vehicle to benefit its member states, but now seems to have suffered severe “mission creep” and believes it is a nation state in its own right. It is not!

We are a representative democracy where referendums are quite rightly rare, and in the case of 2016, used as a tool by a spineless Prime Minister who wouldn't stand up to the eurosceptics in his party. Instead using the electorate to fight a proxy war on his behalf. David Cameron was deeply mistaken in his belief that the referendum would settle the matter in his party once and for all. The last two years have proved that.

But the electorate is the ultimate, fundamental voice that speaks as to how this country is governed. That same electorate voted to leave, so that needs to be respected.

You underestimate that voice at your peril.

He should have had the balls to tell his party that the his manifesto pledge was to remain in the EU. The UKIP threat was overplayed - they'd never have got near real power, even had the Tories split and some of the more swivel eyed loonies on the right defected to UKIP.

Apart from attracting more votes than the SNP did in a recent general election. Not every voter is a “right on” primary school teacher who lives with his parents, let me assure you.

(I don't really understand what a vote 40 years ago has to do with anything though)

It’s a useful sledgehammer to deploy when we are told that the 2016 vote wasn’t legally binding. Newsflash! Neither was the 1975 vote, conducted on exactly the same terms - strange that remainers are happy with one (identical) result being implemented but not the other.

 

[bnm]

As it happens I'm not happy there was referendum in 1975 either. That was another proxy war on behalf of a political party that was infighting over Europe.

As to the European 'club'. With all clubs, only members can instigate change. Only members can moderate excesses. The UK under both Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair (and to a lesser extent John Major) was able to stick to nearly all its 'red lines', was able to protect UK interests, and say "up yours" to federalism. All while remaining members.

 

[Bromley boy]

As to the European 'club'. With all clubs, only members can instigate change. Only members can moderate excesses. The UK under both Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair (and to a lesser extent John Major) was able to stick to nearly all its 'red lines', was able to protect UK interests, and say "up yours" to federalism. All while remaining members.

If only we could reincarnate Maggie!

She wasn’t perfect but, my god, she’d crack on, break a few balls and deliver an excellent Brexit.

I’m resigned to it all going wrong. When it does, I’ll vote for Jezza myself. I console myself that when he and his kind get in and a*s r*pe this country back into the Stone Age, it won’t be me that loses my job....

I’ll get a substantial rise, if anything, as a paid up ASLEF member .

 

[mmh]

No, it wasn't right and proper we had a referendum in 2016. We were in the EU, an integral part of it. Yes, it changed over time, but the UK were in there shaping those changes, negotiating our 'red lines' and generally doing okay as part of the club. We weren't there sitting quietly on the sidelines while the rest of the EU did us over by straightening our cucumbers, banning our miles and pints, or just generally winding up Richard Littlejohn (not that that's a bad thing). We were often vociferous when we disagreed with a particular direction, successfully moderating the worst federalist tendancies.

Ignoring the nonsense about banana lengths and metric measurements, no we weren't good at that in the slightest. Never had been, and never would be.

He should have had the balls to tell his party that the his manifesto pledge was to remain in the EU. The UKIP threat was overplayed - they'd never have got near real power, even had the Tories split and some of the more swivel eyed loonies on the right defected to UKIP.

How could the Cameron government have been any more "clear" (to use the modern politician word I hate) than it was?

"The government believes the UK should remain in the EU" ... "A once in a generation decision ... This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide."

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...uropean-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk

I don't understand how any of that was ambiguous - they were so clear they made it say it twice in the link address!

It was supposed to be a vehicle to benefit its member states, but now seems to have suffered severe “mission creep” and believes it is a nation state in its own right. It is not!

Absolutely. I think it's really telling that the language is always "the EU" rather than "the EU members", as if it's some entity of its own, which it shouldn't be but of course it has become. As an entity of its own it's become far too arrogant. A flippant example of that is a tweet I saw by Donald Tusk today commenting on Davis and Johnson's resignations and Brexit. Completely inappropriate to comment on domestic politics.

But the electorate is the ultimate, fundamental voice that speaks as to how this country is governed. That same electorate voted to leave, so that needs to be respected.

You underestimate that voice at your peril.

I keep trying to explain that to some people but they're unwilling to listen it seems. Neither party will abandon Brexit because it'd be electoral suicide for both of them.

As to the European 'club'. With all clubs, only members can instigate change. Only members can moderate excesses. The UK under both Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair (and to a lesser extent John Major) was able to stick to nearly all its 'red lines', was able to protect UK interests, and say "up yours" to federalism. All while remaining members.

This "club" analogy stuff is a load of old nonsense. Would you join a golf club that'd never let you leave? I bet Nigel wouldn't either...

 

[EM2]

.
This "club" analogy stuff is a load of old nonsense. Would you join a golf club that'd never let you leave? I bet Nigel wouldn't either...

We can leave easily. Trigger Article 50, wait two years and it's done. But because we've put undeliverable 'red lines' down, we're having to negotiate that exit.

 

[NSEFAN]

This "club" analogy stuff is a load of old nonsense. Would you join a golf club that'd never let you leave? I bet Nigel wouldn't either...

We are leaving. But would you expect to let the golf club keep using their facilities when you're no longer a paying member? Our initial approach seemed to be "Well we're the best golf player there is so you should give us the perks of membership and spare us the downsides!", but thankfully reality is beginning to set in.

 

[EM2]

We weren’t sufficiently vociferous in disagreeing with any of it. As evidenced when DC went out to repatriate powers - and was sent back with his tail between his legs.

No organisation is going to give in to any member that wants everything its own way.

The EU is intransigent, unwilling to change,

Yet already agreed to change its relationship with the UK. Not to the extent that the UK wanted, but the UK still has many advantages that no other member state does.

A club that dictates its own terms is not a club I wish my country to be any part of.

But it doesn't do that, because every member has a veto. Every decision has to approved unanimously.

 

[WelshBluebird]

It was obvious to anyone with any common sense that “leaving” must mean leaving in accordance with both the spirit and the letter of the word - ie leaving the EU itself and its major institutions.

Well apart from many in the leave camp who claimed time and time again that "no one was talking about leaving the single market" or presented possible Brexit options that by definition would have meant us staying in the single market.

If the vote had gone the way you wanted you wouldn’t be attacking it!

No but the leave side would be (remember Farage's 52% v 48% comment).

Ergo = disengaged from the world around them and lazy.

Their choice not to participate in the vote.
Massively hypocritical to come back and complain about the result now.

I think you'll find the majority of those young people registered to vote did actually vote. So I can't see how you can claim young people were not engaged or are lazy.

no we weren't good at that in the slightest. Never had been, and never would be.

Except we were. Look at all of the things "in our favour" that we managed to get.
Opt outs here there and everywhere. Indeed the idea that the EU isn't flexible is made a bit of a joke of when you actually look at what things we opted out of, and what things other countries have been able to opt out of.

 

[Howardh]

I do think Cameron comes out of the whole affair poorly. Offered a referendum supposedly in good faith, then ran away after the result didn’t go his way, having clearly made zero plans to prepare for one of the two possible outcomes.

Cameron "running away" left the door open for the likes of Johnson, Fox, Gove, Leadsom, even Mogg. So where were they? Running away themselves - running away from the impossible job. They wanted the people's vote but not the responsibility of carrying it through.
If Cameron and Osborne had stayed, the chances are by now everything would be sorted, we'd be staying in the Customs Union and Single Market and fully integrated in the EEA yet out of the EU.
Cameron did what he promised - to give the country a referendum.
The Brexiters have done nothing since, just left it to May to carry the can...kick the cans down the road.

 

[northwichcat]

You can argue that one from multiple angles. Should an MP slavishly follow their party line, should they go with the majority view of their constituents, or go with their own opinion?

From some of your comments I'm going to guess you veer towards the liberals. Nothing wrong with that, but your suggestions that remain MPs might defect to the libdems or some new party is fantasy. There won't be any defections, at least not in that direction.

Again the only beneficiary of Brexit not happening would be UKIP. Their vote collapsed last year because their reason for existing appeared to be over, and voters went back to their traditional parties. It won't take much for them to resurrect from the dead.

Divisions in both the Labour and Conservative Party have been obvious for a long time. Some Labour supporters were calling Liz Kendall a red Tory and some Conservative supporters were telling Heidi Alexander to go and join Labour long before the EU referendum vote. Those are two just examples, there's plenty of others as well. The real reason certain MPs remain in the Labour or Conservative Party despite disagreeing with many of their party policies is because they think they have a better chance of changing the direction of the party than a new party becoming the governing party.

Saying that defections from larger to smaller parties have happened before, remember the two defections from the Conservatives to UKIP? Wera Hobhouse, who is a Lib Dem MP who used to be a Conservative local Councillor and Boris' sister defected to the Lib Dems - she wanted to stand as a Lib Dem candidate at the last election but the party members didn't think that was a good idea.

 

[northwichcat]

Cameron did what he promised - to give the country a referendum.

He also promised to deliver the result and said he wouldn't resign if remain lost. Although, if he actually planned to resign if remain lost but didn't want to say it I think we can forgive him for lying as people shouldn't have been given an incentive of a new PM if they voted one particular way.

 

[EM2]

The Brexiters have done nothing since, just left it to May to carry the can...kick the cans down the road.

The resignation letter from Davis refers to the Chequers Agreement, and that it 'would not work' but with no suggestion as to what might work instead. Not one politician that wanted to leave has produced a detailed post-Brexit plan, not before the vote and not after it.

 

[Groningen]

The USA, UK and Zimbabwe are the only countries still using the mile for the road. With in the south of the USA (close to Mexico) also in kilometers. There are no kilometer signs anywhere in Kent/England?

This soap; when will it end. This all looks like Yes Minister to me. This is a discussion with the EU on a Conservative foundation where it should be national. What would have happened if Labour won the elections on June 8, 2017. Would Corbyn have stopped the Brexit than?

 

[nlogax]

There are no kilometer signs anywhere in Kent/England?

In a small way there already are. On English motorways driver location markers are kilometer-based even though they lack the specific 'km' wording.

What would have happened if Labour won the elections on June 8, 2017

I dread to think. Maybe an entirely different sort of mess?

 

[Howardh]

He also promised to deliver the result and said he wouldn't resign if remain lost. Although, if he actually planned to resign if remain lost but didn't want to say it I think we can forgive him for lying as people shouldn't have been given an incentive of a new PM if they voted one particular way.

If memory serves, I think Cameron DID say he would be resigning - nothing to do with Brexit per se, just that he wasn't gonna complete a full term. He never gave a solid date, so going straight after the ref, to coin a phrase, respects the original decision to resign!

 

[Howardh]

The USA, UK and Zimbabwe are the only countries still using the mile for the road. With in the south of the USA (close to Mexico) also in kilometers. There are no kilometer signs anywhere in Kent/England?

I am sure my old man once told me that there is a road in Kent where you drive (for some distance) on the right, so opposing traffic is on the left. Think it had something to do with a former military site or airfield? Or has he just made it up?!! But if it's remotely true, someone on here will know!