EU Referendum

Discuss anything interesting but not remotely Countdown-related here.

Moderator: Jon O'Neill

Do you want to stay in the EU or leave it?

Stay
29
69%
Leave
9
21%
Undecided
4
10%
 
Total votes: 42

User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Kiloposter
Posts: 1883
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: Down in the tube station at midnight
Contact:

Re: EU Referendum

Post by Rhys Benjamin » Sat Jun 25, 2016 7:40 pm

JimBentley wrote:
Rhys Benjamin wrote:
JimBentley wrote:However, the idea of a General Election later on this year is a very attractive one as (presumably) it wouldn't give the Tories enough time to push through their gerrymandering boundary reforms? If so, I think if Labour ran on a manifesto including the introduction of Proportional Representation (with an informal arrangement with other sympathetic parties for some sort of post-election coalition) combined with a commitment to overturn the referendum result, it could prove to be an interesting result.
So, in other words, reuse the longest suicide note in history?
I'm unsure what you're getting at here, Rhys. Nothing I proposed above bears any relation to the so-called "longest suicide note in history". In fact, didn't part of that manifesto commit to a withdrawal from the (then) EEC?
That program would be far too radical to do well in a general election. The 1983 manifesto would ignore the 1975 ref for instance. I'm going to write more on it in detail, but the "silent majority" these days are very silent. Thus such a country would not vote for things such as the abolition of the House of Lords, just as it didn't in 83.
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...

User avatar
JimBentley
Legend
Posts: 2604
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm
Location: Redcar, UK
Contact:

Re: EU Referendum

Post by JimBentley » Sat Jun 25, 2016 8:43 pm

Rhys Benjamin wrote:That program would be far too radical to do well in a general election. The 1983 manifesto would ignore the 1975 ref for instance. I'm going to write more on it in detail, but the "silent majority" these days are very silent. Thus such a country would not vote for things such as the abolition of the House of Lords, just as it didn't in 83.
But 1983 was a very different time. In 1983 there was precious little voice given to opposition views outside of the political mainstream. This is 2016 and - for better or worse - anybody inclined has a far better chance of learning about alternative views, some of which will inevitably become mainstream as a result of this process.

And on a specific point: given a referendum on the issue of abolition, do you think the House of Lords would survive? I don't.

User avatar
Jennifer Steadman
Devotee
Posts: 982
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:34 pm
Location: Kent
Contact:

Re: EU Referendum

Post by Jennifer Steadman » Sat Jun 25, 2016 11:05 pm

Cheers Innis! Very interesting.

General observations/opinions:

- 2nd referendum = terrible idea. People voted in good faith that the result would be respected. Whatever the consequences of leaving, the high turnout tells you that many, many people who don't normally vote were engaged to vote in this - presumably, many are people who feel ignored and disempowered by politics/politicians/London - and telling them that their opinions (whether misplaced or not) don't matter would be pretty damning. That said, if the result had gone the other way, we'd be having exactly the same discussion about the vote's legitimacy and seeing exactly the same grief and anger from the other side, so using it as a tool to attack the left with is boring and disingenuous.

- Absolutely no way that enough Leavers have felt 'Bregret' to change the result. Absolute non-issue for everyone except the most desperate straw-clutchers.

- A snap election later this year would be objectively democratically sound (need an elected head of state), but subjectively, absolute carnage (how can the country choose a manifesto that will be completely speculative depending on negotiations to leave and suchlike?). I would imagine UKIP's next step would be to capitalise on their working class support and use the idea that they were responsible for 'freeing' the country to decimate Labour's northern support. Corbyn could promise pretty much anything and he would have no effect outside of yer luvvy cities - popular as he may be to a very particular set of voters, many others on the left - neither Blairites or Corbynites - are alienated by and disenchanted him, so God only knows who will vote for him if their most obvious supporters aren't keen. Also, the Lib Dems have already won the race to promise overturning the election result; could be a big vote booster for them.

- Of course a 2nd Scots ref isn't undemocratic. The terms of the deal have changed enormously. (Were the EU to change significantly in a few years, a 'rejoin the EU' ref would be fine too.) Almost as acceptable as doctors not being forced to accept a contract changed against their will to terms that don't suit them...

- If the House of Lords survived a vote as an unelected body given the bellyaching about democracy and 'unelected bureaucrats' (except that these ones actually have a vote on our laws!), then absolutely fuck this. Although there's no way you're getting rid of the monarchy. It's weirdly popular.
proud tiara owner and annoying publicity person who tells you to click links to the the FOCAL website.

(and also to my TRAVEL BLOG)

User avatar
JimBentley
Legend
Posts: 2604
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm
Location: Redcar, UK
Contact:

Re: EU Referendum

Post by JimBentley » Sun Jun 26, 2016 12:45 am

Jennifer Steadman wrote:Corbyn could promise pretty much anything and he would have no effect outside of yer luvvy cities - popular as he may be to a very particular set of voters, many others on the left - neither Blairites or Corbynites - are alienated and disenchanted by him
See, that's the thing I really don't get. Who are these others "on the left" for whom Corbyn is so off-putting that they can only snipe from the sidelines? I know I'm an old fart but I can't help thinking that a lot of the politicians that have somehow managed to grab themselves a Labour seat in the last twenty-odd years would be equally at home with the Lib Dems or Conservatives, so anodyne are their views.

The people I know (a self-selecting sample admittedly, but nevertheless pretty broad) who have leftist sympathies are all - without exception - positive towards Corbyn in that he has brought back a semblance of socialism to a party that was increasingly content to offer a watered-down version of the opposition's policies, as witnessed at last year's election.

So what is it these people on the left - neither Blairites or Corbynites - actually want? They plainly don't want socialism, but would no doubt rail against any accusations of them wanting the opposite. It seems to me that they want an especially egregious form of politics: that which notionally opposes the actions of the ruling class but not too much, not enough to rock the boat. One that follows a couple of steps behind the Tories because that's the only way they think they can get elected. The whole system is moving inexorably towards the American style of political choice, i.e. between hard and soft Conservatism, with all other views considered cranky.

And that's not good enough. Things must change.

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Fanatic
Posts: 2836
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: EU Referendum

Post by Marc Meakin » Sun Jun 26, 2016 6:53 am

Some decisions defy logic the Great British public (that made perverts their heroes and loved casual racist TV) are entrusted to make the biggest decision in a generation won't have ANY say in who will be our next Prime Minister
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7820
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: EU Referendum

Post by Gavin Chipper » Sun Jun 26, 2016 10:04 am

Jennifer Steadman wrote:A snap election later this year would be objectively democratically sound (need an elected head of state), but subjectively, absolute carnage (how can the country choose a manifesto that will be completely speculative depending on negotiations to leave and suchlike?).
- If the House of Lords survived a vote as an unelected body given the bellyaching about democracy and 'unelected bureaucrats' (except that these ones actually have a vote on our laws!), then absolutely fuck this. Although there's no way you're getting rid of the monarchy. It's weirdly popular.
We'll need to get rid of the monarchy to have an elected head of state!

But other than that, we don't elect our prime ministers. And to any extent that we do, it's very indirect. We elect the individual MPs, who make up parliament, and the prime minister is basically the MP who can command the support of a majority of MPs. And even if you consider a vote in the general election to be a vote for the party leader, Cameron only got 36.8% of the vote, so it's hardly a resounding endorsement. In any case, only a small percentage of the Tory voters would have voted on the basis of Cameron being in charge as opposed to being Tory voters generally, so you're talking about single figures percent effectively voting for David Cameron as prime minister.

I actually think it's absurd that we should re-elect all these 650 people on what this one guy decides to do or not do. I think we need to move away from the perception that politics is all about individuals and personalities, and calling an election every time a prime minister resigns is just reinforcing this perception.

User avatar
Clive Brooker
Devotee
Posts: 501
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:37 pm
Location: San Toy

Re: EU Referendum

Post by Clive Brooker » Sun Jun 26, 2016 1:17 pm

Jennifer Steadman wrote:Absolutely no way that enough Leavers have felt 'Bregret' to change the result.
I don't know this to be true. Certainly if another vote were held tomorrow, then barring a statistical fluke the result wouldn't be 51.9%-48.1%. I don't have any problem imagining that a substantial proportion of leavers might now be regretting what they did, but no doubt there are also reasons why people might have shifted in the opposite direction.

Something that I think will happen very soon is that Cameron will come under enormous pressure over his refusal to initiate Article 50. If it is absolutely 100% certain that it will be initiated in due course, it's hard to see any benefit in delaying it, and plenty of reasons for doing it quickly. Cameron's reasons seemed pretty flimsy, and I can't see any other interpretation other than that he's hoping some event will mean it never has to happen.

User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 1470
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: EU Referendum

Post by Graeme Cole » Sun Jun 26, 2016 2:04 pm

Clive Brooker wrote:Something that I think will happen very soon is that Cameron will come under enormous pressure over his refusal to initiate Article 50. If it is absolutely 100% certain that it will be initiated in due course, it's hard to see any benefit in delaying it, and plenty of reasons for doing it quickly. Cameron's reasons seemed pretty flimsy, and I can't see any other interpretation other than that he's hoping some event will mean it never has to happen.
I don't blame Cameron for saying Article 50 would be invoked by the next prime minister. He campaigned to remain, so why should he be the one to push the button, and leave Boris/Gove/whoever in the easier position of being able to absolve some responsibility by saying "the country has now gone to shit, but it's been done now, by the previous guy, and it can't be undone, there's nothing I can do"?

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7820
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: EU Referendum

Post by Gavin Chipper » Sun Jun 26, 2016 2:36 pm

Graeme Cole wrote:
Clive Brooker wrote:Something that I think will happen very soon is that Cameron will come under enormous pressure over his refusal to initiate Article 50. If it is absolutely 100% certain that it will be initiated in due course, it's hard to see any benefit in delaying it, and plenty of reasons for doing it quickly. Cameron's reasons seemed pretty flimsy, and I can't see any other interpretation other than that he's hoping some event will mean it never has to happen.
I don't blame Cameron for saying Article 50 would be invoked by the next prime minister. He campaigned to remain, so why should he be the one to push the button, and leave Boris/Gove/whoever in the easier position of being able to absolve some responsibility by saying "the country has now gone to shit, but it's been done now, by the previous guy, and it can't be undone, there's nothing I can do"?
He was the geezer that called the referendum though so he should take some responsibility.

Also, there's a lot more to a government than its EU views, so there's no reason why the next prime minister couldn't be a "Bremainer". Campaigning to leave the EU was a separate thing from government - so the fact that Boris and Gove happen to be Tories doesn't mean they should automatically be in charge of the negotiations any more than Farage should.

But basically I would say that the two people who have most responsibility for this result are Cameron himself (for calling the referendum) and Farage as he's been the main guy for leaving over several years - never mind Boris and Gove jumping on the bandwagon for the official campaign.

User avatar
JimBentley
Legend
Posts: 2604
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm
Location: Redcar, UK
Contact:

Re: EU Referendum

Post by JimBentley » Sun Jun 26, 2016 2:52 pm

Graeme Cole wrote:
Clive Brooker wrote:Something that I think will happen very soon is that Cameron will come under enormous pressure over his refusal to initiate Article 50. If it is absolutely 100% certain that it will be initiated in due course, it's hard to see any benefit in delaying it, and plenty of reasons for doing it quickly. Cameron's reasons seemed pretty flimsy, and I can't see any other interpretation other than that he's hoping some event will mean it never has to happen.
I don't blame Cameron for saying Article 50 would be invoked by the next prime minister. He campaigned to remain, so why should he be the one to push the button, and leave Boris/Gove/whoever in the easier position of being able to absolve some responsibility by saying "the country has now gone to shit, but it's been done now, by the previous guy, and it can't be undone, there's nothing I can do"?
It's not really to do with what he wanted, it's more that he promised he would invoke Article 50 immediately on an "Out" vote in order to minimise the political and economical uncertainties that would inevitably arise. What he's actually done is the opposite; by not immediately resigning and triggering a leadership race, he's merely made a promise to step down at some vague future point (which as I type is already being pushed back from October to November). The reason for so doing - that time is needed to work out a "route plan" for exiting the EU - is shockingly disingenuous. I know the Conservatives are arrogant and incompetent, but to freely admit to having no plan for an "out" vote is almost beyond belief.

Meanwhile, thousands of small businesses in the UK who deal with Europe as a matter of course are now in limbo, completely unable to plan for the future, until the Conservatives get their act together and commit to some definite course of action.

And then on the other side, the same old set of Labour MPs who have been snidely agitating against Jeremy Corbyn ever since he was appointed leader seem to see this as an opportunity to place all the blame at his door (despite 60-something % of Labour voters voting "Remain") and plan a vote of "no confidence" tomorrow. That he is still overwhelmingly supported by party members seems to have escaped them; any future leadership vote would simply endorse Corbyn again, possibly with an even greater mandate. All this at a time that the Tories are in chaos and prime for a good kicking. You couldn't make it up.

Rant ends (for now).

Heather Styles

Re: EU Referendum

Post by Heather Styles » Sun Jun 26, 2016 5:26 pm

Cameron not invoking Article 50 comes as no surprise to me. This is simply the latest in a long line of things he said he would do but hasn't done (google "broken promises" and Cameron for an idea of the kind of thing I mean). I don't believe that he ever intended to do the dirty work himself - he outsourced what should, in my opinion, have been a government decision to the people of the United Kingdom and Gibraltar, and now we have had our say, he seems quite content to pass the buck to his successor. What a spineless man.

JJ Smith
Rookie
Posts: 37
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2016 7:14 pm

Re: EU Referendum

Post by JJ Smith » Sun Jun 26, 2016 8:34 pm

Jennifer Steadman wrote:Corbyn could promise pretty much anything and he would have no effect outside of yer luvvy cities - popular as he may be to a very particular set of voters, many others on the left - neither Blairites or Corbynites - are alienated by and disenchanted him, so God only knows who will vote for him if their most obvious supporters aren't keen.
No socialist will ever be elected if the other left-wingers gleefully do Murdoch's job of talking him down.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7820
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: EU Referendum

Post by Gavin Chipper » Sun Jun 26, 2016 9:11 pm

JJ Smith wrote:
Jennifer Steadman wrote:Corbyn could promise pretty much anything and he would have no effect outside of yer luvvy cities - popular as he may be to a very particular set of voters, many others on the left - neither Blairites or Corbynites - are alienated by and disenchanted him, so God only knows who will vote for him if their most obvious supporters aren't keen.
No socialist will ever be elected if the other left-wingers gleefully do Murdoch's job of talking him down.
I think that's the problem - what people have been saying about Corbyn rather than Corbyn himself.

If other Tories and the media had constantly said that David Cameron was a slimeball who had no real convictions and only backed policies that he thought would enhance his own reputation and leadership, then a) he wouldn't have lasted five minutes, and b) it would have been more justified than what's constantly being said about Corbyn.

Corbyn has had to face a real uphill struggle caused by what is essentially a bunch of cunts.

User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 1470
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: EU Referendum

Post by Graeme Cole » Sun Jun 26, 2016 10:49 pm

JJ Smith wrote:
Jennifer Steadman wrote:Corbyn could promise pretty much anything and he would have no effect outside of yer luvvy cities - popular as he may be to a very particular set of voters, many others on the left - neither Blairites or Corbynites - are alienated by and disenchanted him, so God only knows who will vote for him if their most obvious supporters aren't keen.
No socialist will ever be elected if the other left-wingers gleefully do Murdoch's job of talking him down.
Jeremy Corbyn is obviously a decent and honest person, and has some nice ideas. I looked on with interest when he was elected last year, believing that he'd bring something different from the estate-agent politicians he was perceived to be up against for the leadership. However, in the cold light of day, as leader he's been a wet paper bag. The job of the leader of the opposition is to hold the government to account, and in almost all cases present a contrary argument. In other words, oppose. Corbyn simply hasn't done that.

How would you have wanted the Labour leader to act before and after the referendum? He's nominally pro-Remain, but aside from a late and half-hearted acknowledgement that he'd decided it's worth staying in, and maybe a couple of speeches and statements, there wasn't much he did to show that. He didn't exactly place himself as the figurehead of the Remain campaign, an opposite number to Farage or Boris, did he? A leader of the opposition should have done. Even though both Remain and Leave sides tried to present panels for debates from across the political spectrum, Corbyn wouldn't even appear on the same Remain platform as a Conservative, lest it "discredited Labour". Does he really think that when Sadiq Khan shared Remain platforms with David Cameron and Ruth Davidson, people went away muttering that he was discrediting the party?

I don't know much details of Corbyn's referendum campaign - I hardly saw hide or hair of him - but if nearly half your party doesn't know your referendum position then you're probably doing something wrong.

And after the referendum result? At 8am on Friday morning, a leader of the opposition could have said any number of things that would have asserted his position as the European-friendly voice of the 48% while still not looking like a bad loser. "We're a democracy, the result should be respected, but time will tell that we've made the wrong decision" might have done. "To the UK's three million resident EU citizens now shit scared for their livelihoods and suffering xenophobic abuse, I want to reassure you that you're welcome in Britain, I'm on your side, and I'll continue to fight for your interests" would have been better (Sadiq Khan ended up doing this for him). "The younger generation have had their European freedom of movement rights needlessly stolen from them and thrown on the fire by their elders", if he wanted to be a bit more confrontational. "This was a very close result, it needs careful thought", if he wanted to take the risk of being seen as going against the people's verdict. Even "for fuck's sake, we as a country just failed an intelligence test" would have been something.

But instead, that Friday morning, he just called for the immediate activation of article 50, right now. Nothing in his statement even showed he was supposed to be a Remain campaigner. Even David Cameron's resignation speech, with the reassurance that there'd be no immediate change in status for EU citizens in the UK, contained more hope than that.

Am I doing Murdoch's job for him in saying all this? Well, what would Murdoch be more worried about going into the next general election? A bunch of Eurosceptics and BBC-bashers from the right wing of the Conservatives in power with no effective opposition? Or the same Tories in power but facing across the despatch box a more savvy and inspiring leader from the left?

Zarte Siempre
Kiloposter
Posts: 1056
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2012 8:56 pm
Location: Dadford, Buckinghamshire

Re: EU Referendum

Post by Zarte Siempre » Sun Jun 26, 2016 10:59 pm

Graeme Cole wrote:Jeremy...left?
Marry me, Graeme.
Possibly the first contestant to accelerate with a mic clipped...

User avatar
JimBentley
Legend
Posts: 2604
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm
Location: Redcar, UK
Contact:

Re: EU Referendum

Post by JimBentley » Sun Jun 26, 2016 11:31 pm

Graeme Cole wrote:I don't know much details of Corbyn's referendum campaign - I hardly saw hide or hair of him - but if nearly half your party doesn't know your referendum position then you're probably doing something wrong.
Whatever your personal views about Corbyn, I think this is a little unfair. I received daily emails during the campaign from (nominally) Jeremy Corbyn and various other Labour bods, detailing where they were campaigning, what was planned, how to get involved and so on. Whilst I imagine I received these because I'm a member of the party, all the same information was provided as a matter of course to the news media, who simply didn't report it, preferring to concentrate on the Tory in-fighting.
Graeme Cole wrote:And after the referendum result? At 8am on Friday morning, a leader of the opposition could have said any number of things that would have asserted his position as the European-friendly voice of the 48% while still not looking like a bad loser. "We're a democracy, the result should be respected, but time will tell that we've made the wrong decision" might have done. "To the UK's three million resident EU citizens now shit scared for their livelihoods and suffering xenophobic abuse, I want to reassure you that you're welcome in Britain, I'm on your side, and I'll continue to fight for your interests" would have been better (Sadiq Khan ended up doing this for him). "The younger generation have had their European freedom of movement rights needlessly stolen from them and thrown on the fire by their elders", if he wanted to be a bit more confrontational. "This was a very close result, it needs careful thought", if he wanted to take the risk of being seen as going against the people's verdict. Even "for fuck's sake, we as a country just failed an intelligence test" would have been something.
Had he said any of those things, or even hinted that the public had made the wrong decision, he would have been absolutely eviscerated for (pick your own) being a bad loser/espousing undemocratic views/being out of touch etc., as I think you well know.
Graeme Cole wrote:But instead, that Friday morning, he just called for the immediate activation of article 50, right now.
And given the above, what other position could he take? Cameron had already promised to do the same during the campaign (although obviously he's reneged on that now) and anyway, surely it is the pragmatic thing to do, given the referendum result? The public have - rightly or wrongly - made a decision on the matter and as it is not going to be overturned, it's in the public interest to get ball rolling immediately. In any case, it looks as though Cameron's delaying tactics are going to backfire as the EU aren't even going to enter into informal talks until Article 50 is invoked, so I think Corbyn will soon be proved right to say what he did.
Graeme Cole wrote:...facing across the despatch box a more savvy and inspiring leader from the left?
Who? I would take these sort of calls more seriously if somebody - anybody - could put a name to this supposed saviour of the Left. Go on, tell me who it is. I promise not to take this piss too much.

User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Kiloposter
Posts: 1883
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: Down in the tube station at midnight
Contact:

Re: EU Referendum

Post by Rhys Benjamin » Mon Jun 27, 2016 1:13 am

Survation Poll on whether Indy Ref 2 (the sequel) should occur:

Support 41%
Oppose 43%
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...

Heather Styles

Re: EU Referendum

Post by Heather Styles » Mon Jun 27, 2016 2:54 am

Sharing this link to the petition calling for a second EU referendum, and encouraging people to sign it, may well make me look like I'm clutching at straws. Well, as things stand, the Remain campaign has lost, so I'm not too proud to look desperate - I've got nothing to lose. https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215 If there is even the remotest possibility that this could make a positive difference by triggering a debate in Parliament, isn't it worth a try (even if not for this referendum, then for future ones)? There really is nothing to lose, and potentially a lot to gain. A result as close as the one we've just had does not seem anything like a strong enough basis for adopting any particular course of action. Nigel Farage said last month that 52-48 for Remain would be "unfinished business"; well, much as I despise that man's politics, I find myself sharing his sentiment. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/n ... 2c56393f12

Matthew Tassier
Acolyte
Posts: 208
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 11:37 am

Re: EU Referendum

Post by Matthew Tassier » Mon Jun 27, 2016 7:16 am

Heather Styles wrote:Sharing this link to the petition calling for a second EU referendum, and encouraging people to sign it, may well make me look like I'm clutching at straws. Well, as things stand, the Remain campaign has lost, so I'm not too proud to look desperate - I've got nothing to lose. https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/131215 If there is even the remotest possibility that this could make a positive difference by triggering a debate in Parliament, isn't it worth a try (even if not for this referendum, then for future ones)? There really is nothing to lose, and potentially a lot to gain. A result as close as the one we've just had does not seem anything like a strong enough basis for adopting any particular course of action. Nigel Farage said last month that 52-48 for Remain would be "unfinished business"; well, much as I despise that man's politics, I find myself sharing his sentiment. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/n ... 2c56393f12
"clutching at straws" is putting it mildly!

Heather Styles

Re: EU Referendum

Post by Heather Styles » Mon Jun 27, 2016 9:15 am

What I have yet to understand is why clutching at straws for a cause you still believe in is a bad thing. This was never a mandatory referendum, only advisory. There is a considerable amount that still needs to be done before Brexit happens, and there are those of us with cause to hope that it still may ever happen because we are not (yet) convinced that there will be any benefits. Call it unfinished business, if you will. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/n ... 2c56393f12

And Rhys, surely if we've learned one thing from this referendum, it's not to listen to the pollsters.

I wish you would lay off on Jeremy Corbyn, by the way, fellow Remainers. Murdoch really doesn't need us doing his job.

User avatar
Innis Carson
Devotee
Posts: 879
Joined: Sat Nov 15, 2008 3:24 pm

Re: EU Referendum

Post by Innis Carson » Mon Jun 27, 2016 10:18 am

Rhys Benjamin wrote:Survation Poll on whether Indy Ref 2 (the sequel) should occur:

Support 41%
Oppose 43%
I'm guessing you mean the same Survation poll which found 54-46 in favour of independence? Which is actually the question that would be decided by a public vote? Think that's probably worth mentioning.

User avatar
JimBentley
Legend
Posts: 2604
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm
Location: Redcar, UK
Contact:

Re: EU Referendum

Post by JimBentley » Mon Jun 27, 2016 2:08 pm

Heather Styles wrote:This was never a mandatory referendum, only advisory.
Unfortunately this is not the way in which it was sold to the public, who were under the impression that the decision would be binding. In fact, the government's own pro-Remain leaflet said explictly:
HM Government EU referndum leaflet wrote:This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.
No mention of legal challenges, parliamentary challenges or second referendums should the result not go their way, but "The Government will implement what you decide".

I didn't like the result either, but if it wasn't going to be binding, this should have been pointed out before the referendum, not after it. If Parliament subsequently overturns the decision, it will be seen as profoundly undemocratic; the political class once again telling the public what's best for them. And it will put UKIP in a position to actually gain a significant number of seats in any subsequent General Election.

Heather Styles

Re: EU Referendum

Post by Heather Styles » Mon Jun 27, 2016 2:22 pm

I didn't realise the leaflet said that, Jim. Even so, there was a lot that was factually incorrect about the leaflet, so I don't see why that particular statement has any particular weight. The reason that I don't mind sounding undemocratic about this is that there is anecdotal evidence that some people who voted Leave regretting the way they voted (now that they see that no-one appears to have any coherent plan as to what to do next). A second referendum potentially saves those people from the unintended consequences of their decision; I find this to be a morally persuasive argument.

Heather Styles

Re: EU Referendum

Post by Heather Styles » Mon Jun 27, 2016 2:23 pm

I didn't realise the leaflet said that, Jim. Even so, there was a lot that was factually incorrect about the leaflet, so I don't see why that particular statement has any particular weight. The reason that I don't mind sounding undemocratic about this is that there is anecdotal evidence that some people who voted Leave regretting the way they voted (now that they see that no-one appears to have any coherent plan as to what to do next). A second referendum potentially saves those people from the unintended consequences of their decision; I find this to be a morally persuasive argument.

Another chink of hope... http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 05181.html

User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3240
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: EU Referendum

Post by Ian Volante » Mon Jun 27, 2016 2:38 pm

The various things that are stacking up here make me think that Parliament may have the chutzpah to give the electorate two fingers, which may lead us to a general election. That election would then really test the issues around the idea of leaving the EU more thoroughly (well, it bloody well better do). Alternatively, we could continue headlong with bugger all idea about what to do or how to do it.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles

User avatar
Clive Brooker
Devotee
Posts: 501
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:37 pm
Location: San Toy

Re: EU Referendum

Post by Clive Brooker » Mon Jun 27, 2016 11:35 pm

Heather Styles wrote:The reason that I don't mind sounding undemocratic about this is that there is anecdotal evidence that some people who voted Leave regretting the way they voted (now that they see that no-one appears to have any coherent plan as to what to do next). A second referendum potentially saves those people from the unintended consequences of their decision; I find this to be a morally persuasive argument.
I agree, and I share your pain, as if that's going to help one iota. I don't think a second referendum on broadly the same question is the answer though.

My take is that as long as Article 50 remains uninvoked, there is hope. I don't buy Cameron's stated reason for not invoking it; I think that he, along with a majority of MPs, is hoping for a twist which will throw everything into question and make it acceptable to be talking in such terms. A "material change", if you will.

At the moment there seems to be a total impasse. The EU leaders want us to jump off the cliff but won't tell us what lies at the bottom until we're in the air. Understandable, but I don't think it's going to happen, and we could be here for some time. Until the EU stance shifts it would be madness to throw away the card that potentially allows us to suspend Brexit indefinitely.

For once, I'm OK with Cameron's reneging on this one; when he said he'd invoke Article 50 immediately I imagine he was trying to drive home just how deadly serious the whole thing is, and that it's not the time for a frivolous protest vote. Viewed alongside some of the other stuff we were fed, it was pretty forgiveable.

Heather Styles

Re: EU Referendum

Post by Heather Styles » Mon Jun 27, 2016 11:57 pm

Thanks, Clive, that's kind of you to say so. I am beginning to think that I might live to be grateful to Cameron for not invoking Article 50. Until and unless that is invoked, there is at least hope. I'm going to leave this discussion now.

David Roe
Enthusiast
Posts: 387
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:58 pm

Re: EU Referendum

Post by David Roe » Mon Jul 04, 2016 11:36 am

Ian Volante wrote:The various things that are stacking up here make me think that Parliament may have the chutzpah to give the electorate two fingers, which may lead us to a general election. That election would then really test the issues around the idea of leaving the EU more thoroughly (well, it bloody well better do). Alternatively, we could continue headlong with bugger all idea about what to do or how to do it.
"Parliament" doesn't have vote as such; 650 individual MPs do. And if the individual MPs want to do the following: 1 - stick two fingers up to the electorate and say they going to ignore the vote; 2 - call a general election and ask the public for their votes; I'd be surprised. Do turkeys vote for Christmas?

David Roe
Enthusiast
Posts: 387
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:58 pm

Re: EU Referendum

Post by David Roe » Mon Jul 04, 2016 11:40 am

Heather Styles wrote:What I have yet to understand is why clutching at straws for a cause you still believe in is a bad thing. This was never a mandatory referendum, only advisory.
I know Parliament suffers from playground politics to far too great an extent, but not quite to this extent. There's always the risk at school that you win the game against the bigger boy (or girl) who then says, that was for practice, the next one's for real. That's not going to happen. The referendum was marketed as the real thing, and for MPs to now say that was a practice run that doesn't count - it's not going to happen.

User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3240
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: EU Referendum

Post by Ian Volante » Mon Jul 04, 2016 11:44 am

David Roe wrote:
Heather Styles wrote:What I have yet to understand is why clutching at straws for a cause you still believe in is a bad thing. This was never a mandatory referendum, only advisory.
I know Parliament suffers from playground politics to far too great an extent, but not quite to this extent. There's always the risk at school that you win the game against the bigger boy (or girl) who then says, that was for practice, the next one's for real. That's not going to happen. The referendum was marketed as the real thing, and for MPs to now say that was a practice run that doesn't count - it's not going to happen.
I don't think they would say that. All they need to do is to say that they disagree.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles

Paul Worsley
Rookie
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:51 pm

Re: EU Referendum

Post by Paul Worsley » Mon Jul 04, 2016 2:59 pm

Of course, had the Scots voted for independence in 2014 the government might have had the chutzpah to say "This was never a mandatory referendum, only advisory".

When you realise why they wouldn't have, you'll realise why they can't do that now.

User avatar
JimBentley
Legend
Posts: 2604
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm
Location: Redcar, UK
Contact:

Re: EU Referendum

Post by JimBentley » Mon Jul 04, 2016 10:25 pm

Heather Styles wrote:What I have yet to understand is why clutching at straws for a cause you still believe in is a bad thing. This was never a mandatory referendum, only advisory.
As I said above, the referendum wasn't sold to the public by the PM that way; it went back a long time and - through fair means or foul - became something of a cornerstone of Conservative policy last election. Personally (trying to put myself in the minds of Conservative Central Office) I think it had to be, otherwise it would have meant another hung parliament. UKIP would probably have got a few MPs (maybe 7 or 8) but this wouldn't be enough and there would be no option of an attempted Nick Clegg-style power-grab to help them out this time (Nicole Sturgeon, for the faults she may have, would not jump into bed with the Conservatives simply to gain power).

I don't like it any more than you do, I didn't vote for it, but it happened and the way in which it was done negates any challenge really. It's done, so I would implore those involved to try to make the best of it. We'll end up with a worse deal for sure (after all, prior to Brexit, the UK had all kinds of extraordinary vetoes specifically denied other member states, which almost certainly won't be coming back) but for ffs let's at least start to get it over with rather than pretending that we can hold a democratic vote and then simply overturn - or re-run it - because it went the "wrong way".
David Roe wrote:The referendum was marketed as the real thing, and for MPs to now say that was a practice run that doesn't count - it's not going to happen.
And if it does happen, I think there'll be hell to pay. The percentage voting for parties other than Labour or the Conservatives has been steadily increasing since 1966 and a move to negate the result (which would be what both main parties would nominally be seen to be doing) could really change things. I don't think that will happen (the British media generally doesn't do nuance, so only the blandest policies are reported and they are pretty much without exception, Labour or Tory-led), but it would be really interesting to have say a seven-party system or something. There's be a lot of coalitions (and I suppose a lot of compromise) but that doesn't necessarily need to be a bad thing.

User avatar
Jennifer Steadman
Devotee
Posts: 982
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:34 pm
Location: Kent
Contact:

Re: EU Referendum

Post by Jennifer Steadman » Mon Jul 04, 2016 10:33 pm

Totally agree with Jim's last two posts. Perfectly put.
proud tiara owner and annoying publicity person who tells you to click links to the the FOCAL website.

(and also to my TRAVEL BLOG)

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7820
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: EU Referendum

Post by Gavin Chipper » Tue Jul 05, 2016 9:58 am

By the way, if this did have to go to a vote in parliament, do people here think there would be some sort of moral imperative for MPs to vote to leave, in order to respect the result of the referendum? If an MP was pro-remain throughout and strongly felt we should stay, should they vote to leave anyway?

An MP could argue that it was not their promise - it was David Cameron's - and it's not their job to be enabling Cameron's promises to be fulfilled. And also that it's not right that they should be in a position where they are somehow "democratically compelled" to vote against something they believe in.

User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 1470
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: EU Referendum

Post by Graeme Cole » Tue Jul 05, 2016 10:15 am

Gavin Chipper wrote:By the way, if this did have to go to a vote in parliament, do people here think there would be some sort of moral imperative for MPs to vote to leave, in order to respect the result of the referendum? If an MP was pro-remain throughout and strongly felt we should stay, should they vote to leave anyway?

An MP could argue that it was not their promise - it was David Cameron's - and it's not their job to be enabling Cameron's promises to be fulfilled. And also that it's not right that they should be in a position where they are somehow "democratically compelled" to vote against something they believe in.
I've wondered this. Yesterday, Liam Fox said that MPs who now vote against any legislation to leave the EU, going against the referendum result, "had no place in the House of Commons". But I don't think that's true. For example, my MP (Rob Wilson, Conservative, Reading East) was on the Remain side, and Reading voted 58-42 in favour of Remain. MPs are supposed to represent and serve their constituents, so does Rob Wilson not have a mandate to vote against leaving?

Paul Worsley
Rookie
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:51 pm

Re: EU Referendum

Post by Paul Worsley » Tue Jul 05, 2016 11:38 am

It was a referendum. A single question with a binary outcome. So, no, your MP does not have a mandate to vote against leaving.

User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3240
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: EU Referendum

Post by Ian Volante » Tue Jul 05, 2016 12:08 pm

Paul Worsley wrote:It was a referendum. A single question with a binary outcome. So, no, your MP does not have a mandate to vote against leaving.
That's the problem with binary questions - it's easy to exclude any nuance from responses. So, while your statement is correct, Graeme's is also correct in the other context. Every MP can vote how they like, and choose whatever mandate they perceive, because the referendum was not binding. If people don't like how parliament votes, then they can oust their MP.
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7820
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: EU Referendum

Post by Gavin Chipper » Tue Jul 05, 2016 12:32 pm

Can you imagine being put in a position where someone said to you "Look, there was a vote and the majority voted a certain way. But unfortunately I fucked it up, and it's not legally binding, so now you guys have to vote on it instead. Because the vote went the way it did, please can you also vote that way"?

I wouldn't feel obliged at all. What if the vote was on something more emotive like reintroducing the death penalty? It gets voted through in a referendum, but then it turns out it has to go through parliament as well. If I was an MP it would get a big "fuck off" from me, and if it does in that case, why not others? It's not the job of parliament to repair the fuck-up of Cameron. If a parliamentary vote goes against the public, it's all on Cameron, not the MPs who voted the "wrong" way.

Paul Worsley
Rookie
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:51 pm

Re: EU Referendum

Post by Paul Worsley » Tue Jul 05, 2016 12:44 pm

The PM does not need parliamentary approval to trigger aricle 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. That will start, most likely, in October 2016. There won't be a general election until 2020, by which time we're out anyway.

User avatar
Ian Volante
Postmaster General
Posts: 3240
Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Re: EU Referendum

Post by Ian Volante » Tue Jul 05, 2016 3:21 pm

Paul Worsley wrote:The PM does not need parliamentary approval to trigger aricle 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. That will start, most likely, in October 2016. There won't be a general election until 2020, by which time we're out anyway.
The lawyers say we do. On what basis do you disagree?
meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles meles

Paul Worsley
Rookie
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:51 pm

Re: EU Referendum

Post by Paul Worsley » Tue Jul 05, 2016 3:45 pm

On the basis that it's true. The lawyers are challenging it, but the PM could trigger article 50 tonight if he wanted.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7820
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: EU Referendum

Post by Gavin Chipper » Tue Jul 05, 2016 3:50 pm

A few people have made similar points and I think it's worth repeating. People voted out for all sorts of reasons (whether valid or not) - e.g. the perceived bureaucracy or lack of democracy of the EU, immigration levels, sovereignty, lack of jobs, low wages, the shape of bananas, and even good old old-fashioned racism and probably many other reasons. So there's no mandate for any particular exit strategy. And however we end up leaving, a lot of people who voted out are likely to say "Well, that's not the "out" I voted for". And staying in would probably be preferable to going out under some conditions for a lot of the people who voted out.

So in a way, this was a bit of a stupid referendum. "Out" isn't one thing. We could say that "in" was option 1, and "out" was options 2 to 10. And people were voting for either option 1 or a lottery between options 2 to 10. Of the many options, we've had a referendum to just rule out one of them. It's like saying "What do you want for your birthday - a tenner or some other amount?"

Paul Worsley
Rookie
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:51 pm

Re: EU Referendum

Post by Paul Worsley » Tue Jul 05, 2016 4:00 pm

Graeme Cole wrote: I've wondered this. Yesterday, Liam Fox said that MPs who now vote against any legislation to leave the EU, going against the referendum result, "had no place in the House of Commons". But I don't think that's true. For example, my MP (Rob Wilson, Conservative, Reading East) was on the Remain side, and Reading voted 58-42 in favour of Remain. MPs are supposed to represent and serve their constituents, so does Rob Wilson not have a mandate to vote against leaving?
Presumably you only want MPs who agree with you to ignore the referendum result. Interestingly, of the 399 areas to declare in the early hours of the 24th, 270 voted leave v 129 who voted remain.

User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 1470
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: EU Referendum

Post by Graeme Cole » Tue Jul 05, 2016 4:13 pm

Paul Worsley wrote:
Graeme Cole wrote: I've wondered this. Yesterday, Liam Fox said that MPs who now vote against any legislation to leave the EU, going against the referendum result, "had no place in the House of Commons". But I don't think that's true. For example, my MP (Rob Wilson, Conservative, Reading East) was on the Remain side, and Reading voted 58-42 in favour of Remain. MPs are supposed to represent and serve their constituents, so does Rob Wilson not have a mandate to vote against leaving?
Presumably you only want MPs who agree with you to ignore the referendum result. Interestingly, of the 399 areas to declare in the early hours of the 24th, 270 voted leave v 129 who voted remain.
Yes, I know there aren't enough Remain-voting constituencies to actually block the legislation, even if all such MPs tried to. But it matters how individual MPs vote. Their voting record is permanent and openly published. People still bring up how individual MPs voted on the Iraq war, for example.
Paul Worsley wrote:On the basis that it's true. The lawyers are challenging it, but the PM could trigger article 50 tonight if he wanted.
The PM could say what he wants, but it doesn't mean it would have any effect if such an action were not in accordance with the country's constitutional requirements, as required by article 50. The fact that the UK doesn't have an explicit constitution document makes this a bit harder to decide, but that's why we have experts.

Paul Worsley
Rookie
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:51 pm

Re: EU Referendum

Post by Paul Worsley » Tue Jul 05, 2016 4:28 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:A few people have made similar points and I think it's worth repeating. People voted out for all sorts of reasons (whether valid or not) - e.g. the perceived bureaucracy or lack of democracy of the EU, immigration levels, sovereignty, lack of jobs, low wages, the shape of bananas, and even good old old-fashioned racism and probably many other reasons. So there's no mandate for any particular exit strategy. And however we end up leaving, a lot of people who voted out are likely to say "Well, that's not the "out" I voted for". And staying in would probably be preferable to going out under some conditions for a lot of the people who voted out.
I agree, but it would have been the same had Remain won. It's probably true for every General election too.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7820
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: EU Referendum

Post by Gavin Chipper » Tue Jul 05, 2016 4:37 pm

Paul Worsley wrote:
Gavin Chipper wrote:A few people have made similar points and I think it's worth repeating. People voted out for all sorts of reasons (whether valid or not) - e.g. the perceived bureaucracy or lack of democracy of the EU, immigration levels, sovereignty, lack of jobs, low wages, the shape of bananas, and even good old old-fashioned racism and probably many other reasons. So there's no mandate for any particular exit strategy. And however we end up leaving, a lot of people who voted out are likely to say "Well, that's not the "out" I voted for". And staying in would probably be preferable to going out under some conditions for a lot of the people who voted out.
I agree, but it would have been the same had Remain won. It's probably true for every General election too.
People voted for remain for many different reasons, but they were basically voting for the same thing - no change, or no immediate sudden change at least.

Paul Worsley
Rookie
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:51 pm

Re: EU Referendum

Post by Paul Worsley » Tue Jul 05, 2016 4:40 pm

I would argue that there was no option for "no change" on the ballot paper.

User avatar
Clive Brooker
Devotee
Posts: 501
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2009 7:37 pm
Location: San Toy

Re: EU Referendum

Post by Clive Brooker » Tue Jul 05, 2016 5:51 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:A few people have made similar points and I think it's worth repeating. People voted out for all sorts of reasons (whether valid or not) - e.g. the perceived bureaucracy or lack of democracy of the EU, immigration levels, sovereignty, lack of jobs, low wages, the shape of bananas, and even good old old-fashioned racism and probably many other reasons. So there's no mandate for any particular exit strategy. And however we end up leaving, a lot of people who voted out are likely to say "Well, that's not the "out" I voted for". And staying in would probably be preferable to going out under some conditions for a lot of the people who voted out.

So in a way, this was a bit of a stupid referendum. "Out" isn't one thing. We could say that "in" was option 1, and "out" was options 2 to 10. And people were voting for either option 1 or a lottery between options 2 to 10. Of the many options, we've had a referendum to just rule out one of them. It's like saying "What do you want for your birthday - a tenner or some other amount?"
There was a glaring fault with the Scottish independence referendum, repeated in the EU referendum, in that the jumpers automatically get the option to demand unlimited replays. The stayers, in both sagas, can never conclusively win. The chickens vote for bacon, the pigs vote for eggs; in the long run there can only be one winner.

Another reason why I believe the EU referendum was biased in favour of Leave is that some of Gevin's options 2 to 10 were mutually exclusive, but voters needed to be watching closely to notice this. The same banknote was offered to more than one person at the same time, whilst concealing the fact that its final destination would be decided later by a lottery. Before the vote, I would have taken it for granted that in a public vote the side which is divided is doomed, whereas the leavers seem to have turned that logic on its head.

Obviously at the moment I'm primarily motivated to find flaws in the leave case. Having freely admitted that, I would say that for these and many other reasons the referendum was unfit for purpose.

But, as Jim has pointed out, by and large the public has confidence in what was done. Perhaps this consideration - confidence is king and all that - trumps everything else.

On the subject of Article 50, I really can't see a PM pressing the button without explicit parliamentary approval given that there's so much doubt, but nothing will be a total surprise now. Maybe there will be a motion to give the PM that authority when he/she sees fit. This is something that remain MPs could oppose without explicitly taking a stand against Brexit, but the implication would be clear.

If there's one thing I can't fathom in all this, it why on earth would anyone throw away their valuable negotiating cards before talks begin? The most literal interpretation of the referendum result would require us to do this, but to me this seems like an awful negotiating stance. If the EU can be persuaded that we really might pull back from the precipice, we'll be in a much better place. I think this stance is entirely consistent with respecting the will of people - who, crucially, gave no instructions on how to proceed - but the screams of betrayal would be deafening.

Gavin Chipper
Post-apocalypse
Posts: 7820
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2008 10:37 pm

Re: EU Referendum

Post by Gavin Chipper » Tue Jul 05, 2016 6:00 pm

Paul Worsley wrote:I would argue that there was no option for "no change" on the ballot paper.
Other than Cameron's "reforms", what changes would we have expected from a "remain" vote?

Paul Worsley
Rookie
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Dec 19, 2011 8:51 pm

Re: EU Referendum

Post by Paul Worsley » Wed Jul 06, 2016 12:30 pm

Gavin Chipper wrote:
Paul Worsley wrote:I would argue that there was no option for "no change" on the ballot paper.
Other than Cameron's "reforms", what changes would we have expected from a "remain" vote?
I was thinking specifically further political union, which I believe to be inevitable. Also the likelihood of an economic collapse in one of the PIIGS economies, Italy being the most worrying.

User avatar
JimBentley
Legend
Posts: 2604
Joined: Fri Jan 11, 2008 6:39 pm
Location: Redcar, UK
Contact:

Re: EU Referendum

Post by JimBentley » Tue Aug 09, 2016 7:34 pm

Quite an interesting article here that I think sums up the situation in this part of the world (northeast England) quite nicely. Once again, it's the communities that did best by the EU (through grants, subsidies, protections etc.) are also the ones least affected by mass immigration, yet they are the ones that most vehemently voted "out". Wales on the whole did the same. As for the 'If this money doesn't go to the NHS, I will go mad'...words fail me. I didn't think even the most hardcore Exit voter believed that particular trope.

Ryan Taylor
Postmaster General
Posts: 3661
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2009 6:18 pm

Re: EU Referendum

Post by Ryan Taylor » Thu Aug 18, 2016 9:08 am

JimBentley wrote:Once again, it's the communities that did best by the EU (through grants, subsidies, protections etc.) are also the ones least affected by mass immigration, yet they are the ones that most vehemently voted "out".
Anecdotally, I've found this the case too. Where I'm originally from (an East Yorkshire village just outside Hull) and other surrounding villages that are nearby, voted leave based largely on immigration despite the fact that when you're in these villages, all you see is white, English folk.

Now living in Glasgow where migration is huge and the city hosting a wealth of people from all over the world - we voted 2:1 in favour of remain. I still have to laugh at some Brexiteers who grumble about immigration but then live in these rural, all-white communities, hosting garden parties with British flags pinned up and discussing the newest photos of Baby George.

Peter Mabey
Devotee
Posts: 957
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 3:15 pm
Location: Harlow

Re: EU Referendum

Post by Peter Mabey » Mon Aug 22, 2016 3:30 pm

If you live in one of those places least affected by immigration, all you'll know about it will be the lies you read in the Mail and Telegraph :(

User avatar
Rhys Benjamin
Kiloposter
Posts: 1883
Joined: Thu Sep 09, 2010 4:28 pm
Location: Down in the tube station at midnight
Contact:

Re: EU Referendum

Post by Rhys Benjamin » Sat Aug 27, 2016 4:50 am

A little part of me always thought that the result wouldn't be the catastrophe both sides had made it out to be, and it looks that might be the case. Brexageddon doesn't appear to be happening, and the EU have suddenly gone schtum on EU army plans.
The forum's resident JAILBAKER, who has SPONDERED several times...

User avatar
Graeme Cole
Series 65 Champion
Posts: 1470
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 9:59 pm

Re: EU Referendum

Post by Graeme Cole » Sat Aug 27, 2016 10:17 am

Rhys Benjamin wrote:A little part of me always thought that the result wouldn't be the catastrophe both sides had made it out to be, and it looks that might be the case. Brexageddon doesn't appear to be happening, and the EU have suddenly gone schtum on EU army plans.
We haven't even started the process of leaving yet.

But still, nothing bad appears to be happening right now.... apart from the pound having tanked, British scientists being shut out of European science projects, race hate incidents up 42% on the same time last year, and Britain's image abroad being firmly cemented as an isolationist, xenophobic, anti-immigrant walled garden, only celebrated by the likes of Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen, whose citizens hate foreigners so much that we're prepared to sacrifice our economy, international movement rights and world trade arrangements for a vague not-quite-promise of reducing their numbers.

User avatar
Jennifer Steadman
Devotee
Posts: 982
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:34 pm
Location: Kent
Contact:

Re: EU Referendum

Post by Jennifer Steadman » Sat Aug 27, 2016 5:08 pm

Graeme Cole wrote:
Rhys Benjamin wrote:A little part of me always thought that the result wouldn't be the catastrophe both sides had made it out to be, and it looks that might be the case. Brexageddon doesn't appear to be happening, and the EU have suddenly gone schtum on EU army plans.
We haven't even started the process of leaving yet.

But still, nothing bad appears to be happening right now.... apart from the pound having tanked, British scientists being shut out of European science projects, race hate incidents up 42% on the same time last year, and Britain's image abroad being firmly cemented as an isolationist, xenophobic, anti-immigrant walled garden, only celebrated by the likes of Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen, whose citizens hate foreigners so much that we're prepared to sacrifice our economy, international movement rights and world trade arrangements for a vague not-quite-promise of reducing their numbers.
Yeah, it's wayyy too early to know whether Brexit has been a good or bad thing overall (as Graeme states, we haven't actually started leaving yet). Although I assume Rhys was referring to the economic fall-out from the result, to base how catastrophic it's been solely on financial terms is massively short-sighted - it's obviously a catastrophe for the people who have faced untempered xenophobia since the vote.

Still, at least that £350 million a week is going to our NHS ;)
proud tiara owner and annoying publicity person who tells you to click links to the the FOCAL website.

(and also to my TRAVEL BLOG)

User avatar
Jennifer Steadman
Devotee
Posts: 982
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 10:34 pm
Location: Kent
Contact:

Re: EU Referendum

Post by Jennifer Steadman » Mon Feb 27, 2017 11:20 am

Jennifer Steadman wrote:
Tue Mar 29, 2016 11:23 pm
- People complain about our contribution to the EU, but what we receive back in funding has stimulated the economies of some of the poorest parts of the UK, (especially Cornwall)
turkey votes for Christmas?
proud tiara owner and annoying publicity person who tells you to click links to the the FOCAL website.

(and also to my TRAVEL BLOG)

Heather Styles
Rookie
Posts: 95
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:29 pm

Re: EU Referendum

Post by Heather Styles » Fri Jun 23, 2017 10:40 am

So, Leave voters, a year on - how's Brexit working out for you? Are you pleased with the start of the negotiations with the EU? Did the NHS ever get that £350 million a week? How are things looking in Northern Ireland and Scotland? Happy 'independence' day.

User avatar
Marc Meakin
Fanatic
Posts: 2836
Joined: Wed May 20, 2009 3:37 pm

Re: EU Referendum

Post by Marc Meakin » Fri Jun 23, 2017 5:49 pm

Interesting statistic . 13.5% of Brexiters have changed their mind
GR MSL GNDT MSS NGVWL SRND NNLYC NNCT

Heather Styles
Rookie
Posts: 95
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:29 pm

Re: EU Referendum

Post by Heather Styles » Fri Jun 23, 2017 10:25 pm

That's an encouraging statistic. I hope that our sorry excuse for a government takes note.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest