Brexit is off ?

andarkian posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

In considering what might be the significance of the people who did not vote, it is relevant that the referendum was effectively a vote to change, and for a vote to change it is not unreasonable to expect a majority of PEOPLE, rather than a majority of voters, to declare that as their preference.

Although  the ballot paper had the two options, that was not necessarily clear to everyone unless they turned up at the polling station and people not wanting to leave may quite reasonably have felt that there was no imperative to go along and say that, whereas everyone who wanted to leave would have wanted to go and make sure they were counted.

That doesn't mean that all who didn't viote wanted to stay, rather they would be a mixture of want to stays and don't care/mind - making conclusions based on the actual number who voted unsafe. That is why in many referenda the proportion to carry the change is much higher (different of course if voting is compulsory).

At first I just thought you were making random statements through intoxicants, but did stick with it and do get your logic.

However, whichever way you cut it (Freudian slip), and no matter how unreasonable you feel the approach taken was, didn't the deep thinkers in Parliament take all of this into account when they voted 6/1 to have a Referendum based on a simple majority? I also think that your belief that the electorate is incapable of deciphering two simple options, Leave or Remain, is a trifle demeaning. 

Other than that am not sure where you were going with your comment. Somehow I don't think it was in the direction of the door marked Brexit, or at least not very willingly. 

"Deep thinkers" and "in Parliament" is an oxymoron.

I very much doubt whether anybody in Parliament gave it a second thought ! Not even Boris.

Well, Americans have done their equivalent of Brexit - so look to the dollar dropping similarly to the pound: maybe the exchange rate in that direction will return to pre-Brexit levels.

How many are now in disbelief, I wonder, and wondering what it means for global relationships?

Truly scary.  It looks like people have had enough of the status quo and of politicians who don't listen and are willing to enter stormy waters to try to bring about change.  We live is interesting times.  Although I have heard that there are some teenagers in Florida who didn;t vote so perhaps they will just rerun it? 

unfortunately the Americans are stuck with trump. In contrast to brexit, the vote wasn't a recommendation.

Don Atkinson posted:

andarkian posted:

Innocent Bystander posted:

In considering what might be the significance of the people who did not vote, it is relevant that the referendum was effectively a vote to change, and for a vote to change it is not unreasonable to expect a majority of PEOPLE, rather than a majority of voters, to declare that as their preference.

Although  the ballot paper had the two options, that was not necessarily clear to everyone unless they turned up at the polling station and people not wanting to leave may quite reasonably have felt that there was no imperative to go along and say that, whereas everyone who wanted to leave would have wanted to go and make sure they were counted.

That doesn't mean that all who didn't viote wanted to stay, rather they would be a mixture of want to stays and don't care/mind - making conclusions based on the actual number who voted unsafe. That is why in many referenda the proportion to carry the change is much higher (different of course if voting is compulsory).

At first I just thought you were making random statements through intoxicants, but did stick with it and do get your logic.

However, whichever way you cut it (Freudian slip), and no matter how unreasonable you feel the approach taken was, didn't the deep thinkers in Parliament take all of this into account when they voted 6/1 to have a Referendum based on a simple majority? I also think that your belief that the electorate is incapable of deciphering two simple options, Leave or Remain, is a trifle demeaning. 

Other than that am not sure where you were going with your comment. Somehow I don't think it was in the direction of the door marked Brexit, or at least not very willingly. 

"Deep thinkers" and "in Parliament" is an oxymoron.

I very much doubt whether anybody in Parliament gave it a second thought ! Not even Boris.

I would have hoped that it being myself who was reponding to yourself you would have understood sarcasm and a deep distaste for the inhabitants of our Parliament and House of Lords. Anyway, now that the liberal World's been Trumped can we start to move on. 

fatcat posted:

I presume at this very moment, hundreds of economist, mathematicians and other learned people employed by the government will be busy calculating the financial hit or gain of taking this option, that option or another option. If it turns out the choice is between disastrous, very disastrous or completely disastrous, the government will have to declare the result of the referendum can not be implemented.

The quitters may not like it, but, it will be for their own good. Rather like preventing a person with suicidal thoughts from jumping off a tower block.

The problem is no one believes anything they are told by politicians anymore and for people at the bottom of the sh1t pile no matter whose in power their lot never gets any better. I think a lot of people voted leave because they think it could not be any worse in the long term than remaining. People have just had enough of the political elite 'blowing smoke up their a**' and nothing changing for them. With that in mind they felt they had nothing to lose by voting for change i.e. leave.

Southweststokie posted:

fatcat posted:

I presume at this very moment, hundreds of economist, mathematicians and other learned people employed by the government will be busy calculating the financial hit or gain of taking this option, that option or another option. If it turns out the choice is between disastrous, very disastrous or completely disastrous, the government will have to declare the result of the referendum can not be implemented.

The quitters may not like it, but, it will be for their own good. Rather like preventing a person with suicidal thoughts from jumping off a tower block.

The problem is no one believes anything they are told by politicians anymore and for people at the bottom of the sh1t pile no matter whose in power their lot never gets any better. I think a lot of people voted leave because they think it could not be any worse in the long term than remaining. People have just had enough of the political elite 'blowing smoke up their a**' and nothing changing for them. With that in mind they felt they had nothing to lose by voting for change i.e. leave.

.........and just how wrong they were !

Dictator May is now in charge. And the Supreme Court might just as well not exist.

We wanted our sovereignty back. We got a dictator.

(you will have to look at one of my previous posts to appreciate the difference between We and We).

.........and just how wrong they were !

Dictator May is now in charge. And the Supreme Court might just as well not exist.

We wanted our sovereignty back. We got a dictator.

(you will have to look at one of my previous posts to appreciate the difference between We and We).

Yes, and it appears you want us to redefine Won and Won in terms of the Referendum. Let's be clear, the Brexiteers Won and the Remainers Lost and if May has ambitions to be a dictator all she has to do at the moment is call a General Election and we will be back to a one Party state. Don't you just love the sight of Snowflakes being melted all over the world?

Don Atkinson posted:

Southweststokie posted:

fatcat posted:

I presume at this very moment, hundreds of economist, mathematicians and other learned people employed by the government will be busy calculating the financial hit or gain of taking this option, that option or another option. If it turns out the choice is between disastrous, very disastrous or completely disastrous, the government will have to declare the result of the referendum can not be implemented.

The quitters may not like it, but, it will be for their own good. Rather like preventing a person with suicidal thoughts from jumping off a tower block.

The problem is no one believes anything they are told by politicians anymore and for people at the bottom of the sh1t pile no matter whose in power their lot never gets any better. I think a lot of people voted leave because they think it could not be any worse in the long term than remaining. People have just had enough of the political elite 'blowing smoke up their a**' and nothing changing for them. With that in mind they felt they had nothing to lose by voting for change i.e. leave.

.........and just how wrong they were !

Dictator May is now in charge. And the Supreme Court might just as well not exist.

We wanted our sovereignty back. We got a dictator.

(you will have to look at one of my previous posts to appreciate the difference between We and We).

And in a few years you can vote her out which is more than could be said for the EU.  We call it democracy and we shouldn't have given it away in the first place

andarkian and dayjay, you both appear to have mis-understood.

I was talking about the requirement that Parliament, and only Parliament can provide the necessary Act of Parliament required to trigger A50. May seems to think this isn't required.

Don Atkinson posted:

andarkian and dayjay, you both appear to have mis-understood.

I was talking about the requirement that Parliament, and only Parliament can provide the necessary Act of Parliament required to trigger A50. May seems to think this isn't required.

 

Don, the courts will decide I guess and she will have to comply with their ruling.

That's right Dayjay. And I pointed that out a few posts ago. May simply appears to be presuming the future is her's to decide and her's alone.

Even Tony B Liar had the decency to seek the support of Parliament before going to war in Iraq. And even Chilcot could only taint him with some form of "negligence" in the way information was obtained and used in the Parliamentary debate.

May should take a careful look at Chilcot. If she isn't careful, she will be the subject of a similar enquiry in 10 years time - assuming we have the resources and integrity to mount such enquiries in her future dictatorship !

Eloise posted:

dave marshall posted:

They also have the right to expect people, by now, to gently put their toys back into the pram, and accept that decision, surely?

Or is that asking too much?  

Sorry but yes, it's too much to ask that people who genuinely feel that the UK has taken a mistep just bury their head in the sand.  

Yes, it's too much to expect that our elected representatives just sit back and watch as an unelected (except by her own MPs) prime minister sets a direction for this country which could last for 40+ years.  

Yes, it's too much to expect that we just accept without question the views of the non-Doms and forigeners who control the propaganda machines of the press.

Eloise,

I'm afraid you are confusing acceptance of the referendum outcome, with concern over how that decision will best be implemented.

I share the view that the best possible outcome for the UK should be pursued, and am aware that compromise will be involved.

What I have no patience with is the ongoing view that the referendum result itself was unrepresentative and should either be ignored, or re-run, as "the majority did not vote to leave", based on some mystical knowledge of how the non voters might have cast their ballot.

Any right minded person has concerns as we enter this period of uncertainty, but let's at least concentrate on the process, and, as I suggested, "put our toys back in the pram". 

Dave,

Can I ask you a couple of questions, related to what happens in Scotland in the event that May decides to go (unilaterally) for a 'Hard BREXIT' when there is no evidence that this is the wish of the people who voted 'Leave', let alone the majority of people in the UK.

In the event that Nicola Sturgeon decides to hold a fresh referendum to determine whether or not Scotland remains in the UK, do you believe that it will be carried out under the same rules as the BREXIT election - i.e. the majority of those that vote on the day can claim outright victory and a carte-blanche mandate to begin the act of separation as and how they/she thinks fit? Do you really think Theresa May will agree to a referendum without some safeguards being put in place, such as a requirement to have at least 50% support (or more) from the population of Scotland as a whole (and not simply from those who can be bothered to vote) in order to be deemed valid?

What rules and safeguards should be put in place, or do you just not care? Would you be happy or indifferent about the break up of the United Kingdom?

The Brexit referendum should never have been held in the first place, but even more importantly a decision of this importance should not have been subject to the fleeting and transient whim of voters on the day in a one-off referendum.

Decisions such as the UK's place in Europe and the prospective Independence of parts of the UK should not be determined so easily and lightly.

dave marshall posted:

Eloise posted:

dave marshall posted:

They also have the right to expect people, by now, to gently put their toys back into the pram, and accept that decision, surely?

Or is that asking too much?  

Sorry but yes, it's too much to ask that people who genuinely feel that the UK has taken a mistep just bury their head in the sand.  

Yes, it's too much to expect that our elected representatives just sit back and watch as an unelected (except by her own MPs) prime minister sets a direction for this country which could last for 40+ years.  

Yes, it's too much to expect that we just accept without question the views of the non-Doms and forigeners who control the propaganda machines of the press.

Eloise,

I'm afraid you are confusing acceptance of the referendum outcome, with concern over how that decision will best be implemented.

I share the view that the best possible outcome for the UK should be pursued, and am aware that compromise will be involved.

What I have no patience with is the ongoing view that the referendum result itself was unrepresentative and should either be ignored, or re-run, as "the majority did not vote to leave", based on some mystical knowledge of how the non voters might have cast their ballot.

Any right minded person has concerns as we enter this period of uncertainty, but let's at least concentrate on the process, and, as I suggested, "put our toys back in the pram". 

 

 

dave, with all due respect, the highlighted words are factually correct. I introduced such words in response to the hysterical bursts of pure anger and hatred being espoused by one or two people here (and arch-brexiteers on Question Time and elsewhere) that "The people" voted to Leave.

"The People" includes me. I didn't vote to leave. I would like these Brexiteers to stop including me in "The People" in this context or use some other words to decribe the c.17m Leave Voters..

dave marshall posted:

I share the view that the best possible outcome for the UK should be pursued, and am aware that compromise will be involved.

What I have no patience with is the ongoing view that the referendum result itself was unrepresentative and should either be ignored, or re-run, as "the majority did not vote to leave", based on some mystical knowledge of how the non voters might have cast their ballot.

I agree that the referendum result (while flawed*) must either be respected and acted on; or parliament should have the balls to stand up and say "NO" this is not whats best for the country; thank you for participating but we are going to ignore the result.  That was the referendum; constitutionally it CAN be ignored; politically that would be suicide.

(Note *: I've commented on why I feel it was flawed before so not going to again)

But whenever so called "remoaners" (not suggesting that you specifically have used that term) make any suggestion that parliament should be involved then the stock answer comes back "We voted for Brexit" and "Brexit means Brexit" and other such useless platitudes.  If a remoaner suggest that parliament should know details of the aims of the government in negotiations, you are accused of undermining the negotiations or being a traitor to the British and worse.

So on going debate and discussion is not "throwing toys out the pram" and its that phrase and similar ones which are going to annoy people.

David Davis has announced today pledges to share Brexit thinking with the devolved governments ... sorry but that shouldn't be a story because that should be the default position.  Its like "how dare those elected people have any say over how the people who elected them are affected by our decisions".

Any right minded person has concerns as we enter this period of uncertainty, but let's at least concentrate on the process, and, as I suggested, "put our toys back in the pram". 

We cannot "concentrate on the process" until Teressa May, David Davis, et al. actually allow the sovereign power (e.g. parliament) to know and debate what the aims of the process are.  The argument about the flaws in the referendum are mostly because of the lack of openness being shown in the process.

In the same way as you cannot say that the referendum was invalid because of the 1/3 (approximately) who didn't vote to leave; you cannot say that the referendum gave a clear direction over what the 55% majority want because that wasn't the question asked.  It was a (deliberately) abstract question.  That doesn't make the referendum invalid; it does however mean that parliament should be fully engaged with the process going forward rather than just accepting dictatums from No. 10.

 

 

dave, with all due respect, the highlighted words are factually correct. I introduced such words in response to the hysterical bursts of pure anger and hatred being espoused by one or two people here (and arch-brexiteers on Question Time and elsewhere) that "The people" voted to Leave.

"The People" includes me. I didn't vote to leave. I would like these Brexiteers to stop including me in "The People" in this context or use some other words to decribe the c.17m Leave Voters..

The Majority of the people voted to Leave. I lived in Scotland for many, many years and never voted Labour in my life but had to accept both local and national decisions. Why can't you give it a rest? After last night's Trump victory have you seen the faces of Schauble, Merkel and Hollande. The writing is on the wall for the whole undemocratic disgrace that is the EU. 

andarkian posted:

 

 

dave, with all due respect, the highlighted words are factually correct. I introduced such words in response to the hysterical bursts of pure anger and hatred being espoused by one or two people here (and arch-brexiteers on Question Time and elsewhere) that "The people" voted to Leave.

"The People" includes me. I didn't vote to leave. I would like these Brexiteers to stop including me in "The People" in this context or use some other words to decribe the c.17m Leave Voters..

The Majority of the people voted to Leave. I lived in Scotland for many, many years and never voted Labour in my life but had to accept both local and national decisions. Why can't you give it a rest? After last night's Trump victory have you seen the faces of Schauble, Merkel and Hollande. The writing is on the wall for the whole undemocratic disgrace that is the EU. 

andarkian. unfortunately you are completely wrong.

As I keep on pointing out, the Majority of the people didn't vote to leave.

It was only a slight majority of those who voted, that voted to leave.

_{(And a fair proportion of those that voted to leave were mis-led by lies and deceit and another fair proportion voted as a protest against the "ruling elite" and many of both these group are now known to wish they hadn't voted or wish they had voted to remain.) I have put this in "small print" because that's what it is....."the small print"}

26% voted to leave apparently.

Not even the majority of the people voted to leave.

The majority of those who voted voted to leave.

However, that was the criterion for exiting the EU and that will now happen (as is appropriate - assuming a socially, politically and economically viable way to do so can be found).

If (and only if) the only way to leave the EU is definitively* and substantially disastrous for the country - and that's an extremely unlikely event - then it should be vetoed by Parliament (as one of the headline principles on which the leavers voted was the sovereignty of Parliament) and a General Election should be called.

*  i.e. As obvious and definitive a result as can be obtained in the fields of politics sociology and finance, and not just based on anything similar to the pre-vote invective, rhetoric, rumour and outright lies.

Don Atkinson posted:

andarkian. unfortunately you are completely wrong.

As I keep on pointing out, the Majority of the people didn't vote to leave.

It was only a slight majority of those who voted, that voted to leave.

_{(And a fair proportion of those that voted to leave were mis-led by lies and deceit and another fair proportion voted as a protest against the "ruling elite" and many of both these group are now known to wish they hadn't voted or wish they had voted to remain.) I have put this in "small print" because that's what it is....."the small print"}

In that case the Conservative party did not win the last general election nor did Tony B liar before them as neither of them won more than 50% of the available vote. Our constitution operates on a 'first past the post' basis does it not? No matter how much people continue to go on about it, Leave won more votes than Remain, none voters disqualify themselves by failing to make the effort to vote and express an opinion, that's the way our particular form of democracy works and has done for decades and decades.

Stating inaccuracies doesn't help though. and it annoys the hell out of me when politicians or whoever claim to have the majority of the country behind them, as opposed to a majority of the active electorate. They have a mandate but that isn't always the  same thing.

Southweststokie posted:

In that case the Conservative party did not win the last general election nor did Tony B liar before them as neither of them won more than 50% of the available vote. Our constitution operates on a 'first past the post' basis does it not? No matter how much people continue to go on about it, Leave won more votes than Remain, none voters disqualify themselves by failing to make the effort to vote and express an opinion, that's the way our particular form of democracy works and has done for decades and decades.

Not correct either logically or legally.

The only parts of your post that are basically correct are
"Our constitution operates on a 'first past the post' basis" (only applies to elections).
"Leave won more votes than Remain" (true).

Southweststokie posted:

In that case the Conservative party did not win the last general election nor did Tony B liar before them as neither of them won more than 50% of the available vote.

Yes the Conservative party DID win the last general election.  They "won" because the British constitution says that the party who's members win the most seats is invited by the Queen to form a government.  They did not however win a majority of the (popular) vote and definitely a majority of the people (defined as the whole population or even just the eligible voters) did NOT vote for them.

Our constitution operates on a 'first past the post' basis does it not?

Correct - for general elections.  But this was a referendum which can be worded to have any requirement the government wished as there is no constitutional convention for referendums.  For instance, the previous referendum was on replacing the straight first past the post election method with an alternative vote election method.  The way the act of parliament introducing that was worded was that if the referendum had passed, then the proposal would have been accepted. In the case of the EU referendum it was only an advisory referendum so had no legal basis in forcing a direction.  I suspect the reason David Cameron resigned so quickly was that he wasn't prepared to lead the UK towards Brexit but knew he couldn't have survived had he rejected the outcome of the referendum.

 

No matter how much people continue to go on about it, Leave won more votes than Remain, none voters disqualify themselves by failing to make the effort to vote and express an opinion, that's the way our particular form of democracy works and has done for decades and decades.

Correct on the first point ... the only measure which counts is that "Leave" won more votes than "Remain".  However given there has only been 11 referendum in the UK since 1973; and 8 have been about devolution so not UK wide, and a further one was London only that leaves 2 UK wide referendum; each on has had its "rules" defined when calling it.  If you want to look for precedence in the rules and what happens after referendums - Manchester in 2012 held a referendum on if they should have a directly elected mayor; they voted no: yet the government is now suggesting they should have a directly elected mayor overruling that referendum as part of the "Northern Powerhouse".

The following are not my words, but from the III web site where investors air their views on stocks, shares and, like this site, anything in general. They are a pretty eclectic mix, as is this site, but there are some very bright people happy to share and fight over their views, much as here.  They generally applaud good argument, whether they agree with it or not,  and this topped today's chart.

"There has been much comparison between Brexit and the US election and there is the obvious one that it was a vote against the Establishment in both cases but there are other comparisons to be made.

Much has been said in this country that although 52% voted Brexit, what about the 48% who didn't? We now have the remoaners doing their best in the law courts to delay or even overturn the clear wishes of the people. Seeking to enforce a 16th century law may be about process but it is the motivation of those who do it that is suspect.

Politicians and other Establishment figures are joining in saying we did not understand what we were voting for and Cleggie has said he would seek to delay and alter the terms of exit.
They say we did not vote on what Brexit meant and that somehow remaining in the single market which requires free movement of people was something we didn't vote for.

Currently 49% of the US electorate voted Trump and 48% Clinton, a much closer contest but one that the opposition accepts unlike the losers of the Brexit referendum.

We had Obama coming over here and interfering in our referendum telling us we would be at the back of the queue in any trade deal with the US. Now we seem to have a US president in waiting that has said we will be at the front of the queue. Whatever your opinion of Trump that is surely good news for Britain.

Mrs May did not get involved in trying to influence US voters which should help future US relations, despite a certain Government Minister looking forward to dealing with her!

The BBC and the media in general were biased in their reporting of the US election campaign as were most of our politicians when asked for their opinions and a large number, led by the fishy lady, are not congratulating Trump but continue to denigrate him.

It will not help future US relations and trade negotiations if the remoaners, who are the same bunch, continue to moan about Trump and it will not help EU relations in the Brexit trade negotiations if they continue to try and tie the Governments hand.

Those who opposed Trump should accept the will of the American people and let him get on with the task he has set himself. Likewise those who opposed Brexit should let the government get on with the Brexit negotiations and should be trusted to get the best deal possible. They know what we voted for. Brexit means control of immigration, freedom to make our own laws and no financial contributions to the EU.

Trade is separate from Brexit but very affected by it. If the EU wants free trade as we do, then that is negotiable as it is between any free countries who wish to trade together. Those who want to dictate to government the terms of trade which are acceptable to us seem to ignore the fact that the EU is the other trade partner who has to agree the terms."