Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

Yep.

Although I think TheBigFredC and I are on opposite sides of the Brexit argument, I agree with what he says on the referendum.  I don't think it was wise of the Cameron government to commit to it; I think Cameron's government was appallingly short-sighted in making no plans for a 'leave' vote; the campaigns on both sides were liberally sprinkled with untruths. But the process and rules of the referendum were straightforward and the question clear. The result was clear. Ok, there's a point about the result not being binding on the government, but Cameron's government chose to act as if it was. In fairness, I'm not sure any government would have acted differently on that point.  

Thanks MDS.

Also one of the things that has been lost over time is that not many thought Leave stood a chance of actually winning including, of course, Cameron and his cabinet. I believe this view pervaded the Remain campaign and accounts for their lacklustre performance every bit as much as the stuff spun by Boris and Co.

Ray

thebigfredc posted:

Thanks MDS.

Also one of the things that has been lost over time is that not many thought Leave stood a chance of actually winning including, of course, Cameron and his cabinet. I believe this view pervaded the Remain campaign and accounts for their lacklustre performance every bit as much as the stuff spun by Boris and Co.

Ray

I agree, Ray. The complacency and lack of understanding about the feelings of many people towards the EU was pretty damning. 

thebigfredc posted:

Dave***t posted:

thebigfredc posted:

Huge posted:

I wonder what the criteria concerning accuracy of information would be for a Judicial Review to declare the result of a plebiscite to have been invalidated, on the basis that the electorate could not have reached a valid conclusion due to the degree of inaccuracy of a significant proportion of the information available to them.

I would think that threshold has been probably not been exceeded, but it must be a fairly close thing.

Another Huge post, another planet.

Another snide ad hominem response, another failure to add anything useful.

Dave T

I don't think my comment was snide at all  

I was making a reference to the great song by the Only Ones as a way perhaps of reminding everyone with any taste that music and the enjoyment of it is what we on the forum have in common.

Ray

In fairness, I did think to myself afterwards that it wasn't really snide, it was actually just aggressive.  So poor word choice from me there.  Though as it turns out the fact that it was a song reference (I've never heard of it/them, unfortunately) does ironically make it a bit snide.  However the conciliatory reminder is appreciated and accepted.

More squarely on topic, it seems the last 24 hours have been a rollercoaster - first the cabinet is briefed that the Ireland agreement is meaningless, then DD appears on TV implying the UK might resile from the agreement, then Ireland growls angrily, and now DD has had to retract his comments and say the agreement will be upheld.

I strongly believe that a second referendum must be held once the terms of any final deal are known.  But regardless of that, first we have to get that far.  What a shambles our representatives are making of that process.

Huge posted:

thebigfredc posted:

<snip>

In the case of the EU Referendum though, there was no jiggery pokery with boundaries or numerical anomalies relating to first past the post or PR - this was a straight shoot out between two opposing and polarised sides. There was some debate around the wording of the question in advance but from memory both sides were reasonably content with what went onto the ballot paper.

Ray

Do you really think there was no problem with the democratic process this time?

thebigfredc posted:

Yep.

No need for any truth or honesty in democracy then?

Oh well, I obviously don't understand anything about information.  But that's rather strange considering that obtaining and accurately processing information has been my career for the last 40 years.  I always though people would want accurate information before making decisions, my bad.

"Don't bother with reasons, jump to conclusions!"

thebigfredc posted:

Thanks MDS.

Also one of the things that has been lost over time is that not many thought Leave stood a chance of actually winning including, of course, Cameron and his cabinet. I believe this view pervaded the Remain campaign and accounts for their lacklustre performance every bit as much as the stuff spun by Boris and Co.

Ray

So Ray,

You reckon that the Remain campaign was significantly impacted by A) complacency of voters who did not vote because they thought 'Leave' had no chance of winning, or voted 'Leave' as a protest to prevent a landslide victory for 'Remain' and B) the "stuff spun by Boris & Co" .

 In other words, if these factors hadn't been present, the vote would likely have gone the other way.

Yet, you seem quite happy that, although the 'Leave' campaign would probably be the losing side in a re-run (according to the above logic with which I agree), they feel free to dictate the terms of our Brexit and claim a mandate to do so. Unlike a general election, the consequence of Brexit will not easily be reversed. Does no part of you believe that for the good of the UK, the final Brexit deal negotiated on behalf of the UK should also be subject to a referendum?

Or perhaps, like Farage and his cronies, you are delighted to accept the windfall of a lucky one off and unlikely to be repeated win, and to hell with the consequences, or the wishes of the majority of people in the UK.

You might have accepted a 42:38 victory for the 'Remain' side in the election. On the other hand, you may have held the same view as that of Farage and others when they thought right up until the last minute that they had been defeated. For Farage (and perhaps for you) the battle to get the UK out of the EU would most certainly have continued.

I will add a little snippet to the comment above from Huge:

"No need for any truth or honesty in democracy then" , as long as the result goes your way - or perhaps you think this is unfair?

thebigfredc posted:

More chance of Arsenal winning the Prem this year than a second referendum on the UKs  EU membership.

If the above were the options then the only moral and ethical choice is to choose the latter each time...!

Huge posted:

Huge posted:

thebigfredc posted:

<snip>

Do you really think there was no problem with the democratic process this time?

thebigfredc posted:

Yep.

No need for any truth or honesty in democracy then?

Oh well, I obviously don't understand anything about information.  But that's rather strange considering that obtaining and accurately processing information has been my career for the last 40 years.  I always though people would want accurate information before making decisions, my bad.

"Don't bother with reasons, jump to conclusions!"

Come on, Huge.  You know as well as I do that there are lots and lots of people who like doing just that. The Daily Mail panders to them very effectively.   That said, I expect much higher standards of our political leaders and on that score I think many of them should be hanging their heads in shame over some of the things they've said on the Brexit issue.  We elect a government to handle on our behalf such weighty and complicated questions that can't be boiled down to a simple yes/no (like the death penalty, international treaties, taking military action). On these things we have a right to expect our political leaders to be tenacious in teasing out and testing facts and opinions, maintaining objectivity, so that they can make decisions in the best interests of the country.      

Romi posted:

thebigfredc posted:

More chance of Arsenal winning the Prem this year than a second referendum on the UKs  EU membership.

If the above were the options then the only moral and ethical choice is to choose the latter each time...!

Not if you were an Arsenal fan. I think most of them would would vote with their hearts for the tangible thing of getting their desperate, little  Gooner mitts on some silverware.

Ray

Hmack posted:

thebigfredc posted:

Thanks MDS.

Also one of the things that has been lost over time is that not many thought Leave stood a chance of actually winning including, of course, Cameron and his cabinet. I believe this view pervaded the Remain campaign and accounts for their lacklustre performance every bit as much as the stuff spun by Boris and Co.

Ray

So Ray,

You reckon that the Remain campaign was significantly impacted by A) complacency of voters who did not vote because they thought 'Leave' had no chance of winning, or voted 'Leave' as a protest to prevent a landslide victory for 'Remain' and B) the "stuff spun by Boris & Co" .

 In other words, if these factors hadn't been present, the vote would likely have gone the other way.

Yet, you seem quite happy that, although the 'Leave' campaign would probably be the losing side in a re-run (according to the above logic with which I agree), they feel free to dictate the terms of our Brexit and claim a mandate to do so. Unlike a general election, the consequence of Brexit will not easily be reversed. Does no part of you believe that for the good of the UK, the final Brexit deal negotiated on behalf of the UK should also be subject to a referendum?

Or perhaps, like Farage and his cronies, you are delighted to accept the windfall of a lucky one off and unlikely to be repeated win, and to hell with the consequences, or the wishes of the majority of people in the UK.

You might have accepted a 42:38 victory for the 'Remain' side in the election. On the other hand, you may have held the same view as that of Farage and others when they thought right up until the last minute that they had been defeated. For Farage (and perhaps for you) the battle to get the UK out of the EU would most certainly have continued.

I will add a little snippet to the comment above from Huge:

"No need for any truth or honesty in democracy then" , as long as the result goes your way - or perhaps you think this is unfair?

Please don't start any dialogue with me using the words 'So Ray'.

It has conatations of a Parent/Child or Prosecutor/Defendant relationship which is the kind of thing we don't want to encourage on a public forum where we all stand as equals.

Just 'Ray' will do fine.

Unless of courseEnglish is not your first language in which case anything goes.

thebigfredc posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

I agree that a second referendum is unlikely and IMHO that is an abdication of collective national responsibility.

The referendum was a close call....51 v 49 and the reliable information available to voters was virtually non-existent and distorted by lies and deceit.

I am not convinced by the rhetoric “the will of the people”, although I imagine many MPs are content to abdicate proper consideration and responsibility to this convenient phrase.

Don,

the result was 51.89 v 48.11 which is generally rounded to 52 v 48 giving a margin of much nearer to 4% than the 2% determined in your post or to put it another way - a difference of well over a million votes.

Ray

Ray,

The referendum was a close call. Voters did not have reliable information on which to base an informed choice. What information they did have, incorporated lies and deceit.

Leave politicians continue to hide behind the rhetoric of "the will of the people".

In a responsible democracy, as opposed to a tin pot dictatorship, a close call does not give politicians the right to impose, or seek to impose an extreme version of Brexit in the name of "the will of the people".

Don

In our representative democracy we vote in particular groups of people to make decisions and to govern broadly according to their manifesto for the next five years or so.

I don't see a lot of difference between that situation and with the EU Referendum in so much as we gave a group of people the nod to make decisions and negotiate on our behalf with the EU over the next few years in line with the arguements set out during the campaign.

Of course, given the unprecedented nature of a major country leaving there was bound to be gaps in the precise nature of how the process would unfold. It seems to me we are heading for a reasonable and well judged departure.

THEBIGFREDC posted:

a very strange and surprising post indeed

"Please don't start any dialogue with me using the words 'So Ray'.

It has conatations of a Parent/Child or Prosecutor/Defendant relationship which is the kind of thing we don't want to encourage on a public forum where we all stand as equals.

Just 'Ray' will do fine.

Unless of courseEnglish is not your first language in which case anything goes".

Ray, or THEBIGFREDC (whichever you prefer),

I was going to begin my response to your post with 'OK Ray', but feared that you might also object to or misinterpret this opening. Since English is one of my first languages (I only have two, I'm afraid), I guess the "anything goes" invitation is not extended. 

My use of the word 'so' was certainly not intended to suggest the connotation of either a Parent/Child or Prosecutor/Defendant relationship. The possibility that it might be interpreted in this way simply did not occur to me, nor did it occur to me that it would provoke such a defensive reaction. I admit to being very surprised, but I am a little disappointed that you haven't responded to the post itself. 

I am happy to withdraw the word 'so' at the start of my previous post. In exchange, are you willing to respond to the questions I asked in my post? Of course, response isn't compulsory. It's entirely your choice. 

And please feel free to begin your response with: "So Hmack". I probably won't take offence, especially so if English is not your first language.   

thebigfredc posted:

In our representative democracy we vote in particular groups of people to make decisions and to govern broadly according to their manifesto for the next five years or so.

I don't see a lot of difference between that situation and with the EU Referendum in so much as we gave a group of people the nod to make decisions and negotiate on our behalf with the EU over the next few years in line with the arguements set out during the campaign.

Of course, given the unprecedented nature of a major country leaving there was bound to be gaps in the precise nature of how the process would unfold. It seems to me we are heading for a reasonable and well judged departure.

I agree that we might now be heading for a slightly 'better' departure than might have been the case until the events of the last few days, although I feel that some of the more dogmatic Brexiteers might still throw a spanner in the works once the details are fully released.

However, I don't agree with your assertion that there is not a great deal of difference between the five yearly general election and the EU Referendum. The difference is that we have the opportunity to vote in a new government every five years and potentially reverse any particularly bad policies or decisions. In the case of the EU Referendum and the Brexit negotiations, we will end up with an agreement that is unlikely to be open to discussion or amendment to any great extent for a significantly greater period of time, unless of course we apply to re-join the EU. Unfortunately, I can't see this happening.      

Hmack posted:

thebigfredc posted:

In our representative democracy we vote in particular groups of people to make decisions and to govern broadly according to their manifesto for the next five years or so.

I don't see a lot of difference between that situation and with the EU Referendum in so much as we gave a group of people the nod to make decisions and negotiate on our behalf with the EU over the next few years in line with the arguements set out during the campaign.

Of course, given the unprecedented nature of a major country leaving there was bound to be gaps in the precise nature of how the process would unfold. It seems to me we are heading for a reasonable and well judged departure.

I agree that we might now be heading for a slightly 'better' departure than might have been the case until the events of the last few days, although I feel that some of the more dogmatic Brexiteers might still throw a spanner in the works once the details are fully released.

However, I don't agree with your assertion that there is not a great deal of difference between the five yearly general election and the EU Referendum. The difference is that we have the opportunity to vote in a new government every five years and potentially reverse any particularly bad policies or decisions. In the case of the EU Referendum and the Brexit negotiations, we will end up with an agreement that is unlikely to be open to discussion or amendment to any great extent for a significantly greater period of time, unless of course we apply to re-join the EU. Unfortunately, I can't see this happening.      

Lol, the fantasies role on! This is one humongous mess that will almost inevitably lead to one bitter outcome which is Brexit under WTO rules, partially because the bien pensant still entertain the view that they can charm the great unwashed into seeing the error of their ways and begging to have their EU yokes replaced round their necks.

As, for example, no two members of the Shadow Cabinet seem to be able to articulate their Party's or their leader's view on Brexit with the Tories and especially May not far behind, we are all going over the cliff that you Remainers fear so much. As your well reasoned articulation amongst those of you who wish to Remain is applauded by like minded thinkers, there is still a nasty 17.4 million who are probably even more entrenched in their own views, despite your wishful thinking. The fact that Westminster, the SNP, Liberals and BBC are desperate to air only Remainer propaganda still won't cut it.

Actually, you and I know that Jeremy is delighted to have May take us out and all the flak of Brexit. Win, win from his perspective! 

Don Atkinson posted:

thebigfredc posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

I agree that a second referendum is unlikely and IMHO that is an abdication of collective national responsibility.

The referendum was a close call....51 v 49 and the reliable information available to voters was virtually non-existent and distorted by lies and deceit.

I am not convinced by the rhetoric “the will of the people”, although I imagine many MPs are content to abdicate proper consideration and responsibility to this convenient phrase.

Don,

the result was 51.89 v 48.11 which is generally rounded to 52 v 48 giving a margin of much nearer to 4% than the 2% determined in your post or to put it another way - a difference of well over a million votes.

Ray

Ray,

The referendum was a close call. Voters did not have reliable information on which to base an informed choice. What information they did have, incorporated lies and deceit.

Leave politicians continue to hide behind the rhetoric of "the will of the people".

In a responsible democracy, as opposed to a tin pot dictatorship, a close call does not give politicians the right to impose, or seek to impose an extreme version of Brexit in the name of "the will of the people".

Don

 

Perhaps we should divide the country in half  , like Albert and Arthur Steptoe did with their house in Shephards Bush, and force people to migrate to their respective leave/remain zone.Not unlike the division of India and Pakistan except along how the individual voted in the referendum rather than religious order. And then we can reconvene in about 50 years time to see which of the two has prospered most and declare who was right and therefore can claim the moral high ground from the 2016 vote. Just an idea.

thebigfredc posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

thebigfredc posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

I agree that a second referendum is unlikely and IMHO that is an abdication of collective national responsibility.

The referendum was a close call....51 v 49 and the reliable information available to voters was virtually non-existent and distorted by lies and deceit.

I am not convinced by the rhetoric “the will of the people”, although I imagine many MPs are content to abdicate proper consideration and responsibility to this convenient phrase.

Don,

the result was 51.89 v 48.11 which is generally rounded to 52 v 48 giving a margin of much nearer to 4% than the 2% determined in your post or to put it another way - a difference of well over a million votes.

Ray

Ray,

The referendum was a close call. Voters did not have reliable information on which to base an informed choice. What information they did have, incorporated lies and deceit.

Leave politicians continue to hide behind the rhetoric of "the will of the people".

In a responsible democracy, as opposed to a tin pot dictatorship, a close call does not give politicians the right to impose, or seek to impose an extreme version of Brexit in the name of "the will of the people".

Don

 

Perhaps we should divide the country in half  , like Albert and Arthur Steptoe did with their house in Shephards Bush, and force people to migrate to their respective leave/remain zone.Not unlike the division of India and Pakistan except along how the individual voted in the referendum rather than religious order. And then we can reconvene in about 50 years time to see which of the two has prospered most and declare who was right and therefore can claim the moral high ground from the 2016 vote. Just an idea.

Sure. The voting map lends itself to a reasonable starting point for a geographical split. London and some of the counties to the west, plus Scotland and NI for the Remainers.........

What about the 27.8% who didn't take part in the vote and those who've turned 18 since the vote?

At least NI won't feel they're being treated differently, we'll ALL have the problem of how to arrange border controls!

thebigfredc posted: 

Perhaps we should divide the country in half  , like Albert and Arthur Steptoe did with their house in Shephards Bush, and force people to migrate to their respective leave/remain zone.Not unlike the division of India and Pakistan except along how the individual voted in the referendum rather than religious order. And then we can reconvene in about 50 years time to see which of the two has prospered most and declare who was right and therefore can claim the moral high ground from the 2016 vote. Just an idea.

Interesting idea, I'd be game even though it'd probably mean I had to relocate.  But it wouldn't necessarily provide the answer, as the vote was split along all sorts of important demographic lines alongside views on the EU.  Going by publicly available statistics, income, age and level of education all showed strong trends, for example.  Before thinking about it much, I did have it in mind to offer a vaguely humorous sketch of Leaveland versus Remainia.  But think about it - it's a conversation that would only result in anger and insults flying around.

Don Atkinson posted:

thebigfredc posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

thebigfredc posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

I agree that a second referendum is unlikely and IMHO that is an abdication of collective national responsibility.

The referendum was a close call....51 v 49 and the reliable information available to voters was virtually non-existent and distorted by lies and deceit.

I am not convinced by the rhetoric “the will of the people”, although I imagine many MPs are content to abdicate proper consideration and responsibility to this convenient phrase.

Don,

the result was 51.89 v 48.11 which is generally rounded to 52 v 48 giving a margin of much nearer to 4% than the 2% determined in your post or to put it another way - a difference of well over a million votes.

Ray

Ray,

The referendum was a close call. Voters did not have reliable information on which to base an informed choice. What information they did have, incorporated lies and deceit.

Leave politicians continue to hide behind the rhetoric of "the will of the people".

In a responsible democracy, as opposed to a tin pot dictatorship, a close call does not give politicians the right to impose, or seek to impose an extreme version of Brexit in the name of "the will of the people".

Don

 

Perhaps we should divide the country in half  , like Albert and Arthur Steptoe did with their house in Shephards Bush, and force people to migrate to their respective leave/remain zone.Not unlike the division of India and Pakistan except along how the individual voted in the referendum rather than religious order. And then we can reconvene in about 50 years time to see which of the two has prospered most and declare who was right and therefore can claim the moral high ground from the 2016 vote. Just an idea.

Sure. The voting map lends itself to a reasonable starting point for a geographical split. London and some of the counties to the west, plus Scotland and NI for the Remainers.........

Works for me.  The North East and East Anglia will do nicely thanks.

Huge posted:

What about the 27.8% who didn't take part in the vote and those who've turned 18 since the vote?

At least NI won't feel they're being treated differently, we'll ALL have the problem of how to arrange border controls!

Clutch and straws come to mind.

The 27.8% who didn't vote abdicated all responsibility, effectively saying we will go along with the outcome because we have no opinions either way or we are ambivalent or we can't be arsed to make it to the polling station.

I can understand a bit why people don't always vote in elections - very few people will agree with all of the policies of a political party or perhaps they don't like the candidates available in their area etc - but the referendum was a single issue ballot and therefore they have lost all rights to complain about the outcome.

In short, if you don't vote you can't moan.

thebigfredc posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

thebigfredc posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

thebigfredc posted:

Don Atkinson posted:

I agree that a second referendum is unlikely and IMHO that is an abdication of collective national responsibility.

The referendum was a close call....51 v 49 and the reliable information available to voters was virtually non-existent and distorted by lies and deceit.

I am not convinced by the rhetoric “the will of the people”, although I imagine many MPs are content to abdicate proper consideration and responsibility to this convenient phrase.

Don,

the result was 51.89 v 48.11 which is generally rounded to 52 v 48 giving a margin of much nearer to 4% than the 2% determined in your post or to put it another way - a difference of well over a million votes.

Ray

Ray,

The referendum was a close call. Voters did not have reliable information on which to base an informed choice. What information they did have, incorporated lies and deceit.

Leave politicians continue to hide behind the rhetoric of "the will of the people".

In a responsible democracy, as opposed to a tin pot dictatorship, a close call does not give politicians the right to impose, or seek to impose an extreme version of Brexit in the name of "the will of the people".

Don

 

Perhaps we should divide the country in half  , like Albert and Arthur Steptoe did with their house in Shephards Bush, and force people to migrate to their respective leave/remain zone.Not unlike the division of India and Pakistan except along how the individual voted in the referendum rather than religious order. And then we can reconvene in about 50 years time to see which of the two has prospered most and declare who was right and therefore can claim the moral high ground from the 2016 vote. Just an idea.

Sure. The voting map lends itself to a reasonable starting point for a geographical split. London and some of the counties to the west, plus Scotland and NI for the Remainers.........

Works for me.  The North East and East Anglia will do nicely thanks.

Hard border?

thebigfredc posted:

Huge posted:

What about the 27.8% who didn't take part in the vote and those who've turned 18 since the vote?

At least NI won't feel they're being treated differently, we'll ALL have the problem of how to arrange border controls!

Clutch and straws come to mind.

The 27.8% who didn't vote abdicated all responsibility, effectively saying we will go along with the outcome because we have no opinions either way or we are ambivalent or we can't be arsed to make it to the polling station.

I can understand a bit why people don't always vote in elections - very few people will agree with all of the policies of a political party or perhaps they don't like the candidates available in their area etc - but the referendum was a single issue ballot and therefore they have lost all rights to complain about the outcome.

In short, if you don't vote you can't moan.

 

That seems an excessively aggressive response to a quite reasonable post.

Besides which, I prefer a clutch made from metal or metal and fibre rather than from straw (and either meaning will do). 

Yeah, I remember the good old days, before we joined the EU, when a British gentleman could clutch at his straws with impunity.

And then the Council of Europe or was it the European Council or might have been the ECJ or ECHR said we had to harmonise our laws regarding the type of materials we could clutch and hence now they have to be metal or a metal composite.

No wonder so many of us voted Leave.