Are we sleep-walking out of Europe ?

Kevin-W posted:

naim_nymph posted:

Perhaps, Cameron should have done this due to only 36% of eligible voters backing Brexit.

Cameron, instead of resigning, could stay put to defend the rights of the majority who have not voted for it.

Interesting. So you know exactly how the c. 38% who didn't vote, would have voted, had they voted? 

Either you're a mindreader or you're talking crap. 52% of those who voted, voted to leave. The other 48% voted to stay. Those who didn't, or couldn't be bothered, to vote are irrelevant.

Spoken like a typical Farage bitgot, and very dumb too. You want a minority of the silly third [who hate Johiny Foreigner] to hijack the other two thirds into fools paradise. that isn't democracy that stupidity. You made a big mistake with your vote, Kevin. Why don't you man up admit it and apologise - like so many other idiots who voted Leave have already.

Debs

naim_nymph posted:

Kevin-W posted:

naim_nymph posted:

Perhaps, Cameron should have done this due to only 36% of eligible voters backing Brexit.

Cameron, instead of resigning, could stay put to defend the rights of the majority who have not voted for it.

Interesting. So you know exactly how the c. 38% who didn't vote, would have voted, had they voted? 

Either you're a mindreader or you're talking crap. 52% of those who voted, voted to leave. The other 48% voted to stay. Those who didn't, or couldn't be bothered, to vote are irrelevant.

Spoken like a typical Farage bitgot, and very dumb too. You want a minority of the silly third [who hate Johiny Foreigner] to hijack the other two thirds into fools paradise. that isn't democracy that stupidity. You made a big mistake with your vote, Kevin. Why don't you man up admit it and apologise - like so many other idiots who voted Leave have already.

Debs

A month or so ago Farage didn't think a 52% majority was enough...

[Last month, Nigel Fararge] told the Mirror: ‘In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it.’

Read more: http://metro.co.uk/2016/06/24/...63900/#ixzz4CcPe7ySO

The fact that the rest of the EU want us to make a quick exit is a weakness by them that we should exploit. We should say 'give us the terms we want and we will quit tomorrow'. Otherwise we keep things in limbo until a satisfactory agreement is reached.

Personally I am massively disappointed in the result, partly from self interest in view of the likelihood of inflationary pressures, but mostly for my children and grandchildren who face a future in a diminished little England.

Incidentally, it seems to me that Cameron was the architect of his own downfall dating back to his intervention in Syria. Had it not been for that the Syrian refugee flood would probably not have occurred and immigration would have been less of an issue. Of course, Merkel's policy exacerbated things as well.

wanderer posted:

The fact that the rest of the EU want us to make a quick exit is a weakness by them that we should exploit. We should say 'give us the terms we want and we will quit tomorrow'. Otherwise we keep things in limbo until a satisfactory agreement is reached.

i suspect the real thinking is they want some kind of time table.  But at the moment they don't even know if we're going.  On a legal and constitutional basis all that is certain is that a referendum has "advised" Parliament that the majority of the population who voted favoured leaving the EU.  Interestingly the referendum was set up as an advisory only - I'm not sure if that was the original intention or if there was an ammendment which made it that way - rather than legally binding which the previous electoral reform referendum was.

So the EU just want to know what's happening.  

BoJo has several times suggested he wanted a leave vote to mean that further renegotiation is needed, but the EU have said there is no opportunity for that.  But is that coming from all 27 states or just some? Is BoJo still banking on further renegotiation?  Calling their bluff.  But if Chapter 50 was initiated then there is no going back, where as now all they can do is shout and scream for us to make our mind up!

It isn't the result that should be criticised but the inappropriate electoral procedure that was run as General Election style first past the post farce, and complete with media entertainment generation game swing-o-meter game show on all the TV channels, the only thing missing was Bruce Forsyth, the conveyor belt and fluffy toys...

The status quo with General Elections is that people of every political colour wants one every 5 years to vote for their chosen MP, and for a new Parliament & Government so every eligible voter needs a ballot paper and to put their vote choice in.

However the status quo with an EU referendum/vote is that UK is an ongoing member with most people content and not wanting a referendum and vote,  only the minority of Brexit supporters actually want it - so the onus should be on them to prove that over 50% of the electorate would vote Leave. The procedure for this should have been to give every eligible voter the opportunity to vote 'Leave' by the single choice on the ballot paper, and then submitting their 'Leave' vote ballot papers by the usual collection methods, box and postal. The people who are happy to remain in the EU don't need to vote at all, or do anything except destroy their unwanted 'Leave' voting slips.

If [hypothetically] exactly 46,000,000 poll cards are issued then Brexit simply need to demonstrate they have a majority win by achieving 23,000,001 votes or more. That is the only realistic democratic way of sorting it.

Eloise posted:

Boris786 posted:

Kevin-W posted:

 

What is the problem? We want to leave and not unreasonably we are being asked to get on with it.

Sorry sometimes my posts and replies verge from serious to more flippant and this is one of those...

The problem is, Borris is trying to work out how to get out of making good on his campaigning and actually stay in the EU.  

<--- an exploding Emulsified High-Fat Offal Tube ... a.k.a. the British Sausage!

And yet again, the meaning of the exploding sausage completely escapes me.

Hashtag weepfortheworldandourdataplans

Those who don't agree are thick old child eating racists, and worse. Hashtag comfortblanket

It isn't fair we don't have more than them, it just isn't. We cannot let the bastards get away with not counting the votes of those who didn't vote. Hashtag stealingourvotes,  Hashtag petition

Why aren't we doing what the lovely even-handed leaders of the Project want? Hashtag ukhurryupalready

Hashtag growup, Hashtag night,

OW

A few interesting responses to my earlier post:

my bad, there were two options on the ballot paper and two choices as I said earlier

the rules of the referendum were made up by the Electoral Comission following consultation and agreement with all of the major parties.

For Naim-nymph et al  to demand them to be changed retrospectively is beyond a joke. That would be a travesty and relegate us to totalitarian states such as the Soviet Union.

And for Remain supporters to suggest that those who voted Leave are awash with remorse is so, so patronising and that those in power can somehow ignore the result beggars belief.

Ray

I was amazed on Friday to be told by someone who had voted leave that if we had got it wrong we could rejoin.  He had voted to leave to see what the difference was!  I don't think he understood the concept that, unlike a general election where we could vote again in 5 years, there won't be another referendum for the EU.  He also couldn't understand why the price of his petrol will imminently increase. I attempted to explain that oil is priced in dollars, but when he argued that this was also to do with the EU I gave up��

GRAEMEH posted:

Looks like we have a veto in Scotland as part of law in relation to devolution !

Indeed, there is a veto option for the UK Parliament, and this would do an awful lot to help heal the divisions and tensions that already exist and that have been cemented as a result of the referendum vote.

I do realise that you were probably being a little tongue-in-cheek with your post, though.   

Kevin-W posted:

naim_nymph posted:

Perhaps, Cameron should have done this due to only 36% of eligible voters backing Brexit.

Cameron, instead of resigning, could stay put to defend the rights of the majority who have not voted for it.

Interesting. So you know exactly how the c. 38% who didn't vote, would have voted, had they voted? 

Either you're a mindreader or you're talking crap. 52% of those who voted, voted to leave. The other 48% voted to stay. Those who didn't, or couldn't be bothered, to vote are irrelevant.

A ridiculous point of view, and spoken as someone who realises that this was a once in a generation 'Perfect Storm' that allowed Nigel Farage to 'win' the day, and that the British Public would almost certainly reverse the decision if they were given the opportunity to vote again before Article 50 is triggered. Many people who voted to leave are now waking up to some of the inevitable consequences and are understandably dismayed, and many of those who didn't vote because they didn't need to or because they didn't really understand the consequences will. (I firmly believe) be motivated and mobilised to reverse the result.

Of course, you are free to believe that this is not the case, and that the majority of the people in this country are quite happy to proceed poste-haste with the exit and its multiple consequences.

If this were simply a general election, I might go along with your sentiment, but this is far more important and critical than a single election result that can be reversed five years down the line. If we choose to post Article 50 , it will be an irreversible decision, and one that will adversely impact our children and children's children, alongside those of the continent of Europe.  

The people who didn't vote on this occasion (for a whole variety of reasons) are not irrelevant.

Like it or not, this was an advisory vote, and is not legally binding. This won't happen, but let's say that the petition currently running to force a re-think of the vote were to amass 30 million votes. In other words a clear majority of the people in the UK (not just of the voters). Is such a situation, would you still be of the opinion that the view of 17 million 'Leave' voters should trump that of the 30 million?  

winkyincanada posted:

Eloise posted:

Sorry sometimes my posts and replies verge from serious to more flippant and this is one of those...

The problem is, Borris is trying to work out how to get out of making good on his campaigning and actually stay in the EU.  

<--- an exploding Emulsified High-Fat Offal Tube ... a.k.a. the British Sausage!

And yet again, the meaning of the exploding sausage completely escapes me.

Damn you Winky ... its not a sausage ... its an Emulsified High-Fat Offal Tube*   :-)

No idea what it's meant to mean though!

*sorry I guess the reference to a 1980s political sit-com passes you by being Canadian.  If you can track down Yes, Minister's final episode "Party Games" (which lead into Yes, Prime Minister) all will become clear.

An 'interesting' and yet more depressing aside.

The Tory party is imploding. The Labour party is imploding.

Who is going to have the safe pair of hands to jump in and take Britain forward? Nigel Farage and the UKIP party? What chance of Nigel Farage and Donald Trump forming an alliance when they come to power?

I think this was just a nightmare I had last night, but I'm no longer quite so certain.  

Hmack posted:

The Tory party is imploding. The Labour party is imploding.

Very true,  but the tories might mend a bit faster when a new leader is installed.  I am thinking the protracted labour leadership selection process involving the various public memberships, unions & PLP might end up with another impasse.   

GraemeH posted:

Looks like we have a veto in Scotland as part of law in relation to devolution !

G

Sorry Graeme,

I misinterpreted your post in my previous reply.

!

The petition is now reaching 3 million signings, I hope it rolls on into an avalanche of signings so that Parliament will be forced to consider a second referendum.  It might even be welcomed, a sort of equivalent to get out of jail free card in Monopoly.

Mike-B posted:

Hmack posted:

The Tory party is imploding. The Labour party is imploding.

Very true,  but the tories might mend a bit faster when a new leader is installed.  I am thinking the protracted labour leadership selection process involving the various public memberships, unions & PLP might end up with another impasse.   

A new leader for the Labour party needs to be able to command the support of the PLP; unit the various factions and also speak to the people in a way which offers hope that their lives could improve ... JC has never managed to do that and never stood a change because the PLP have never accepted he was their leader.

The left of centre and hard left both have a place ... but they must have their disagreements in private and in a measured way with both sides compromising ... balancing the needs of the working class to improve their lives (not by welfare and hand outs but by improving working conditions and pay) while not alienating Business. 

thebigfredc posted:

 

For Naim-nymph et al  to demand them to be changed retrospectively is beyond a joke. That would be a travesty and relegate us to totalitarian states such as the Soviet Union.

Ray,

The Soviet Union doesn't exist any more, and to my knowledge of when it did, it certainly would not of conducted any fair sense of democratic election akin the very fair, very appropriate, and highly democratic electoral procedure that i suggested. Your comments only show your gross lack of understanding of political structures.

If fact anyone who voted 'Leave' has strengthened Putin's hand, anything that makes the West weaker makes him stronger.

Debs

I am amazed that some tiny personal financial commitments have a mandatory cooling-off period attached, yet a massive commitment, affecting hundreds of millions of people across a continent, does not.

An approach might have been to have scheduled two identically-framed referenda to be held, say, two to four weeks apart. The outcome would then be binding on Parliament, not just advisory, if 'Leave' won both referenda. An embellishment would be to limit the electorate to those under, say, 55 as this is a vote for the longterm future.

I'm embarrassed to admit that I am a fool - a triple-graduate Mensa member fool - who voted 'leave' and then thought "Shit!" when the result became plain. I hadn't, inter alia, considered the Scottish and Irish dimensions, for instance.

I would love a second shot at this - or even to be debarred from a second vote. I am 60.

Thoughts?

Fraser

I was talking to a 16 year old at the gym earlier. His view, like that of my 18 and 21 year old sons, is that the old and the stupid have ****ed things up for the young, who are our future. In my view, he's not wrong. 

We should have some kind of have "ballot control"  only issuing them to people who were proven to be mentally capable of making rational decisions and protect them from harming themselves, which has proven to be the case with people regretting their decision. Too late once you pull the trigger!

Well for once I'm afraid the old saying that you cannot put an old head on young shoulders sadly in this instance is not true. My parents who are in their late sixties are completely divided one voted leave the other remain.

Romi posted:

The petition is now reaching 3 million signings, I hope it rolls on into an avalanche of signings so that Parliament will be forced to consider a second referendum.  It might even be welcomed, a sort of equivalent to get out of jail free card in Monopoly.

Said petition is now also being investigated by the cross-party Commons petitions committee, reports the BBC and other sources. If fraud is found to have been committed, then the petition will be thrown out.

It would appear that some 37,000 signees come from the Vatican City, which has a population (2012) of 451. At this rate, the number of signers will not only exceed the population of the UK, but indeed the entire world!

In other developments this morning, it turns out that the petition was started some weeks ago by a right-wing Brexiter named William Oliver Healey, who was worried that his side were not going to win. The crybaby elements within the Remain camp then jumped on it after Thursday's result. Oh the irony!

In any case, fraud or not, the possibility of this petition being enacted are close to zero, because it asks for retrospective legislation.

Tony2011 posted:

We should have some kind of have "ballot control"  only issuing them to people who were proven to be mentally capable of making rational decisions and protect them from harming themselves, which has proven to be the case with people regretting their decision. Too late once you pull the trigger!

Sorry but no ... the ballot should be open to all ... the argument over if it should have been extended to 16 year olds is quite persuasive.  

But the referendum rules should have set out that there were two possibilities (a) if a majority of the electorate (rather than a majority of those who had voted) had voted to "leave" (against the status quote) that would be a legally binding decision; or (b) that if there was a simple majority, then that decision would only be advisory and subject to a vote in the commons and/or the lords (or even could have been a trigger for a general election).

Like Article 50... it appears the conditions behind the referendum were written assuming they would never be needed.

Hungryhalibut posted:

I was talking to a 16 year old at the gym earlier. His view, like that of my 18 and 21 year old sons, is that the old and the stupid have ****ed things up for the young, who are our future. In my view, he's not wrong. 

Has it not occurred to your young friends that perhaps had more of them got off their arses and voted, the Remain side might have won?

There's an as yet unpublished Ashcroft poll with a sample size of 12,000 (pretty big, as these things go) which shows that just 50% of the under-24s voted. In some areas, this was as low as 25%.

Has it not also occurred to you all that many "oldies" might have been voting in a way that they sincerely felt was in the best interests of their children and grandchildren.

Perhaps you and your chums advocate taking the vote away from over 65s, Daily Express readers, and other people you don't like or whose views you find disagreeable. Where does it stop?