EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[Geezertronic]

I haven't asked Paul to prove to me that he got his first in maths that he likes to keep going on about.

And the reason it's relevant is because there's a lot more to democracy than single votes. A lot of people dedicate their lives to studying this stuff - they don't just sit around all day twiddling their thumbs.

Well saying you have "credentials" is vague at best. Anyone can say anything from behind a keyboard as I am sure you are aware. If you have "credentials" then why not share them to help us understand your position further?

 

[TheKnightWho]

Well saying you have "credentials" is vague at best. Anyone can say anything from behind a keyboard as I am sure you are aware. If you have "credentials" then why not share them to help us understand your position further?

Well I'm not sure me specifying exactly what would make a difference to anyone being able to say anything, would it?

 

[Gutfright]

We've had a discussion about what should happen. Those who think we should respect the results of a democratic vote have laid their case out, and those who disagree have said their piece.

Perhaps now would be a good time to move on to what will happen? Will we end up staying in the EU after all? Do Theresa May and/ or Parliament have the cojones to ignore the voice of the people?

My own theory is that Article 50 will be enacted, then the government will go through the motions of negotiating our exit terms. After a year or so May will come back to and say "Look guys I tried my best, but the EU aren't giving us a good deal. The good news is that they've said they're willing to let us back as though nothing has happened." There will be a vote in Parliament, possibly a second referendum if May is absolutely sure that leave won't win again, and we'll end up staying.

We won't leave. Our illuminati masters won't allow it.

 

[Railops]

Do you ever engage in anything other than pathetic insults? You remind me of some of my students: nothing to say, but far too many words come out.

It's very obvious that you have deep-seated insecurities about anyone disagreeing with you, and a lot of anger about it too. Most of us grow out of that by the age of 18 - evidently not all.

I don't think you realise that you're simply so very very funny, your constant moaning about being misled and the world's going to end are comedy gold, please don't ever stop.
It's one thing being upset things went the opposite way to what you wanted but you're going to end up on a few nasty tablets the way you're going.

You need to lighten up and get over it because however many times you come on here claiming your life is finished and you're going to emigrate it won't really help you I'm afraid.

To be fair the internet is awash with people just like you, you're not unique, there are others out there who are also unable to accept that life can be cruel sometimes.

I have a cycling proficiency certificate and a badge so beat that.

 

[Geezertronic]

Well I'm not sure me specifying exactly what would make a difference to anyone being able to say anything, would it?

Don't know unless you specify. Why say you have "credentials" and then not specify them when asked?

 

[TheKnightWho]

I don't think you realise that you're simply so very very funny, your constant moaning about being misled and the world's going to end are comedy gold, please don't ever stop.
It's one thing being upset things went the opposite way to what you wanted but you're going to end up on a few nasty tablets the way you're going.

You need to lighten up and get over it because however many times you come on here claiming your life is finished and you're going to emigrate it won't really help you I'm afraid.

To be fair the internet is awash with people just like you, you're not unique, there are others out there who are also unable to accept that life can be cruel sometimes.

I have a cycling proficiency certificate and a badge so beat that.

"Get over it"

You whined for 40 years about this. The only thing that's funny is your ignorance and hypocrisy.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Don't know unless you specify. Why say you have "credentials" and then not specify them when asked?

Alright - I have a first class degree in philosophy and politics. Do you want me to scan it in or is that enough?

 

[Railops]

"Get over it"

You whined for 40 years about this. The only thing that's funny is your ignorance and hypocrisy.

40 years ? that would be difficult.

 

[Geezertronic]

Alright - I have a first class degree in philosophy and politics. Do you want me to scan it in or is that enough?

Thanks, that actually explains a lot as does your last sentence above (which if you think about it was not needed as the tone of our conversation was civil till then)

 

[Glenmutchkin]

Alright - I have a first class degree in philosophy and politics. Do you want me to scan it in or is that enough?

Some of the people who have got us into this mess list first class degrees on their CVs.

I'm not a fan of Referendums but the Government was voted in with a promise that one would be held. As far as I am aware there has been no suggestion of malpractice in the outcome so however much I don't like the result I have to abide by it.

Leavers must be thrilled by the initial outcomes of their choice.

 

[LateThanNever]

Some of the people who have got us into this mess list first class degrees on their CVs.

I'm not a fan of Referendums but the Government was voted in with a promise that one would be held. As far as I am aware there has been no suggestion of malpractice in the outcome so however much I don't like the result I have to abide by it.

Leavers must be thrilled by the initial outcomes of their choice.

Quite.

The Prime Minister also has a first class degree although he seems to have sold the country up (or is it down?) the river for the sake of his party.

Perhaps that is what a first class degree doesn't teach - or does? Either way it is gross incompetence.

I think that as we have a Parliamentary democracy we do not actually have to abide by an advisory referendum. So I'd suggest that when Parliament actually realises the consequences it should probably ask for another BINDING referendum.

It

 

[Railops]

Quite.

The Prime Minister also has a first class degree although he seems to have sold the country up (or is it down?) the river for the sake of his party.

Perhaps that is what a first class degree doesn't teach - or does? Either way it is gross incompetence.

I think that as we have a Parliamentary democracy we do not actually have to abide by an advisory referendum. So I'd suggest that when Parliament actually realises the consequences it should probably ask for another BINDING referendum.

It

What happens if the next one results in a win for Leave again ?

 

[Mojo]

Despite such allegations by several Facebook contacts, none have provided evidence of lies when challenged.

A look at their literature gives examples of what could be spent on, but doesn't say will be spent on. It didn't say give the NHS £350m, just fund them instead.

That doesn't mean give the NHS £350m. It could mean fund the NHS with £3.50 loose change from the bottom of the pot.

I totally agree. I for one would be opposed to giving the NHS an extra £350 Million a week; as I think the government should decide what to spend the savings on. This could include giving money to the areas the EU supposedly spent money on (ERDF, CAP, etc.) and then using the rest for a mixture of public projects/paying off debts/etc.

 

[HSTEd]

We've had nothing but referenda after referenda for the last five years, and now the SNP commands another referendum because they didn't win the last one and some polling said they might win now.

And without a supermajority it seems that any non status-quo victory will inevitably be small leading to horrible ill feeling.

This is why I think any further referendum should require 60-40 to succeed. Especially on Scottish independence.

 

[miami]

I think any referendum should require 50% of the electorate to sway the status quo - so a 60% turnout is fine, as long as 84% vote "change"

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Alright - I have a first class degree in philosophy and politics. Do you want me to scan it in or is that enough?

Since we appear to have to lay our credentials out in order to participate from this point onwards upon this particular thread, it is exactly 50 years ago since I approached the podium at Manchester University in 1966 on Graduation Day to receive my First in Mathematics.

 

[me123]

We've had nothing but referenda after referenda for the last five years, and now the SNP commands another referendum because they didn't win the last one and some polling said they might win now.

The Scottish Government may call another referendum given that there has now been a "significant and material change in the circumstances in which Scotland voted against independence".

The No campaign was in no small part boosted by their claim that, to preserve Scotland's future in the EU, we should vote to remain a part of the UK. They claimed that independence would risk this. This may well have spurred supporters to vote no in the Scottish Independence referendum. I won't say that that claim was a lie (I don't think it was dishonest), but it's now become clear that our membership of the UK threatens our membership of the EU.

Scotland voted to remain in the EU. It is therefore democratic that options be explored, and the question (whatever that may be) is put to Scottish voters. I am sure that that will only serve to heal any discontent.

Only a 50%+1 vote majority of voters who turned out is the correct and most legitimate way of doing things in a binary poll. Those who don't vote have made their choice not to do so, and it is not fair that their opinions are presumed to be for the status quo. Besides, a future Scottish referendum likely will not be a choice between the status quo and something else - it will likely look at two separate futures.

 

[Gutfright]

I think any referendum should require 50% of the electorate to sway the status quo - so a 60% turnout is fine, as long as 84% vote "change"

Why would 16% of the voters waste their time going to vote "no change"? In fact, why would "no change" even appear on the ballot paper?

In the system you've described, staying at home would have exactly the same effect as going to vote "no change"!

 

[Domh245]

Why would 16% of the voters waste their time going to vote "no change"? In fact, why would "no change" even appear on the ballot paper?

In the system you've described, staying at home would have exactly the same effect as going to vote "no change"!

"Remain in the EU" would be the same as "No change"

 

[TheKnightWho]

Why would 16% of the voters waste their time going to vote "no change"? In fact, why would "no change" even appear on the ballot paper?

In the system you've described, staying at home would have exactly the same effect as going to vote "no change"!

Making yourself heard is important. It's the reason people spoil their ballots.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Thanks, that actually explains a lot as does your last sentence above (which if you think about it was not needed as the tone of our conversation was civil till then)

These conversations do become frustrating after a while. I'm sorry if you thought I was uncivil.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

It doesn't mean that we should ignore their voice though. We're all adults, even the people who didn't research, even the people who "voted as a protest", even the people who are regretting it now, and we have to live with bad choices that we make.

I think that argument would have made a lot of sense if the people having to live with the bad decision were the same people who made the bad decision, but that's not the case. The vote to leave is already causing massive harm to EU residents in the UK and UK residents in the EU, who are now living with considerable uncertainty as to their futures. Many of those people were (unfairly in my view) deprived of any right to vote in the referendum. Many others are likely to have voted remain. Then there are all the many people who voted to remain because they valued the fact that their British citizenship made them in effect citizens of the EU as well, able to live wherever they wished in Europe. It looks like that right is now likely to be stripped from all those people, against their will. To my mind, that has connotations not so much of democracy but of mob rule. And of course there are all the people who will suffer economic hardship, including in many cases unemployment because of the economic impact of the EU - again, many of whom will have voted to remain because they did their research and realized what impact leaving the EU will probably have.

In short, many people who voted to remain will suffer massive harm to their lives. As one example, the spike in the numbers of people looking for ways to get EU passports clearly shows that many peoples' dreams of living and working abroad are likely to be shattered (unless we join the EEA and keep full freedom of movement, which currently seems unlikely). To say that those people should just have to lump it without any protest because of the bad decision that *other people* made seems to me morally reprehensible.

 

[Gutfright]

To say that those people should just have to lump it without any protest because of the bad decision that *other people* made seems to me morally reprehensible.

The Tories being elected because of the bad decision that *other people* made leads to massive harm to many people who did not vote for them. Does that make General Elections "morally reprehensible"?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The Tories being elected because of the bad decision that *other people* made leads to massive harm to many people who did not vote for them. Does that make General Elections "morally reprehensible"?

Do you not accept that any fault lies at the door of the Labour Party for fielding an inept party leader candidate as a prospective next Prime Minister coupled with an agenda that only those of extreme left-wing persuasions in their campaign strategy could see the electorate taking the offered Labour manifesto to its heart and turning out in their droves to cast their vote for the Labour Party...:roll:

 

[Gutfright]

Do you not accept that any fault lies at the door of the Labour Party for fielding an inept party leader candidate as a prospective next Prime Minister coupled with an agenda that only those of extreme left-wing persuasions in their campaign strategy could see the electorate taking the offered Labour manifesto to its heart and turning out in their droves to cast their vote for the Labour Party...:roll:

Undoubtedly Labour should have run a better campaign. The point is that even though the Tories won which, the EU referendum aside, was disastrous for Britain and will cause people to suffer, we should not be calling for the result of the General Election to be reversed and for democracy to be abolished.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The Tories being elected because of the bad decision that *other people* made leads to massive harm to many people who did not vote for them. Does that make General Elections "morally reprehensible"?

But for the election, no one seems to doubt that Labour and other parties have every right to challenge what the Government are doing and to put forward arguments to try to persuade the Conservatives to change their minds, or even, if possible, to enlist the help of Conservative rebel MPs to defeat the Government on particular issues. It's generally accepted that continuing to put those arguments is part of democracy. I've never heard anyone suggest that, because the Conservatives won the election last year, all other parties should shut up for 5 years, and refrain from expressing any opposition to anything that was in the Conservative's manifesto until the next election. Hopefully it's obvious that suppressing debate in that way would be completely undemocratic. Yet that seems to be exactly what many people are suggesting remain supporters should do as far as the referendum result and the question of withdrawal from the EU is concerned.

 

[TheKnightWho]

But for the election, no one seems to doubt that Labour and other parties have every right to challenge what the Government are doing and to put forward arguments to try to persuade the Conservatives to change their minds, or even, if possible, to enlist the help of Conservative rebel MPs to defeat the Government on particular issues. It's generally accepted that continuing to put those arguments is part of democracy. I've never heard anyone suggest that, because the Conservatives won the election last year, all other parties should shut up for 5 years, and refrain from expressing any opposition to anything that was in the Conservative's manifesto until the next election. Hopefully it's obvious that suppressing debate in that way would be completely undemocratic. Yet that seems to be exactly what you and others are suggesting remain supporters should do as far as the referendum result and the question of withdrawal from the EU is concerned.

Thank you. I'm glad I'm not alone in thinking this.

What worries me are the people saying that the Remain supporters should shut up and deal with it, as though it was a game they lost, and not something with far-reaching and important consequences that affects their lives. It might be little more than a fuzzy feeling of sovereignty and sticking it to the elites for many Brexiteers, but it meant a lot more than that for many campaigning to remain.

 

[Geezertronic]

Personally I think it is all irrelevant as Article 50 won't be triggered by Cameron, won't be triggered by May, and if Labour won a snap General Election, Corbyn wouldn't trigger it either. Just as much as people say that Leave have no plan, Remain had no plan should Leave win. Cameron's resignation speech showed he does not want to be the Politician remembered for triggering Article 50 which caught the likes of Johnson off guard, and I honestly think that no one else will trigger it either

 

[miami]

Do you not accept that any fault lies at the door of the Labour Party for fielding an inept party leader candidate as a prospective next Prime Minister coupled with an agenda that only those of extreme left-wing persuasions in their campaign strategy could see the electorate taking the offered Labour manifesto to its heart and turning out in their droves to cast their vote for the Labour Party...:roll:

People like you claimed Ed Milliband was an unelectable left-wing firebird.

They've sure shown you how wrong you were. Ed looks positively central nowadays!

(Although as you think dear old Maggie was a bit soft I wouldn't be surprised if you couldn't see the difference)

 

[Geezertronic]

Would certainly be interesting to see what had happened if Labour had chosen the correct Milliband

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

People like you claimed Ed Milliband was an unelectable left-wing firebird. They've sure shown you how wrong you were. Ed looks positively central nowadays!

(Although as you think dear old Maggie was a bit soft I wouldn't be surprised if you couldn't see the difference)

Oh, I am most certainly aware of this particular matter and with regard to Ed Milliband, he was just the "soft" front for the extreme left agenda, as he was the incumbent leader of the Opposition, but he, like Corbyn, did/does not have the look of a Prime Minister ready to lead his country in the 21st century.

Perception of the "wrong" Miliband was that which was viewed at the time as the acceptable face of the Labour campaign by those in that party, whereas the Conservatives saw Ed Milliband as one of their greatest assets in their election campaign to use as they will.

I have always thought that David Milliband exuded charisma when compared to his brother and he most certainly looked the part of a Prime Minister. But those left wing Labour Party apparatchiks could not abide the thought of anything remotely resembling New Labour under Tony Blair, which saw them win a number of consecutive terms of office. A good example of cutting one's nose off to spite one's face.

 

[Gutfright]

Hopefully it's obvious that suppressing debate in that way would be completely undemocratic. Yet that seems to be exactly what many people are suggesting remain supporters should do as far as the referendum result and the question of withdrawal from the EU is concerned.

Talk down Britain as much as you like. Spread your doomsday prophecies. Deride ordinary people as mindless sheep til you're blue in the face. I believe in free speech and I'll defend your right to say what you like.

But if you respect the principle of democracy, you will have to accept that the people have spoken and it is wrong to ignore them. Vox Populi, Vox Dei