EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[Groningen]

From the Independent:
Labour will continue to push for Britiain to leave the European Union following the ruling by the High Court. Jeremy Corbyn has called on the government to bring its Brexit negotiating terms to parliament after the High Court ruled Theresa May cannot bypass MPs and peers when she triggers Article 50. He announced Labour will continue to press for a "Brexit that works for Britain" and has called for greater transparency from the government.

 

[northwichcat]

The result wasn't indecisive at all, the indisputable fact is that only around a third of the electorate voted to remain in the EU, that means two thirds of the electorate didn't have any objection to leaving

That's a very desperate comment. It's almost on a par with Russia saying Crimea voted to leave Ukraine.

An honest window cleaner came in to my place of work the day after the referendum and said he didn't vote. When asked why he said he wasn't intelligent enough to understand the implications of leaving so didn't vote.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Fixed Term Parliament Act sets out exactly when an early general election can be called. The only two ways an early general election can be called are if there is a vote of No Confidence in the government and that vote is not overturned within 14 days, or if two-thirds of all MPs vote for an early general election.

Given the Conservatives have a very narrow majority, and given that Labour's parliamentary party know they'll suffer a heavy loss with an election now, I wouldn't bank on getting a 66% vote in favour of a general election.

A failure to get Brexit through parliament could see Conservative MPs leaving their party and the Conservatives losing their narrow majority meaning the PM wouldn't have enough MPs to survive a vote of no confidence without some opposition MPs voting that they have confidence in her.

 

[Domh245]

without some opposition MPs voting that they have confidence in her.

Given the state of the Labour party at the moment, I suspect that a few MPs on that side will do everything they can to avoid a snap election!

 

[meridian2]

For those who think Royal Prerogative should be used to force this through, how would you feel about a government using Royal Prerogative to force through an election manifesto promise?

That's not really the same issue, is it? People generally vote for the politician that espouses their own views, rather than a collective manifesto usually full of so much guff it's hard to know what the party believes in. Case in point being Labour in last year's election.

 

[Howardh]

Given the state of the Labour party at the moment, I suspect that a few MPs on that side will do everything they can to avoid a snap election!

They probably don't want one in 2020!

If Parliament goes that long, we may have the situation where half the Brexit voters don't like the Brexit they get, add to that the 48% that didn't want Brexit in the first place, so May will be going into the election with 74% of the population naffed off.

Much as I'm against Brexit, it's sure made politics interesting. Of course the only people guaranteed to come out of Brexit well will be those writing books and memoirs about it. Farage will be colouring in his right now I suppose.

 

[Senex]

The result wasn't indecisive at all, the indisputable fact is that only around a third of the electorate voted to remain in the EU, that means two thirds of the electorate didn't have any objection to leaving

On that basis, if only some 37% of the electorate voted to leave the EU, then that means that the other 60%+ didn't have any objection to staying in.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That's not really the same issue, is it? People generally vote for the politician that espouses their own views, rather than a collective manifesto usually full of so much guff it's hard to know what the party believes in. Case in point being Labour in last year's election.

And yet governments of both parties argue that the fact that something was included in their manifesto gives them a democratically-endorsed right to legislate.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If Parliament goes that long, we may have the situation where half the Brexit voters don't like the Brexit they get, add to that the 48% that didn't want Brexit in the first place, so May will be going into the election with 74% of the population naffed off.

And what will that do to the Tory party? Doe Corbyn just have to hang on to a 2020 election in order to get in by default as the Tories split?

 

[TheKnightWho]

The result wasn't indecisive at all, the indisputable fact is that only around a third of the electorate voted to remain in the EU, that means two thirds of the electorate didn't have any objection to leaving

I'm very sorry, but I have no idea what a 1950s Daily Express fantasy is so I have no idea how correct you are on that point

It was certainly indecisive. 52 to 48 is not a decisive decision. Sorry.

Weren't you objecting the other day to remainers including non-voters in their numbers? Now I see why - you just want to make specious arguments of exactly the same kind yourself. It's desperate, and frankly the fact that lots of Brexiteers have cropped up in this thread after weeks of silence says a lot about how much whinging we're likely to see from a certain entitled minority who are becoming far too used to getting their own way through manipulation, lies and other underhand tactics. (That does not include all Brexiters, but certainly a sizeable chunk.)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That's not really the same issue, is it? People generally vote for the politician that espouses their own views, rather than a collective manifesto usually full of so much guff it's hard to know what the party believes in. Case in point being Labour in last year's election.

Yes, but outside of Theresa May's fantasy land "Brexit means Brexit" doesn't actually mean anything.

Brexit isn't a single course of action - it could mean many, many different things, and parliament should decide exactly what in a way that represents the true will of the people, and not the imagined majority of the most fanatic Brexiteers.

 

[miami]

It was certainly indecisive. 52 to 48 is not a decisive decision. Sorry.

Indeed. Nigel Farage wants a second referendum

In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way.

I agree with Nige

 

[ExRes]

It was certainly indecisive. 52 to 48 is not a decisive decision. Sorry.

Weren't you objecting the other day to remainers including non-voters in their numbers? Now I see why - you just want to make specious arguments of exactly the same kind yourself. It's desperate, and frankly the fact that lots of Brexiteers have cropped up in this thread after weeks of silence says a lot about how much whinging we're likely to see from a certain entitled minority who are becoming far too used to getting their own way through manipulation, lies and other underhand tactics. (That does not include all Brexiters, but certainly a sizeable chunk.)

Sorry, but in a referendum which requires a 50.01% figure for enactment, 52 to 48 is everything the word decisive means, a remain vote of 50.01% would have had all those who wished to remain partying on the streets at their victory, what's good for one is good for all as I'm sure you'll agree. Perhaps you could let me know how you would have responded to me if remain had won by an equally close margin and I had demanded a second referendum

I'm not sure what your second paragraph is supposed to be about, other than an example of using a overly large brush to tar people with, there was, is and will be people on both sides of the argument shouting about the unfairness of it all, I accept you are an intelligent and educated person, so I trust you aren't going to continue to try and claim one side has acted any differently or any better than the other, that would be foolish to say the least

 

[Busaholic]

I visit Costa Coffee about three times a week and the only newspaper you can rely on being there is the Daily Mail, so I force myself to at least glance through it. Yesterday its lead letter, which they had given some prominence to, was from someone who'd voted out but now very much regrets it, to the extent that he has written to Theresa May and is demanding a rethink on the basis he was duped into his vote. What I'm highlighting here is not his thought process but the fact that the Great Brexiteers at the Mail have featured his letter, printed his photograph and for perhaps the first time in six months have allowed another view to be printed without a personal attack. Maybe the times they are a- changin'.

 

[J-2739]

While 48-52 (stay-leave) is most definitely a win, fair and square, it does seem a bit too close for a decision as big as this...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I visit Costa Coffee about three times a week and the only newspaper you can rely on being there is the Daily Mail

So I'm guessing there's not much option in your local Costa.

(JS)

 

[northwichcat]

Sorry, but in a referendum which requires a 50.01% figure for enactment, 52 to 48 is everything the word decisive means, a remain vote of 50.01% would have had all those who wished to remain partying on the streets at their victory, what's good for one is good for all as I'm sure you'll agree. Perhaps you could let me know how you would have responded to me if remain had won by an equally close margin and I had demanded a second referendum

I'm not sure what your second paragraph is supposed to be about, other than an example of using a overly large brush to tar people with, there was, is and will be people on both sides of the argument shouting about the unfairness of it all, I accept you are an intelligent and educated person, so I trust you aren't going to continue to try and claim one side has acted any differently or any better than the other, that would be foolish to say the least

It was a pro-Leave person who set up a petition asking for a repeat referendum if a threshold wasn't meet and when Leave won but didn't meet his suggested threshold he was furious when Remainers all started signing his petition

 

[bb21]

The result wasn't indecisive at all, the indisputable fact is that only around a third of the electorate voted to remain in the EU, that means two thirds of the electorate didn't have any objection to leaving

Am I really reading this?

Same can be said that "two thirds of the electorate didn't have any objection to remaining", because only one third of the electorate voted to leave, as others said, so this means bugger all.

This is worse than seeing sixth-formers first learning to string their arguments together for mathematical proofs.

Argue for your beliefs by all means, but don't trot out laughable comments like this.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Sorry, but in a referendum which requires a 50.01% figure for enactment, 52 to 48 is everything the word decisive means, a remain vote of 50.01% would have had all those who wished to remain partying on the streets at their victory, what's good for one is good for all as I'm sure you'll agree. Perhaps you could let me know how you would have responded to me if remain had won by an equally close margin and I had demanded a second referendum

I'm not sure what your second paragraph is supposed to be about, other than an example of using a overly large brush to tar people with, there was, is and will be people on both sides of the argument shouting about the unfairness of it all, I accept you are an intelligent and educated person, so I trust you aren't going to continue to try and claim one side has acted any differently or any better than the other, that would be foolish to say the least

It's not decisive - it's as simple as that. We should be aiming for a compromise, but hardcore Brexiters keep trying to ignore everyone they don't like and then set up new goalposts of "democracy" by making the debate between two increasingly right-wing factions.

It's manipulation, and nothing more.

 

[gareth950]

From the Independent:
Labour will continue to push for Britiain to leave the European Union following the ruling by the High Court. Jeremy Corbyn has called on the government to bring its Brexit negotiating terms to parliament after the High Court ruled Theresa May cannot bypass MPs and peers when she triggers Article 50. He announced Labour will continue to press for a "Brexit that works for Britain" and has called for greater transparency from the government.

Shouldn't Labour be opposing Brexit? Well, the previous incarnation of the party would've. This just proves that Corbyn always wanted to leave the EU.
Campaigning in a possible early general election to leave the EU might win back support for Labour in it's former working class heartlands of the North of England and South Wales valleys, but it won't work in many other places.

If there was an early general election and the two main political parties were campaigning to leave the EU, who would the remainers and people who regret voting leave have vote for? SNP in Scotland, Lib Dems in England and Lib Dems or Plaid Cymru in Wales?

What a mess the UK is in politically right now.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Thursday's decision by the High Court shouldn't have come as much of a surprise. The most senior judges, the Lord Chief (John Thomas) and President of the Queens Bench (Brian Leveson) have been repeatedly confirming the hierarchy of sovereignty in which the Courts are subordinate to Parliament, and it beggars belief that they could reverse that relationship now.

I thought one of the key points of Brexit was to ensure the sovereignty of Parliament? Surely this judgement does exactly that? Or have I missed something?

That is exactly correct. Not only for the future, but in terms of domestic governance, this decision confirms that the sovereignty of Parliament is intact.

It's not about the decision, it is about the principle of the matter.

The government should not and, it seems, cannot use Royal Prerogative to force through policy issues that do not have the full support of the legislature. I really don't see an issue with this at all. Whilst the referendum asked if we wanted to leave the European Union, it did not ask how we want to leave the European Union.

The terms of our exit are something that should be decided in Parliamentary debate, not in the use of Royal Prerogative to avoid awkward questions.

I agree.

 

[northwichcat]

Sorry, but in a referendum which requires a 50.01% figure for enactment

The referendum never had a figure for enactment, it was to advise the UK government what the public thought. The government was then expected to choose an appropriate course of action based on the advice.

Given the outcome it would seem inappropriate to remain within the EU but also inappropriate to leave the EEA, unless circumstances changed. However, as the government is now saying a points style immigration system is unlikely to be implemented, there isn't £350m to divert to the NHS and there has been a trade deal between the EU and Canada which neither side really mentioned in the campaigning it already seem the advice given to the government (in the form of the referendum vote) is out-of-date.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If there was an early general election and the two main political parties were campaigning to leave the EU, who would the remainers and people who regret voting leave have vote for? SNP in Scotland, Lib Dems in England and Lib Dems or Plaid Cymru in Wales?

The Tories already seem scared of the Lib Dems. With Zac Goldsmith resigning as a Conservative MP and re-standing as an Independent in a by-election the party has decided not to field a challenger to Goldsmith - presumably because they think the Conservative vote will be split and then the Lib Dems will take the seat.

 

[Senex]

The referendum never had a figure for enactment, it was to advise the UK government what the public thought. The government was then expected to choose an appropriate course of action based on the advice.

Exactly. So why is May now acting as though the referendum was absolutely binding, however things might develop?

We have the long history in Britain, and especially in England, of an adversarial system in which winner takes all in politics and in law, and both parties have been happy to play that game for years. The result has been see-sawing backwards and forwards as the other lot take over and try and undo (or at the very least drastically modify) what the other other lot have just done. Any attmept to move forward on the basis of consensus just isn't seen as the British way of doing things. So now we get the situation where one lot with a majority of a popular vote, but certainly not with an overwhelming majority, and actually a minority of the whole electorate, are certain they have absolute authority to organise a Brexit exactly as they see fit, with no need whatsoever to take into account any of the views of the very significant minority opposed to Brexit. And the Tories are playing up this approach for all they're worth. Is this any recipe for a lasting solution?

 

[Tetchytyke]

The referendum never had a figure for enactment, it was to advise the UK government what the public thought. The government was then expected to choose an appropriate course of action based on the advice.

Precisely. The question should now be how we leave the European Union, and that is something that can only be democratically decided through parliament. The idea of the government deciding what type of Brexit people want, and forcing it through by Royal Prerogative, is anathema to democracy.

Most people did not actively vote for Brexit. Our views are just as important in this process as the views of those who did vote for Brexit. "You lost, get over it, you don't get a say now" is probably the most chilling thing I've heard in a very very long time.

 

[northwichcat]

Most people did not actively vote for Brexit. Our views are just as important in this process as the views of those who did vote for Brexit. "You lost, get over it, you don't get a say now" is probably the most chilling thing I've heard in a very very long time.

What's concerning is the British are now getting a reputation for being intolerant and racist due to the actions of a minority of Leave campaigners. That isn't just the case in Eastern Europe, it extends to former British territories which have a points style immigration system like Canada and Australia. It seems some people think it's appropriate to tell someone with dual nationality who doesn't have a British accent to 'go back home as we won the referendum.' If only someone had thought to send Farage's Father 'back home'.

 

[Johnuk123]

Most people did not actively vote for Brexit. Our views are just as important in this process as the views of those who did vote for Brexit. "You lost, get over it, you don't get a say now" is probably the most chilling thing I've heard in a very very long time.

Perhaps all the leavers on here who have been called racist xenophobic idiots on a very regular basis would smile at how much you must be hurting.

 

[northwichcat]

Lincolnshire MP Stephen Phillips has left the Conservative Party over over "irreconcilable policy differences" with the government over Brexit.

 

[Antman]

Precisely. The question should now be how we leave the European Union, and that is something that can only be democratically decided through parliament. The idea of the government deciding what type of Brexit people want, and forcing it through by Royal Prerogative, is anathema to democracy.

Most people did not actively vote for Brexit. Our views are just as important in this process as the views of those who did vote for Brexit. "You lost, get over it, you don't get a say now" is probably the most chilling thing I've heard in a very very long time.

Clutching at straws or what?:roll:

 

[Tetchytyke]

Perhaps all the leavers on here who have been called racist xenophobic idiots on a very regular basis would smile at how much you must be hurting.

Hurting? I'm sad that the turkeys have voted for Christmas and I'm angry that my livelihood is going to get trashed because of it.

But it's this sort of gloating that I'm referring to here. Referring to anyone who disagrees with Brexit as a "traitor", demanding the sacking of judges- as UKIP's leader in waiting did yesterday- because they dared to uphold the law. Telling 65% of the population that they have no say. It's chilling.

PS People who voted for Brexit are racist xenophobic idiots. The fact that this country has so many of them is nothing to be proud of. I thought two world wars had taught us the danger of the tyranny of the majority, but seemingly not.

Clutching at straws or what?

Huh?

65% of people didn't vote for Brexit. That doesn't mean we shouldn't Brexit, but it does mean that any deal has to take into account everyone, not just the swivel-eyed loons and gormless racists who were stupid enough to vote to crash the car into a ravine.

 

[Domh245]

Lincolnshire MP Stephen Phillips has left the Conservative Party over over "irreconcilable policy differences" with the government over Brexit.

Any information as to what these irreconcilable policy differences are? Either way, the Conservatives must really be starting to worry about their ever diminishing majority.

 

[Johnuk123]

People who voted for Brexit are racist xenophobic idiots.


The swivel-eyed loons and gormless racists who were stupid enough to vote to crash the car into a ravine.

Well at least we know what you think of 17 million people, thanks for putting it so clearly.

 

[TheGrandWazoo]

Well at least we know what you think of 17 million people, thanks for putting it so clearly.

Yes, and remember that is just one person's opinion too.

I voted Remain. The reality is that a great many perfectly decent people voted to Leave. Those people who are racist and xenophobic will have voted to leave but that doesn't mean if you voted to leave that you are racist = a dog is a four legged animal but not every four legged animal is a dog!

That said, I do find it slightly annoying that I've heard the first "Leavers" now complain about rising prices (they were warned but that was from so-called experts). Now, of course, we have people who are complaining that parliament is getting involved when one of the central tenets of the Leave campaign was about ensuring the sovereignty of our parliament.

I know that we're going to leave. However, we have to do so in accordance with the law. That was the challenge and we have to work through it.

As with much of the Leave campaign, it was predicated on an "it'll be alright on the night" but the reality is that there is a shedload of hassle and pain that we will have to endure. The idea that there is some return to the eternal sunlit uplands of the 1950s and obtaining free trade without conditions is to ignore the realities of a globalised world.

We are already seeing that there is more to this Brexit thing than was originally sold!

 

[TheKnightWho]

Perhaps all the leavers on here who have been called racist xenophobic idiots on a very regular basis would smile at how much you must be hurting.

I've noticed how this has become the standard response of so many leavers: "Well someone who supports your position called me racist SO YOU MUST BE WRONG."

It's illogical, it's irrelevant and it's utterly desperate. Nevermind the fact that you (and others) clearly care more about being called racist than engaging in a bit of introspection as to how your actions and views impact on others; it's self-absorbed.

The fact that the understanding of the mandate for leave from quite a number of Brexiters on this forum seem to boil down to "you lost, get over it" or "cry more" says a lot about how they view politics as a tribal competition. It's completely antithetical to what makes a real democracy tick.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Clutching at straws or what?:roll:

How is this clutching at straws? It's an important question, given only 35ish% of the electorate voted for Brexit.

 

[northwichcat]

Any information as to what these irreconcilable policy differences are? Either way, the Conservatives must really be starting to worry about their ever diminishing majority.

He backed Leave but is annoyed at May's stance of we leave the way she says without the MPs getting a say.

 

[DarloRich]

I don't for one moment suggest "the (advisory) will of the people" will not be followed. We voted to leave. My view is that we were asked a very simply question: In or out. We chose out.

Enacting that out result is more nuanced and should be dealt with by our elected representatives in our sovereign Parliament under our system of democracy. The government needs to be held to account, be scrutinised and be challenged on their plan and the proposed deal.

We need to know what the consequences of our out decision are and what the government has done to mitigate any risk. We need to do that in public if only as a way to repair some of the damage this referendum has done.

Perhaps an early election might give Mrs May and opportunity to win a mandate to force through a certain type of Brexit. She would win easily, labour are a mess and the only home for disaffected remainers would be the Lib Dems in England or the nationalists in the colonies.


BTW what was it those leavers said when they won...............

I thought one of the key points of Brexit was to ensure the sovereignty of Parliament? Surely this judgement does exactly that?

Correct although the kippers seem to want to provide their own definition of sovereignty.

It's not about the decision, it is about the principle of the matter.

The government should not and, it seems, cannot use Royal Prerogative to force through policy issues that do not have the full support of the legislature. I really don't see an issue with this at all. Whilst the referendum asked if we wanted to leave the European Union, it did not ask how we want to leave the European Union.

The terms of our exit are something that should be decided in Parliamentary debate, not in the use of Royal Prerogative to avoid awkward questions.

I agree - it seems entirely proper that the plan devised by the government should be subject to scrutiny and challenge. I cant envisage a way the referendum result would not be followed but what this decision does is ensure that the best possible outcome is delivered for all. This is clearly a demonstration of sovereignty and the independence of the judiciary. Surely this is what we voted for?

Is it only acceptable when it is on leavers terms? surely not.

I wonder if those that voted 'Remain' would pander to the minority of voters if they had won.

This was a decision by Theresa May to go it alone without Parliament. As someone who voted 'out', I fully expected months of filibustering and voting before A50 is invoked. I was surprised when she suddenly grew some balls with an audacious statement to invoke the 'sovereign' powers.

I remain convinced that Dave thought he would get a narrow remain victory and a bargaining chip to get a better deal from the EU

The whole thing is a complete dogs breakfast. There was (and is) no plan on how we enact Brexit or how we manage the impacts. I assumed somewhere there was a government filing cabinet of dusty files with all of this stuff thought about by the department of thinking stuff up. There wasn't anything. The cabinet was empty but for some stale garibaldis, a dead spider and a couple of tea moldy bags.