edwin_m
Veteran Member
I really don't think the livelihoods of those thousands of workers, even if some of them voted for Brexit, is a joking matter.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...
- Thread starter ainsworth74
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I am not joking. Don't you think we should give them what they voted for, and which they understood very well?
edwin_m
Veteran Member
No I don't. Not least because giving them what they (some of them, not all) voted for will also give others such as me what we didn't vote for. In practice few people voted for the outcome we are currently heading for.
As a former resident of the north-east, I find it grossly offensive not only that you should be happy to toss them out of work, but also that you assume these skilled workers are stupid rather than just believing the spin from the deceitful politicians of the Leave campaign. I will now select "Ignore User" to ensure I see no more of your posts.
That's a pity because you're going to miss a lot of good stuff. But I'm very confused about your attitude to leave voters in the north east. You seem to be offended that I suggest giving them what they want. Are you saying they are too stupid to understand what they voted for?
Bantamzen
Established Member
OK, let's put this to the ultimate test. Your job is likely to be lost if a no deal scenario is played out, and the DWP having lent staff to other departments to deal with the fallout of no deal cannot process your claim to benefits as quickly as you need in order to feed your family. Are you still happy for "whatever it takes"?
Answers on a postcard to RH Boris Johnson, 10 Dowing Street, Westminster...
A bit like the people who say going back to rationing will be good for us*
(*Small print: Provided it's only <<Everybody else>> that has to)
Killingworth
Established Member
Exit from Brexit would be the logical answer. It's unlikely to happen.
Whether we have a deal or not we'll be having a very difficult few years ahead of us. Same goes if we called the whole thing off, but at least we'd know where we were.
Nigel conceded defeat before he knew he'd effectively won. There's little doubt he'd not have accepted such a narrow defeat for long. He'd have regrouped and I wouldn't have blamed him; in his position so would I.
The remain camp has been abjectly ineffective, leaderless and divided. Headless chickens. A strong case has been left unsold. Without leaders of substance they've been sniping in random fashion unable to achieve any significant progress in swinging opinions.
Most on here seem to be in favour of remain, certainly not in favour of no deal, but there has been precious little detail given for why. Positions are so well entrenched that it would make little difference if it were.
I'm deeply unhappy about prorogation but can see how we need to get something resolved soon. I'm unhappy that Old Etonians are driving this, but nobody else has shown the bottle to do anything else.
What's done is done. Cameron got trapped. Nobody of substance could take over so we got May. Labour elected an ineffective leader at a critical time. We in Sheffield Hallam managed to unseat the LibDem leader, although it's doubtful if he'd have done much better than his successors. Ulster voted to remain but the DUP have supported leave and their own Parliament at Stormont is suspended indefinitely.
Taking to the streets now is too late, even if it might have helped years ago. The rag bag of assorted opposition parties has little hope of forming a stable government be it led by Jeremy Corbyn, Ken Clarke, Harriet Harman, Caroline Lucas, Jo Swinson or anyone else. Would that it could. They're in different parties for good reasons and Labour is itself in grave danger of disintegration.
I was old enough to read the news in 1956. What was really going on took decades to become clear, as did the consequences. At least the Tories had in Macmillan a man who was able to pick up the pieces with able people to back him.
I hope I live long enough to see us get out of this hole we're digging for ourselves.
Whether we have a deal or not we'll be having a very difficult few years ahead of us. Same goes if we called the whole thing off, but at least we'd know where we were.
Nigel conceded defeat before he knew he'd effectively won. There's little doubt he'd not have accepted such a narrow defeat for long. He'd have regrouped and I wouldn't have blamed him; in his position so would I.
The remain camp has been abjectly ineffective, leaderless and divided. Headless chickens. A strong case has been left unsold. Without leaders of substance they've been sniping in random fashion unable to achieve any significant progress in swinging opinions.
Most on here seem to be in favour of remain, certainly not in favour of no deal, but there has been precious little detail given for why. Positions are so well entrenched that it would make little difference if it were.
I'm deeply unhappy about prorogation but can see how we need to get something resolved soon. I'm unhappy that Old Etonians are driving this, but nobody else has shown the bottle to do anything else.
What's done is done. Cameron got trapped. Nobody of substance could take over so we got May. Labour elected an ineffective leader at a critical time. We in Sheffield Hallam managed to unseat the LibDem leader, although it's doubtful if he'd have done much better than his successors. Ulster voted to remain but the DUP have supported leave and their own Parliament at Stormont is suspended indefinitely.
Taking to the streets now is too late, even if it might have helped years ago. The rag bag of assorted opposition parties has little hope of forming a stable government be it led by Jeremy Corbyn, Ken Clarke, Harriet Harman, Caroline Lucas, Jo Swinson or anyone else. Would that it could. They're in different parties for good reasons and Labour is itself in grave danger of disintegration.
I was old enough to read the news in 1956. What was really going on took decades to become clear, as did the consequences. At least the Tories had in Macmillan a man who was able to pick up the pieces with able people to back him.
I hope I live long enough to see us get out of this hole we're digging for ourselves.
Last edited:
With it noted that you did say a couple of weeks ago that you were just going to dip into this thread and then leave it alone...
That was a great post Killingworth.
Killingworth
Established Member
With it noted that you did say a couple of weeks ago that you were just going to dip into this thread and then leave it alone...
That was a great post Lucan.
You're right. I'll just have to go on a protest tomorrow, or maybe dip out and do a Park Run! Not sure about doing both
You managed to quote me before I’d realised that I’d posted the wrong name at the end. Sorry Killingworth. I did hurriedly edit it.
Esker-pades
Established Member
Which is another reason to disregard the result. You just said that both sides lied, thus the electorate had no idea what they were voting for. To follow your logic through, that means the electorate may well have just flipped a coin, giving a 50:50 chance. 52:48 is not far away from that. You may disagree with the above paragraph, but I am just following your logic.
Why? How will it make the UK better off?
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Good post but I disagree with this part.
For me the economic benefits of staying in the EU are clear, and as I posted a page or two back I can see that the lives of my family and me are worse outside thh EU. There's also the fact that the politicians favouring Brexit match almost exactly with the list of those that I would trust and agree with least. And furthermore I don't see why that pack of charlatans should be allowed to get away with scamming the entire nation. So I for one have emotional as well as rational reasons to support remaining.
I'm normally quite good at seeing both sides of the argument (drives my wife up the wall) but I really can't see why Brexiters feel as they do. And in six months following this thread I've seen hardly anyone putting forward a reason, except possibly some issues around immigration and the fact that it's the "people's wil" - which isn't a reason at all. I believe a lot of people also saw it as a way to administer a kick to a government that had made a lot of people's lives worse, and seemed not to care about it.
Last edited:
In hindsight, and as a Remainer, what I have found a bit frustrating from many Remainers (I possibly include myself in this at times) is the overly simple 'Stop Brexit' mantra - with what I always feel has had a subtext of 'If you voted for Brexit you got it wrong / you are stupid' (which for many Leavers is simply not true) - people votes for Brexit due to many reasonably legitimate concerns (though of varying relationship between these concerns and how these relate in practice to our membership of the EU).
When Leave won, I was disappointed but at the same time never thought it beyond the realms of possibilty that Brexit could be a success (with much scepticism), if done properly. A ship now long since sailed.
If politicians across *all* parties had worked together and compromised from the outset, we might not have had the farce seen earlier of the year of no single approach to Brexit gaining a majority. Instead Mrs May went it alone and got a compromise that suited precisely nobody - perhaps excepting her own seeming obsession with ending freedom of movement. On 23rd June 2016, noone seemed to grasp quite how complex it was going to be. Thanks Mr Cameron!
Killingworth
Established Member
I did say most, but with 652 pages and approaching 20,000 posts I concede there have been a number of specific details quoted. I don't recall posting the following very long piece, "Why the UK should remain in the EU" by Nicholas Barr, attached below, but I found it very helpful 3 years ago.
As for the people's will, I keep coming back to this pie chart whenever we're told the people voted for what we're now getting. Hardly the resounding vote of the British people to make such major constitutional and economic changes. Since then at least 1 milion have died, about 1.5 million have been born and at least 1.5 million will have come onto the electoral register. We only have opinion polls to judge how the nation currently judges things.
.
Last edited:
Enthusiast
Member
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2019
- Messages
- 1,115
Lost in all of this is the practical outcome if Remain MPs get their way and rule out permanently a "No Deal" option. At present the EU has offered a completely unacceptable deal which has been comprehensively rejected by Parliament. The EU says it is not negotiable because it has been "agreed" and in any case they are not prepared to change it.
Let's say that next week, or whenever, Parliament passes legislation that permanently and finally rules out No Deal. So what does the EU do? One of two things: it either sticks it its totally unacceptable deal or it might say "D'ya know what? We're not too keen on that deal ourselves now. We've come up with another. You can leave, but you must remain in our Customs Union and Single Market, submit to the jurisdiction of the ECJ, accept free movement and pay us £15bn pa". What does the UK do then? The Remainers know this exactly and the "No Deal" camouflage that they have taken to is laid completely bare.
To make leaving possible only by agreement with the EU (which is what a "deal" effectively amounts to) is utterly absurd. But if you really don't want to leave at all and are prepared to ignore the two votes in Parliament where you facilitated leaving, then it's ideal.
Let's say that next week, or whenever, Parliament passes legislation that permanently and finally rules out No Deal. So what does the EU do? One of two things: it either sticks it its totally unacceptable deal or it might say "D'ya know what? We're not too keen on that deal ourselves now. We've come up with another. You can leave, but you must remain in our Customs Union and Single Market, submit to the jurisdiction of the ECJ, accept free movement and pay us £15bn pa". What does the UK do then? The Remainers know this exactly and the "No Deal" camouflage that they have taken to is laid completely bare.
To make leaving possible only by agreement with the EU (which is what a "deal" effectively amounts to) is utterly absurd. But if you really don't want to leave at all and are prepared to ignore the two votes in Parliament where you facilitated leaving, then it's ideal.
Last edited:
Enthusiast
Member
- Joined
- 18 Mar 2019
- Messages
- 1,115
Which includes Babes-in-Arms (as does your 1.5m who have recently been born) and people who couldn't be bothered to get out of bed.
EM2
Established Member
If it was completely unacceptable, why did the UK's negotiators accept it?
Also, why did the current Prime Minister and nineteen of his twenty-three-strong Cabinet vote for it in Parliament?
Last edited:
EM2
Established Member
They're still people. If it's 'the will of the people', it has to be the will of all of the people, surely?
Otherwise, you can say supporting Mansfield Town is the will of the people, or liking cauliflower is the will of the people.
At best, voting to Leave is the will of quite a lot of people, but not the majority of the people.
Killingworth
Established Member
It does indeed, but illustrates the precarious nature of a snapshot poll that can be heavily influenced by short term swings. A referendum to determine changes in the constitution of this magnitude needed a decisive bar. That might have been 50% of the electorate, or 60% of those who voted. If either had been set any quibbling would soon have died down - and we could probably have looked forward to another referendum in 5-10 years time!
We might have had a much lower turnout and the majority could have been only 1 or 2. I know, we didn't, but whoever agreed to hold a referendum without considering such a scenario, and how it would then pan out, made a very big error.
However, it's insulting to say those who didn't vote couldn't be bothered to get out of bed. I've spoken to quite a number who didn't vote and they were genuinely confused by the counter claims and certainly weren't in bed. The ones that really annoy me are those who didn't register to vote when they could have and now complain about the outcome - and I've spoken to some who've said that.
What we'd all vote today is totally irrelevant because any further poll wouldn't be held for months.
Killingworth
Established Member
And probably includes 1.5 million who have come of age and now registered to vote. The 18.6 million unable to vote in 2016 weren't all babes in arms, although a lot were indeed children. I'd hazard a guess that my two eldest grandsons were very well informed about the pros and cons, certainly as well as many who were eligible to vote, and will have to live with the consequences a lot longer than those who did vote. (I'm not personally in favour of lowering the voting age, although many young people of 16 know as much about current affairs as some at 60.)
Bantamzen
Established Member
It is not just remain MPs that want to get a no deal scenario ruled out, many that want us to leave also agree that no deal is a daft, even reckless option.
The EU have made it clear that currently it is the deal they brokered with May's team, or no deal at all. There is nothing to suggest that they will shift position if a no deal scenario is taken off the table. For too long the no deal threat has been touted by some leavers as a way of getting a better deal from the EU, yet they haven't shifted at all. In other words the bluff has been called on the bluff. It is now time to stop pretending that the threat will have any effect, other than tanking our economy, and hit the Brexit reset button. We need a second referendum, in which all possible options for Brexit are set in front of the public, and properly debated instead of the childish games that were played back in 2016. In my mind no other route to Brexit would now be acceptable, so let's really test "the will of the people".
edwin_m
Veteran Member
I'd be in favour of a 3-way referendum between remaining, May's deal and no deal, on some kind of STV system to take account of what people would accept as well as what they would most prefer. If after a fair and honest campaign people vote for no deal with their eyes open then so be it. Claiming people support no deal based on a fraudulent campaign which promised nothing of the sort just doesn't cut the mustard.
The current deal comes from trying to respect May's red lines. The EU has said it is open to re-negotiating if these are changed, but after all this time I'm not sure it's in the interests of either side to do that now.
Alot of people didn't vote simply because it was too complex an issue to have an informed opinion on.
Converseley, one of the reasons I voted Remain was that it was a status quo I knew, understood and could be managed.
Bantamzen
Established Member
Indeed, there are a few that think that almost a quarter of the population "couldn't be bothered". As one of those who chose not to vote, I can honestly say it was nothing to do with being lazy. It was a decision I consciously made because I wanted to understand the pros and cons of both positions, but sadly both campaigns lurched from fact to playground spats and left any reasoned debate behind, making an informed decision extremely difficult. By the time the referendum came around the Leave vs Remain battle had become so nasty & polarised, it was clear that no matter which way the vote went there would be no clear direction & years of political chaos. Had Remain won, the Leave campaign would have gathered strength, challenged the result, launched legal battles and the likes of UKIP would have gone into overdrive to try to get into power and reverse the decision. But as Leave won, we have had the Remain campaign trying to gain strength, launching legal battles & trying to gain power to overturn the decision.
This daft referendum has torn a hole in British politics that will take decades to fill. The only answer now is to go back to the electorate and ask the question properly, i.e. do you still want to leave, and if so how. And any decision needs to be ratified by the majority of the electorate, not just a simple majority. Then, and only then will we better know "the will of the people".
What's been forgotten is that the EU have said this is the only deal on offer that respects our, and their, "red lines" - in our case, the abritrary decisions that Mrs May came up with in her attempts to keep everyone on side.
They have said numerous times, that if we wanted to change those red lines, they would be open to renegotiation. The problem is that on our side we decided to run the clock down instead, and now (re)instigate operation "it's all the EU's fault". There were many other deals available, except *we* ruled them all out.
By ruling out no-deal, the option that the leave campaign swore was never going to happen and was all project fear anyway, the government actually have three options - remain, may's deal, or change their red lines and renegotiate.
To abuse the oft used quip about the car dealership, by threatening no deal, we're actually threatening to set fire to our existing car in the driveway of the dealership - yeah, inconvenient for them, but far worse than us. Being willing to walk away from a negotiation implies that the status quo continues for both parties - in the case of these negotiations that's remaining.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I am not pro-Brexit, but I am strongly of the view that a choice not to vote is an expression of indifference, so these people cannot be considered either way.
Howardh
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2011
- Messages
- 8,161
What happens if, in a general election, you have a choice of three (LAB, CON, LD) and none are to your taste? You don't have a "none of the above" option, so if you vote you are voting for, presumably, the least-worst option? If you don't vote are you then considered apathetic or indifferent as you say?
And if we went to PR; would one still be able to vote for the party they want to? Example, would your constituency have a Green candidate, meaning they have to put up a candidate in all 650 seats? If not, could you still vote Green?? Would it still be on the paper even if there was no actual candidate in your area?
Well actually you do which is to actually turn up at the polling station and spoil your paper, (or even sent a spoilt paper in as a postal vote). All spoilt papers are counted at every election and their number included in the results. If there was a sudden large increase in such activities, it would almost certainly become an issue for an enquiry. For those who say that it would be a waste of 'their' time, that is a poor defence of their apathy.
Howardh
Established Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2011
- Messages
- 8,161
It's an idea and I know it happens, but it could be spoiled for a number of reasons from accidentally (eg if you are vision-impaired), as an act of sheer petulance or simply because none of the candidates appeal to you.
If there was a "none of the above" box then that would be a more accurate response than spoiling. If "NOTA" won that seat (!!) which could happen, then they should re-run the constituency election with either different candidates and/or (add) parties I suppose.
Or change the voting system so every vote counts the same; as opposed to today where if candidate A wins with 15,000 and everyone else accumulated 25,000 votes, those 25,000 votes stand for nothing.
- Status