• 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...

Status
Not open for further replies.

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
2,644
Is it worth voting for a different party as a protest vote even if you don’t fully agree with that party’s policies?

Depends what you want to get out of it. Depending on how marginal your constituency is it might end up with a different party being elected as MP, in which case you're stuck with them. See Sheffield Hallam where essentially a protest against Nick Clegg ended up with the utterly useless Jared O'Mara being elected.
If there's no danger of it changing the winner, a vote for a party in a general election will result in that party getting additional public funding if they have at least some MPs.

But this is the joy of politics where parties are involved, in an election you have to take the party as a whole balancing positives and negatives.
This should have been an advantage of the referendum, it gives a clearer mandate on what the public want on a particular issue without being clouded by other issues. (e.g. there are both Leave and Remain supporters of Labour, because their policies in other areas are more important to those people than their Europe policy).
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Carlisle

Established Member
Joined
26 Aug 2012
Messages
4,125
whereas if No Deal was a possibility it gives the UK more power to negotiate a better deal for the UK and one that Parliament is likely to pass given the fact that May's deal was rejected 3 times
.
Aren’t you forgetting that in a democracy there’s only so many lies & back door shenanigans a prime minister can attempt before the only motion parliament likely passes is one of no confidence
 
Last edited:

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
8,120
Not a very good return. If you bet ₤50 on those odds, you'd stand to win ₤70 (and get your ₤50 stake back).
Compare that with 4/1 odds, where betting ₤50 would give you winnings of ₤200 (and your stake back), or 10/1 where you'd win £500.

The bookmakers think it's a fairly likely outcome, and have set low odds to avoid losing too much money over it.
Thanks!
So they think Johnson won't last 119 days?
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Aren’t you forgetting that in a democracy there’s only so many lies & back door shenanigans a prime minister can attempt before the only motion parliament likely passes is one of no confidence
Currently he'd welcome a vote of no confidence, because another "gentleman's agreement" comes into play and he gets to choose the election date.
 

krus_aragon

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2009
Messages
6,042
Location
North Wales
Thanks!
So they think Johnson won't last 119 days?
It's a combination of how likely they think it is, coupled with how many people are wanting to take the bet. (If a lot of people are coming in to place a particular bet, they'll usually lower the odds a bit, to limit what they'd lose if it happens.)
 

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,813
Location
Sheffield
Depends what you want to get out of it. Depending on how marginal your constituency is it might end up with a different party being elected as MP, in which case you're stuck with them. See Sheffield Hallam where essentially a protest against Nick Clegg ended up with the utterly useless Jared O'Mara being elected.
If there's no danger of it changing the winner, a vote for a party in a general election will result in that party getting additional public funding if they have at least some MPs.

But this is the joy of politics where parties are involved, in an election you have to take the party as a whole balancing positives and negatives.
This should have been an advantage of the referendum, it gives a clearer mandate on what the public want on a particular issue without being clouded by other issues. (e.g. there are both Leave and Remain supporters of Labour, because their policies in other areas are more important to those people than their Europe policy).

Aargh, Sheffield Hallam is a classic example of democracy not working well, or maybe it is! It proves voters are largely blind.

Until the 1997 it would have been considered safe Tory. In the aftermath of the Thatcher era, and some misguided words about Hillsborough from the sitting MP, it was lost to LibDems and seemed to have become safe for them. Until the coalition when Nick rather bravely went along with (was stitched up) increased student fees, and had his other leg chopped off when a big loan supposedly agreed for Sheffield Forgemasters was not confirmed. The youth vote was largely lost in a constituency where students from two large universities reside, and also the votes from those looking towards industrial regeneration. Against a strong Labour candidate he survived in 2015.

On the back of Oliver Coppard's excellent campaign the Labour party would have been expected to select him again. They didn't and selected O'Mara who has two legs but in all other respects has turned out to be the proverbial donkey with a red rosette.

The net result is that Labour has been discredited (rightly after such a selection disaster) but their more promising candidate for the next election starts with a big handicap.

Oh yes, Jared was going to resign on Tuesday so we could have a bye-election. Surprise, surprise, he's changed his mind.

Protest votes can bring bizarre results, and that's what we got in spades with the referendum.
 

dosxuk

Established Member
Joined
2 Jan 2011
Messages
1,742
Seeing lots of comments the last couple of days about how people are just fed up and want the whole thing over with, and if that means no deal then so be it. Unfortunately for them, the bad news is that unless we remain, actually leaving is just the start of a process of negotiations, that the in the best case scenario look like taking most of a decade. And considering we're now 2½ years into a time limited 2 year process to actually leave, I'm not putting much faith into those best case estimates!
 

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,813
Location
Sheffield
Seeing lots of comments the last couple of days about how people are just fed up and want the whole thing over with, and if that means no deal then so be it. Unfortunately for them, the bad news is that unless we remain, actually leaving is just the start of a process of negotiations, that the in the best case scenario look like taking most of a decade. And considering we're now 2½ years into a time limited 2 year process to actually leave, I'm not putting much faith into those best case estimates!

It's high time that reality was made to sink in!!

De Gaulle didn't want us in. Macron now wants us out. Can't say I blame him.
 

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,752
Location
York
It's high time that reality was made to sink in!!

De Gaulle didn't want us in. Macron now wants us out. Can't say I blame him.
With the benefit of hindsight, doesn't it look as if de Gaulle was absolutely right from an EEC/EU perspective? Britain never wanted to be just one member state within a group but always wanted to be treated as the exceptional one, always with a special case that needed particular attention.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,686
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
Seeing lots of comments the last couple of days about how people are just fed up and want the whole thing over with, and if that means no deal then so be it. Unfortunately for them, the bad news is that unless we remain, actually leaving is just the start of a process of negotiations, that the in the best case scenario look like taking most of a decade. And considering we're now 2½ years into a time limited 2 year process to actually leave, I'm not putting much faith into those best case estimates!

Must admit I’m sensing a very growing anger with the politicians about the whole thing. From conversations at work and out and about, not least this afternoon in the hairdresser, the mood seems to be that Boris is trying to get *something* done in order to honour the result, and seems to be picking up credit for that.

Regardless of the strategy behind it, the opposition parties attempting to inhibit an election is not sitting well, as it sets the stage very much for a “people versus politicians” situation when an election eventually does happen (which due to the parliamentary numbers is now all but essential).

The more this goes on I suspect the more support for leaving will increase, as the feeling of subversion works away.

Meanwhile at this rate we will quite possibly get thrown out of the EU with no deal, as eventually patience is going to run out.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,232
Location
Bolton
Brexiteers have held the lead because the only poll that matters was in 2016 and all has flowed from there. It isn't safe to rely on opinion polls with their inbuilt margins of error. Most of them gave Remain a lead before the referendum. Some blame the opinion polls for the result insofar as a significant number thought it safe to vote leave to give the government a kicking never believing leave would win. A close relative admits to that, but would now vote leave to get it over. And leave without a deal. Understanding of what the vote meant in practice, or now, is low.

Democracy is fine in theory but to work properly the electorate needs to understand the question. In this dispute very few do, and those on one side generally suggest those on the other are ignorant. There's the problem. Attempts to warn of the inconvenient practicalities are dismissed as scaremongering.
This is a very mature post, and I think it's hit the nail on the head.

I find it difficult, almost impossible even, in my life, to understand the perspective of someone who wants to leave (as opposed to somebody who is either a bit on the fence, faintly indifferent, or someone who was motivated to vote leave for some other reason, such as 'kicking David Cameron' for example). I didn't really understand it in 2016 and try as I might I haven't been able to since. What does that say about our democracy?

My perspective is one of internationalism and pan-European co-operation. While I could not call myself an enthusiast of the EU exactly, I have certainly made my own very quiet celebration of the many achievements of the organisation - and the huge contribution that our country has made to the Union and the other countries within it. I think that the UK can co-ooperate with other European countries very easily and effectively to solve the world's problems in a moral and compassionate way. We cannot co-operate in the same way with Russia and China. Our ability to co-operate with the United States is much lower, and has not been aided by the current Republican executive. I always struggled to put that perspective across to people when I spoke to them during the campaign though and have not found a way to do so since with any more influence. I have also been stymied by a deep offence I feel at having to leave the EU when I do not wish to, when I would sacrifice a lot to stay and when I know so many many other people would do the same.

If we do leave the EU, that will never be the end of it. People who share my view will not drop the matter. We will agitate to join the EU again - at a very great cost. Because we think that the cost is worth it. If we leave the EU this year, I predict that will be a fight that stretches over the coming decades.
 
Last edited:

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,680
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
Must admit I’m sensing a very growing anger with the politicians about the whole thing. From conversations at work and out and about, not least this afternoon in the hairdresser, the mood seems to be that Boris is trying to get *something* done in order to honour the result, and seems to be picking up credit for that.

Regardless of the strategy behind it, the opposition parties attempting to inhibit an election is not sitting well, as it sets the stage very much for a “people versus politicians” situation when an election eventually does happen (which due to the parliamentary numbers is now all but essential).

The more this goes on I suspect the more support for leaving will increase, as the feeling of subversion works away.

Meanwhile at this rate we will quite possibly get thrown out of the EU with no deal, as eventually patience is going to run out.

And to be quite honest, this anger is exactly why I am now of the opinion that the referendum was a stupid idea in the first place. Because leaving the EU isn't simply a matter of waving goodbye and doing our own thing, it is potentially waving goodbye to dozens of trade deals & resetting to the worst possible position, then attempting to renegotiate all of them at the same time. Brexit was always going to be difficult, and the public should have be told just how difficult by the leave team, rather than the "easy deal" scenario sold by them. The likes of Farage & Johnson have a lot to answer for right now, but it seems all they have is bluster and hot air.

I have said it before, and will say it again. Reset Brexit, and this time furnish the public with facts, not rhetoric!
 

Spamcan81

Member
Joined
12 Sep 2011
Messages
1,071
Location
Bedfordshire
Really the simple solution would have been to have had leave requiring at least 60-70% of the vote, esp. considering the advantages of staying within the EU but I doubt that would be workable on any subsequent referendum, farage certinaly wouldn't agree to it.

It's not up to Mr. Farrij to agree to anything regarding the democratic process. He's not an MP and he's certainly not a member of the party of government.
 

krus_aragon

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2009
Messages
6,042
Location
North Wales
It's not up to Mr. Farrij to agree to anything regarding the democratic process. He's not an MP and he's certainly not a member of the party of government.
He is however an agitating factor in leading (a portion of) public opinion. Looking where UKIP were back in April (6~9%), his Brexit Party have had far more support in opinion polls ever since launch (14~26%).
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,680
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
He is however an agitating factor in leading (a portion of) public opinion. Looking where UKIP were back in April (6~9%), his Brexit Party have had far more support in opinion polls ever since launch (14~26%).

This is true, and a lot of people in this country still hang on his every word. So I say let him him take the stage once the election is called, and let's ask him about his party's polices, ask him how he plans to see the UK through a no deal scenario, ask him on his thoughts about health service provision, about his priorities in a post-Brexit Britain. The worst enemy of UKIP, sorry Brexit party is UKIP, I mean Brexit party.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,543
Location
Redcar
If we do leave the EU, that will never be the end of it. People who share my view will not drop the matter. We will agitate to join the EU again - at a very great cost. Because we think that the cost is worth it. If we leave the EU this year, I predict that will be a fight that stretches over the coming decades.

And this is thing that keeps me awake at night (well figuratively). I've heard a few different places talking about how we should leave to just get it over with. But that just shows an adorable level of naivety of what happens after we leave. With or without a deal we then spend the following years negotiating what our future relationship with the EU actually looks like. The date we leave the EU isn't the beginning of the end it's the end of the beginning! Then, as well as that, there will doubtlessly be the campaign to rejoin the EU. It will continue without a shadow of a doubt for years and years even if Boris came back tomorrow with his magic deal.

But then remaining doesn't fix it either! Let's say Article 50 is revoked after a second referendum all that then does is ensure that Farage and the voters who support him will scream and shout that it's all a stitch up and the elites are suppressing the will of the people. So then they'll advocate for a third referendum or hell they'll just advocate for Brexit Party to win an election and do it without another referendum. And so that will no doubt last for years as well.

Anyway I look at it Brexit, which has already consumed three years, will continue to consume time, energy and attention away from almost any other problem and will do so for years and years to come.

Pandora's Box has been opened and I don't see anyway of closing it. And it's that which really worries me.
 

dgl

Established Member
Joined
5 Oct 2014
Messages
2,392
I say let farage scream and shout, the we'll just ignore him. Himself making noise and nobody listening would hurt farage more than anything.
 

dcsprior

Member
Joined
28 Aug 2012
Messages
795
Location
Edinburgh (Fri-Mon) & London (Tue-Thu)
One question, how do members here propose resolving the Irish question?

Either
  1. Go for a Greenland-style brexit. Greenland and Denmark are in the same parent country, in a similar way to Scotland, England, NI & Wales being in the same parent country. This parent country was in the EU (or more accurately one of the EU's predecessor organisations), when Greenland wished to leave, the parent country's membership was transferred to Denmark. So negotiate with the EU for the UK's membership to be converted to 4 memberships of the constituent countries, then England (and Wales, if they want) can sort out their own brexit without screwing things up for the rest of the UK.
  2. Leave the EU but remain in the single market and customs union. This would respect the referendum in full, by acknowledge that a 52-48 victory for a campaign that sold a number of different version of brexit does not have a majority for the most extreme version.
I would be tempted to suggest a third option: make NI an independent country, with a constitution that prevents it from uniting with the Republic of Ireland for the next 50 years. This would seem to me to be a sensible compromise between the two sides there (one of which really doesn't want to be part of ROI and the other of which really doesn't want to be part of UK)... However I suspect that a lot of NI wouldn't see this as a sensible compromise, and would probably get a bit bomby.
 

dcsprior

Member
Joined
28 Aug 2012
Messages
795
Location
Edinburgh (Fri-Mon) & London (Tue-Thu)
This is precisely why I'm opposed to another Scottish independence referendum at the moment. It could go either way, and would leave getting on for half the country very pissed off indeed - while creating a whole heap of complex problems to solve.

I think I'm sensing a fairly significant changing of the mood in Scotland towards Yes very recently.

Polls have consistently shown that when forced to choose between (any form of) brexit within the UK and independence in the EU, a majority backs independence in the EU... But until recently there's also reasonably consistently been a majority against independence. The only logical conclusion to draw from this is that a lot of Scots were hoping/thinking that brexit wouldn't go ahead, but now they believe it will.

Also in 2014 won 55-45, but I do not think that anything like 55% of Scots were against independence per se. I think there were a significant number (probably over half of no voters) who thought independence may be a nice idea, but brought risk and cost which they had no appetite for. Now of course there's risk to either No or Yes, I reckon there could be a large majority for independence
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,543
Location
Redcar
On Scottish Independence I'm expecting every time Ian Blackford stands up in Parliament or Sturgeon speaks in the Scottish Parliament that one of them will be issuing the demand for Westminster to legislate for IndyRef2. To me it feels like purely a matter of time.

In the end analysis Brexit will almost certainly mean that Scotland leaves the Union and that Northern Ireland joins the Republic of Ireland. I'm always staggered that the Tories try to claim to be the Conservative & Unionist Party considering the likely terminal level of damage they've inflicted on the Union.
 

Starmill

Veteran Member
Fares Advisor
Joined
18 May 2012
Messages
23,232
Location
Bolton
make NI an independent country, with a constitution that prevents it from uniting with the Republic of Ireland for the next 50 years. This would seem to me to be a sensible compromise between the two sides there (one of which really doesn't want to be part of ROI and the other of which really doesn't want to be part of UK)... However I suspect that a lot of NI wouldn't see this as a sensible compromise, and would probably get a bit bomby.
Look at it this way. They would see it as incompatible with the Good Friday Agreement - which it is. While maybe one day the Good Friday Agreement could be replaced by a new constitution, do you think that Northern Ireland is ready for that? And more importantly do the two sides in Northern Ireland think that they are ready for that? I do not hear anyone proposing to overturn the Good Friday Agreement. Not in England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland or the Republic of Ireland. Not Boris Johnson, not Jeremy Corbyn, not Angela Merkel, not Emmanuel Macron, not Michel Barnier not Ursula von der Leyen. All of these people express their support for the Good Friday Agreement. Correct me if I am wrong but Michelle O'Neill and Arlene Foster both still say they support the Good Friday Agreement (even if they won't use the same name for it)?
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,686
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
I say let farage scream and shout, the we'll just ignore him. Himself making noise and nobody listening would hurt farage more than anything.

The last bit may well be true, but reality is Farage / UKIP / Brexit Party are filling a hole in the political setup. Like it or not, this hole is more than just a niche - there is *considerable* support amongst the electorate, which eventually led to an established party taking it seriously.

Farage would have faded away years ago if he wasn't reflecting mainstream widespread opinion.

Perhaps if other political parties (and perhaps the EU themselves) had made some attempt to reflect what I might diplomatically call cautious sentiment towards "the project" then we might not be where we are today. For this reason I find it rather galling to see the likes of Blair and Major all over our television screens, especially given Major's government ultimately suffered one of the worst electoral defeats in recent memory.

For as long as Farage reflects widespread public opinion, ignoring Farage will *not* make the issue go away.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Leave the EU but remain in the single market and customs union. This would respect the referendum in full, by acknowledge that a 52-48 victory for a campaign that sold a number of different version of brexit does not have a majority for the most extreme version.
Norway is in the single market and is apparently forever debating whether it should keep itself sufficiently aligned to EU standards. I suspect Norwegians are rather more humble and realistic about their position in the world than some factions in the UK are, so I believe that sort of situation would be toxic in this country. Not to mention that the hardline Brexiters wouldn't accept it and would keep agitating for more. So I don't believe it would solve anything.
But then remaining doesn't fix it either! Let's say Article 50 is revoked after a second referendum all that then does is ensure that Farage and the voters who support him will scream and shout that it's all a stitch up and the elites are suppressing the will of the people. So then they'll advocate for a third referendum or hell they'll just advocate for Brexit Party to win an election and do it without another referendum. And so that will no doubt last for years as well.
Yes he will, but if another referendum overturns the previous result then the "will of the people" argument is nullified for most people because it's clear the will is now different. Equally if Leave wins again, I think most Remainers would reluctantly accept it provided the campaign is honest. That and the lack of clarity on the terms of leaving (no longer an issue) are the reasons I consider the 2016 result to be invalid. There are no good options for the situation the collective stupidity of our governing classes has got us into, but I think that's the least bad one.
 

bramling

Veteran Member
Joined
5 Mar 2012
Messages
17,686
Location
Hertfordshire / Teesdale
On Scottish Independence I'm expecting every time Ian Blackford stands up in Parliament or Sturgeon speaks in the Scottish Parliament that one of them will be issuing the demand for Westminster to legislate for IndyRef2. To me it feels like purely a matter of time.

In the end analysis Brexit will almost certainly mean that Scotland leaves the Union and that Northern Ireland joins the Republic of Ireland. I'm always staggered that the Tories try to claim to be the Conservative & Unionist Party considering the likely terminal level of damage they've inflicted on the Union.

I think Brexit has simply increased the salience of an issue which has in reality been simmering away below the surface for many years, namely that there has been an increasing divergence between England/Wales and Scotland, and in different ways Northern Ireland.

This was already an issue as far back as the 1990s, with a sticking plaster ultimately being applied in the form of devolution.

Eventually these issues were always going to have to be tackled.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
The last bit may well be true, but reality is Farage / UKIP / Brexit Party are filling a hole in the political setup. Like it or not, this hole is more than just a niche - there is *considerable* support amongst the electorate, which eventually led to an established party taking it seriously.

Farage would have faded away years ago if he wasn't reflecting mainstream widespread opinion.

Perhaps if other political parties (and perhaps the EU themselves) had made some attempt to reflect what I might diplomatically call cautious sentiment towards "the project" then we might not be where we are today. For this reason I find it rather galling to see the likes of Blair and Major all over our television screens, especially given Major's government ultimately suffered one of the worst electoral defeats in recent memory.

For as long as Farage reflects widespread public opinion, ignoring Farage will *not* make the issue go away.
I believe the answer to that is to start addressing the deep-seated issues that plague our society and which have been mostly ignored by all governments for at least 20 years. Governments that ignore large chunks of the population and massive inequality.

Part of this ought to be a more proportional electoral system - even thought that may involve admitting some parties to Parliament that many would prefer weren't there. Farage has got a lot more influence by infiltrating his views into the "mainstream" of the Conservative party, and under the current system the divided opposition may be powerless to counteract them even though collectively they represent the majority of the public.

As regards the EU, I wonder if there should be some form of associated membership that brings the economic benefits but avoids the political stuff which is what most people (including some remainers) object to.
 

Mag_seven

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
1 Sep 2014
Messages
9,994
Location
here to eternity
I'm always staggered that the Tories try to claim to be the Conservative & Unionist Party considering the likely terminal level of damage they've inflicted on the Union.

Not just that but they used to pride themselves on being the party of sound economic management. That (along with the Union) is another thing they appear to wish to sacrifice on the alter of a no deal Brexit.
 

Cowley

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
15 Apr 2016
Messages
15,689
Location
Devon
On Scottish Independence I'm expecting every time Ian Blackford stands up in Parliament or Sturgeon speaks in the Scottish Parliament that one of them will be issuing the demand for Westminster to legislate for IndyRef2. To me it feels like purely a matter of time.

In the end analysis Brexit will almost certainly mean that Scotland leaves the Union and that Northern Ireland joins the Republic of Ireland. I'm always staggered that the Tories try to claim to be the Conservative & Unionist Party considering the likely terminal level of damage they've inflicted on the Union.
Yep. And imagine trying to sort THAT border out..?
Re your (and others) point that this whole thing will just carry on no matter what the outcome - Then surely it’s better staying in the EU? We’ll still have a large proportion of the country feeling angry, but at least we won’t be going through a self inflicted economic crash on top of it.
 

Greg Read

Member
Joined
3 Feb 2019
Messages
53
So, with NO DEAL seemingly off the card, I would say that Europe now has the UK over a barrel, we have no bargaining chips left !
 

Mag_seven

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
1 Sep 2014
Messages
9,994
Location
here to eternity
So, with NO DEAL seemingly off the card, I would say that Europe now has the UK over a barrel, we have no bargaining chips left !

If you are buying a house, setting fire to the one you are in if the deal falls through is not a "bargaining chip".
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,543
Location
Redcar
So, with NO DEAL seemingly off the card, I would say that Europe now has the UK over a barrel, we have no bargaining chips left !

I've never quite got this argument.

The EU have been quite clear throughout, but increasingly so of late, that they'd prefer the UK to leave with a deal but that they are quite prepared to tolerate the disruption of a no-deal exit. So, with that being the case, how can you threaten someone with something that they're quite willing to undertake the negative impacts of?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top