• 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.

trash80

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2015
Messages
1,204
Location
Birches Green
The leave vote won narrowly, a few hundred thousands votes would have changed the result. Thus it seems to me compromise and a soft brexit should be the order of the day. The government instead have insisted on a hard brexit and ignored the 48%. May has been keen to go on about a brexit what works for "everybody" without making any concessions to the 48% and quite frankly that stinks.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,754
Location
York
The leave vote won narrowly, a few hundred thousands votes would have changed the result. Thus it seems to me compromise and a soft brexit should be the order of the day. The government instead have insisted on a hard brexit and ignored the 48%. May has been keen to go on about a brexit what works for "everybody" without making any concessions to the 48% and quite frankly that stinks.
But the "Winner takes All" doctrine of British political life means that that slight win is taken as full justification for the most extreme version of Brexit to be pursued purely for party interest and with no regard at all for national interest. May's talk of Brexit working for everyone is merely a politician's talk, and utterly meaningless. You last sentence hits the nail right on the head!
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,582
The leave vote won narrowly, a few hundred thousands votes would have changed the result. Thus it seems to me compromise and a soft brexit should be the order of the day. The government instead have insisted on a hard brexit and ignored the 48%. May has been keen to go on about a brexit what works for "everybody" without making any concessions to the 48% and quite frankly that stinks.
Had the vote gone the other way, what "compromise" would have been offered to leavers?
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
Had the vote gone the other way, what "compromise" would have been offered to leavers?

Here's what compromises you would have got if Britain had remained: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/21787/0216-euco-conclusions.pdf

Don't forget when those wanting Scottish Independence lost by a narrow margin (but a bigger margin than remain lost by) Cameron's immediate response was to offer them concessions to make staying in the UK more tolerable, so you can argue it's unprecedented to completely ignore the losing side in a referendum when the winning margin is narrow.

Farage told us if Leave lost by a narrow margin it would be 'unfinished business' and remember that petition set up by the English Democrats to reject the referendum result unless certain conditions were met e.g. a large turnout and a 55%? majority, which they tried to get removed the second Leave's unexpected narrowish victory was announced. Anyone who thinks leavers would have accepted 51.8% voting Remain as finished business doesn't live in the real world.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,224
Location
No longer here
Here's what compromises you would have got if Britain had remained: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/media/21787/0216-euco-conclusions.pdf

Don't forget when those wanting Scottish Independence lost by a narrow margin (but a bigger margin than remain lost by) Cameron's immediate response was to offer them concessions to make staying in the UK more tolerable, so you can argue it's unprecedented to completely ignore the losing side in a referendum when the winning margin is narrow.

Farage told us if Leave lost by a narrow margin it would be 'unfinished business' and remember that petition set up by the English Democrats to reject the referendum result unless certain conditions were met e.g. a large turnout and a 55%? majority, which they tried to get removed the second Leave's unexpected narrowish victory was announced. Anyone who thinks leavers would have accepted 51.8% voting Remain as finished business doesn't live in the real world.

Would the leave side have been offered a second referendum then to accept it?
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
Would the leave side have been offered a second referendum then to accept it?

The referendum was to remain in the EU on the new terms or to leave the EU, there was no option to remain in the EU on the existing terms or to renegotiate the new terms. The new terms were no secret - Farage was calling for people to be sacked because, in his opinion, they weren't good enough.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,224
Location
No longer here
The referendum was to remain in the EU on the new terms or to leave the EU, there was no option to remain in the EU on the existing terms or to renegotiate the new terms. The new terms were no secret - Farage was calling for people to be sacked because, in his opinion, they weren't good enough.

So basically no concessions after the vote then, and once the vote happened if remain won then leave had to shut up for ever.
 

cactustwirly

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
7,455
Location
UK
So basically no concessions after the vote then, and once the vote happened if remain won then leave had to shut up for ever.

But it was quite clear what remain was, no one seems to know what 'leave' really means.
Do we completely leave the EU? Or stay in parts, such as Single Market, Customs Union etc?
The whole point of a second referendum is to establish the direction of Brexit that the public wants.
 

AlterEgo

Veteran Member
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
20,224
Location
No longer here
But it was quite clear what remain was, no one seems to know what 'leave' really means.
Do we completely leave the EU? Or stay in parts, such as Single Market, Customs Union etc?
The whole point of a second referendum is to establish the direction of Brexit that the public wants.

The principle is the same.

In the event of a narrow majority, some people are arguing that the losing side ought to have a significant voice in shaping the eventual outcome, to the extent of having a second referendum. A lot of Remainers moan (probably correctly) about how the Brexit referendum was on a subject the average person was poorly informed on and frankly was too large an issue. I’m interested to hear how Joe Public will work through the knotty issue of market economics to mark their ballot paper if such a referendum was to be held on the Single Market.

I don’t think referenda on enormous issues like EU membership are the best exercise in democracy, but it’s done now. I hope people will stop asking for another farce.
 

NSEFAN

Established Member
Joined
17 Jun 2007
Messages
3,504
Location
Southampton
The principle is the same.

In the event of a narrow majority, some people are arguing that the losing side ought to have a significant voice in shaping the eventual outcome, to the extent of having a second referendum. A lot of Remainers moan (probably correctly) about how the Brexit referendum was on a subject the average person was poorly informed on and frankly was too large an issue. I’m interested to hear how Joe Public will work through the knotty issue of market economics to mark their ballot paper if such a referendum was to be held on the Single Market.

I don’t think referenda on enormous issues like EU membership are the best exercise in democracy, but it’s done now. I hope people will stop asking for another farce.
In the case of a narrow remain vote, that would arguably be in favour of the status quo, i.e. remain in the EU but continue to have the current opt-outs we currently have. A "hard remain" view would arguably have meant taking up the Euro, entering Schengen, etc, which I'm sure most would argue that is a perversion of the outcome of the referendum, just as Remainers might argue that hard Brexit is not a fair representation of the will of the people, given the narrow leave majority.

I agree that people are generally too poorly informed to make the decision by referendum. It was madness to reduce the complexity of the issue to a dumb yes-no question. In any case, it appears that we are heading for some kind of soft Brexit compromise.
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,582
In any case, it appears that we are heading for some kind of soft Brexit compromise.
Ah well, if that's the best we can achieve for the moment so be it!

As the EU goes increasingly pear shaped we will revisit the issue soon.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
So basically no concessions after the vote then, and once the vote happened if remain won then leave had to shut up for ever.

Even if 90% voted remain I wouldn't have expected no further say on the EU ever if the EU changed significantly.
 

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,754
Location
York
Even if 90% voted remain I wouldn't have expected no further say on the EU ever if the EU changed significantly.
The argument of the Brexiteer brigade has very much been that the EU we are supposed to be leaving is not the Common Market we signed up to over 40 years ago. It's true that the EU is very different, but our government, like all the other governments, has had a full part in the negotiations that led to changes over the years and has agreed to them or argued the case for a British exemption. In some cases, like the single market, Britain was even very much one of the leaders. This is not a state that has a tradition of referendums, so was not due British process followed by our government in these changes, and what objection can there be? And if we were to stay in, and the EU were to develop a common military force and a proper common foreign policy, if our government had been in those negotiations and had agreed to the chosen path, what would have been wrong with such a decision in terms of the British political way of doing things? I would not have expected a further personal say through a referendum, a general election, etc. I think there is a huge amount wrong with the broken British political system and a massive need for domestic reform, but in principle is a representative system, not a delegate or a referendum system, and that still seems to me a basis for government worth sticking with. (Or do we go down a referendum route, and if we do, will the politicans accept a 52:48 popular mandate for, say, the re-introduction of the death penalty, compulsory repatriation of migrants, wearing the hijab, and so on. You can just imagine what certain groups would have to say for any notion of a referendum being the "will of the people" on things like those.)
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
Ah well, if that's the best we can achieve for the moment so be it!

As the EU goes increasingly pear shaped we will revisit the issue soon.

No-one has been able to prove that we can get better trade deals outside the single market than in it. Theresa May has seen the Canadian and Japanese PMs both agreeing, in principle, to exactly the same trading arrangement as we already have through the EU as a success. Yet those aren't even binding agreements and a change in PM in either country could void the agreement in principle.
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,582
No-one has been able to prove that we can get better trade deals outside the single market than in it. Theresa May has seen the Canadian and Japanese PMs both agreeing, in principle, to exactly the same trading arrangement as we already have through the EU as a success. Yet those aren't even binding agreements and a change in PM in either country could void the agreement in principle.
Given that we are not even allowed to discuss trade deals with other countries (otherwise the EU will slap us on our naughty legs) that is hardly surprising.

Canada and Japan may well have agreed (in principle, I like that), but that is to trade deals with the EU. The big prize is trade deals with the rest of the forward looking world, even now the majority of our trade, rather than the protectionist EU.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
Given that we are not even allowed to discuss trade deals with other countries (otherwise the EU will slap us on our naughty legs) that is hardly surprising.

Canada and Japan may well have agreed (in principle, I like that), but that is to trade deals with the EU. The big prize is trade deals with the rest of the forward looking world, now the majority of our trade, rather than the protectionist EU.

So what do we want/need from Canada and Japan that we don't get from the trade deal as part of the EU? Even if we can't formally agree to it until we leave the EU we don't need to leave the EU to work out what is best for the country.
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,582
So what do we want/need from Canada and Japan that we don't get from the trade deal as part of the EU? Even if we can't formally agree to it until we leave the EU we don't need to leave the EU to work out what is best for the country.
And I hope that is exactly what the government is doing, but, shush, don't say anything, I don't want my legs slapping!
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
And I hope that is exactly what the government is doing, but, shush, don't say anything, I don't want my legs slapping!

Given we were involved in the EU trade deal talks with Canada and Japan we surely already know anything the UK would have liked which wasn't included (that is presuming we didn't get everything we asked for.)
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,582
Given we were involved in the EU trade deal talks with Canada and Japan we surely already know anything the UK would have liked which wasn't included (that is presuming we didn't get everything we asked for.)
Agreed, but we are hardly going to discuss it with the EU.
 

mmh

Established Member
Joined
13 Aug 2016
Messages
3,744
The leave vote won narrowly, a few hundred thousands votes would have changed the result. Thus it seems to me compromise and a soft brexit should be the order of the day. The government instead have insisted on a hard brexit and ignored the 48%. May has been keen to go on about a brexit what works for "everybody" without making any concessions to the 48% and quite frankly that stinks.

"A few hundred thousand" is a bit of a misleading way to describe 1.2 million.
 

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
"A few hundred thousand" is a bit of a misleading way to describe 1.2 million.

Remain 16,141,241
Leave 17,410,742

Difference - 1,269,501. Therefore if 634,751 people who voted leave had instead voted remain then remain would have won. I would call 634,751 'a few hundred thousand.'
 

EM2

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
7,522
Location
The home of the concrete cow
And in news that should surprise absolutely no-one:
Brexit: Britons set to be charged €7 fee to visit EU countries under new Brussels plans
https://www.yahoo.com/news/brexit-eu-plans-charge-travellers-144224014.html
The European Union is moving forward with plans to charge travellers coming from countries outside the single market a €7 “travel authorisation fee” to cross into its territory, under a new system of checks designed to improve security on the bloc’s borders.

British travellers are likely to be hit by the scheme after Brexit, which is set to apply to all visa-exempt countries outside the EU, except those in the EEA/EFTA, which maintain free movement with the union.

Under the new European Travel Information and Authorisation System (ETIAS) people coming into the Schengen area would need to fill out an online form ahead of their trip and apply for travel authorisation, as well as pay the fee.

Theresa May has ruled out membership of the single market and said freedom of movement will end when the UK leaves the bloc – meaning that negotiating an exemption for Britain is likely to prove difficult. A spokesperson for the European Commission’s Brexit negotiating team said the scheme’s application to the UK would be part of discussions on the future relationship, where chief negotiator Michel Barnier has so far been unwilling to cut special deals for Britain.

“Today’s agreement is another important step in protecting the EU’s external borders,” said Valentin Radev, the interior minister for Bulgaria, which is currently chairing the European Council.

“By knowing who is coming to the EU before they even arrive at the border, we will be better able to stop those who may pose a threat to our citizens.”

On Wednesday, ambassadors from the EU countries confirmed an agreement reached on the ETIAS scheme between the presidency of the European Council and the representatives of the European Parliament, who must agree any new EU laws. The European Parliament will now have to vote on the plan, which will also have to be signed off by the European Council.

The EU says the new scheme will “improve internal security, prevent illegal immigration, protect public health and reduce delays at the borders by identifying persons who may pose a risk in one of these areas before they arrive at the external borders”. Because it applies to the whole Schengen passportless area and not just the EU, travellers to countries outside the EU such as Norway, Iceland, and Switzerland would also be hit.

Data submitted in the online application would be processed against EU police and Interpol databases, with further checks made against anyone who raises flags. Countries that already need visas to travel to Europe will not be covered by the scheme, given that tighter restrictions are already in place on them.

Airlines and ferry lines will also have a new responsibility to check whether travellers who need documents have them, with coach operators scheduled to pick up the same rules three years after the scheme’s introduction.

Once a person has obtained travel authorisation under the scheme, it will remain valid for three years, or until that person’s passport expires – whichever is first. After that, they would have to go through the process again.

Catherine Bearder, a Liberal Democrat MEP said: “The fact that Brits will now have to pay to visit the EU was never on the ballot paper in the referendum.

“Voters should have a say on whether this is really what they wanted or if they’ve changed their minds. That’s why I support the People’s Vote campaign.”

A DExEU spokesperson said: “We will consider these matters as part of our future relationship discussions.”
 

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
8,161
And in news that should surprise absolutely no-one:
Brexit: Britons set to be charged €7 fee to visit EU countries under new Brussels plans
https://www.yahoo.com/news/brexit-eu-plans-charge-travellers-144224014.html
I think that's out of date, yesterday 10 Euros was quoted.
Even so, I think we will continue to travel en masse to the sun/snow; but will ID-card-only EU's really want to go through the hassle and expense of applying for what is a Visa in all but name to come here when there are plenty of alternatives (shopping, beaches, mountains etc) inside the EU where they require no such thing?
And it could also stop those off-the-cuff "Oh, fancy lunch in London via Eurotunnel mon cherie?" and they troop off to Brussels instead.
So if Britain goes along with this, tit-for-tat; I would expect a decline in Euro visitors. As proof, look at the reports of increased tourism when the Pound falls 1%. Money talks, but this ain't just money, it's hassle, queues and bureaucracy added.
So our taxes would have to rise to cover for the missing £m's. Nice one, Brexit.
 

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
8,161
Remain 16,141,241
Leave 17,410,742

Difference - 1,269,501. Therefore if 634,751 people who voted leave had instead voted remain then remain would have won. I would call 634,751 'a few hundred thousand.'
It's a lot of votes in a general Election as May found out!!
 

furnessvale

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2015
Messages
4,582
And in news that should surprise absolutely no-one:
Brexit: Britons set to be charged €7 fee to visit EU countries under new Brussels plans
https://www.yahoo.com/news/brexit-eu-plans-charge-travellers-144224014.html
For once, it is not the EU vindictively singling out the UK for leaving this corrupt protectionist organisation, it applies to all countries. So be it. A 7euro fee would be my last consideration when weighing up staying in.

If I were a citizen of the 27, I would be far more worried about the EU vindictively excluding the UK from joint security arrangements. Given the quality of UK security services, I am far more relaxed about its potential effect on the UK.
 
Last edited:

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford

pemma

Veteran Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
31,474
Location
Knutsford
So if Britain goes along with this, tit-for-tat; I would expect a decline in Euro visitors. As proof, look at the reports of increased tourism when the Pound falls 1%. Money talks, but this ain't just money, it's hassle, queues and bureaucracy added.

Unlike other European countries the UK hasn't introduced a tourist tax, presumably because we think it'll put off foreign visitors. Cities like Rome and Venice are probably better placed to get away with it than cities like Birmingham and Bath.

Northern Ireland's tourism could be hit badly by this, there's a lot of tour companies doing tours of the North of Ireland covering sections of both Northern Ireland and the Republic - some itineraries could change so they only cover one country.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
Northern Ireland's tourism could be hit badly by this, there's a lot of tour companies doing tours of the North of Ireland covering sections of both Northern Ireland and the Republic - some itineraries could change so they only cover one country.

I wouldn't think so. I was about to make a snide comment about how the 7 euro payment would delight anyone who had to cross the border frequently until I realised that it was a Schengen area thing, so it shouldn't be an issue (unless Ireland joins the Schengen area of course)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top