EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[WelshBluebird]

By all means make your own quotes but kindly leave mine alone.

The biggest flaw in your argument is that at last the British people have been given a say in the matter after decades of all UK politicians cozying up in search of seats on the EU gravy train. The people spoke and the majority who could be bothered voting, voted out.

A secondary flaw in your argument is that many vetoes have now been removed, in favour of majority voting so, yes, laws can be passed by the EU that even our sycophantic governments may wish to stop.

Why? I made it more accurate.

We have been given a say. We voted for MEP's. We voted for MP's, out of whom make our government, out of whom influence and direct our position in the EU.

Basically, if you want to blame anyone for the direction the UK has taken over recent years, blame the UK public for voting for those that they have done. Sorry but it is as simple as that. You have to own your vote and accept the consequences. I have no sympathy for those who consistently voted for EU friendly politicians but whinge about how awful the EU is. (as a sidenote - that is the same opinion I have when it comes to more well off people who have voted for austerity and cuts but are now starting to feel the fire a little themselves).

In terms of vetoes, there are two large things the leave campaign tried to argue but totally ignored the fact we can veto them. The insane idea that Turkey could join the EU without us wanting them to, and the also just as crazy idea of an EU army against our will.

 

[bramling]

Well apart from the fact that some leavers WERE advocating this position, so yes, some were.
The EU is not the single market, and the single market is no the EU.
You can leave one without the other.
If the intention was to leave everything, then that should have been specified as part of the referendum question.

There was a well-publicised speech by Cameron where he made it rather clear that leaving the EU meant being out of the single market, out of the customs union, etc.

 

[WelshBluebird]

There was a well-publicised speech by Cameron where he made it rather clear that leaving the EU meant being out of the single market, out of the customs union, etc.

And yet leave supporters were claiming other options such as the EEA were a possibility and the anything the remain side said was just "project fear".

 

[Bromley boy]

Well apart from the fact that some leavers WERE advocating this position, so yes, some were.
The EU is not the single market, and the single market is no the EU.
You can leave one without the other.
If the intention was to leave everything, then that should have been specified as part of the referendum question.
Are you trying to say nobody voted leave in order for us to end up an EEA member for example? In which case you may want to talk to leave campaign itself who suggested that as an option!

Some might have been, but all that was ever said was that if we left we would negotiate some kind of ongoing relationship with the EU. Nobody promised what this would be, as clearly nobody was in a position to know (and we still aren’t).

I don’t think leave ever denied that no deal would be a possibility and remain certainly talked it up. Therefore it’s a little disingenuous to suggest that leave voters weren’t aware of it as a possibility - they were!

And as I stated before, a manifesto that did not win an election.

But was still the manifesto of the largest minority party which has formed a government.

That’s a lot more instructive than, say, the number of votes received by parties seeking to reverse Brexit (the Lib Dem’s).

Well apart from the fact that we were branded project fear and leave voters were told we were making up that possibility.
Again I will say, there is literally no way the majority of the public, not even the majority of leaver voters, want a no deal Brexit. So why have we got idiots like Boris trying to force us down that direction?

My position is simply this: the majority overall voted to leave the EU in 2016. They voted so knowing that leaving without a deal would be possible.

Therefore I don’t see the basis for a further referendum to approve the final result, even if it proves to be no deal.

Now, I'd agree the campaign was shocking and it really should have pushed the benefits (at least locally in South Wales, just doing a map of EU funded projects would have done wonders to focus peoples minds - seriously, pretty much every single village in the valleys and some kind of EU funded project that has benefited that area, funding that simply would not be given to the area by a Westminster system that for decades has decided to underfund Wales) but that doesn't mean that in a no deal scenario those predictions can't come true.

The campaigns were awful on both sides, so I can’t really disagree with you here. I would observe that we are a net contributor to the EU so any funds provided from EU projects could be provided (more cheaply!) direct from Westminster or the Welsh assembly.

As for another vote - once again what is being proposed is a vote on "broad brush" relationship with the EU going forward as a country outside the EU.

As I understand it what is being proposed by some on here (note, not any of the main political parties!) is a ludicrous attempt to offer a vote on the precise final deal negotiated, or to simply remain.

Ie a plebiscite vote on a detailed policy question on one side (which virtually nobody will be able to understand anyway), and a broad brush option on the other?

It’s essentially having your cake and eating it: the first vote didn’t go your way so now you want another vote to try and split the leave vote and reverse the result.

 

[Bromley boy]

In terms of vetoes, there are two large things the leave campaign tried to argue but totally ignored the fact we can veto them. The insane idea that Turkey could join the EU without us wanting them to, and the also just as crazy idea of an EU army against our will.

But are you denying @furnessvale’s point that the veto abilities have been watered down.

 

[Bromley boy]

Basically, if you want to blame anyone for the direction the UK has taken over recent years, blame the UK public for voting for those that they have done.

It’s not about blaming anyone for the direction the U.K. has taken, it’s about not liking the direction the EU has taken and wanting the U.K. to leave it, and yet not being able to express this view at the ballot box separately from other issues.

This is why an in/out referendum was necessary in the first place.

 

[mmh]

And yet leave supporters were claiming other options such as the EEA were a possibility and the anything the remain side said was just "project fear".

Cameron was campaigning to remain. Other options obviously are possibilities, the EU has masses of different combinations of members and non-members being part or not part of many agreements. If none of them are for some reason now available, that can only be down to incompetent negotiating or a belligerent EU, or both. And the increasing evidence of that will do little to stop leavers being tempted to think "OK, enough now, no deal it is then - walk away".

 

[Senex]

Today's Guardian reporting David Lidington as telling the French that it's either May's Chequers "agreement" or no deal:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...equers-plan-says-lidington?CMP=share_btn_link
Quite apart from any question of the absurdity of May trying to dictate her terms to the 27, it's interesting to see how the last part of the article deals only with trying to keep the Tory party together — there's no question of trying for agreement across parliament or doing what is in the national interest, rather for him and so presumably for May it's just party politics.

 

[bramling]

It’s not about blaming anyone for the direction the U.K. has taken, it’s about not liking the direction the EU has taken and wanting the U.K. to leave it, and yet not being able to express this view at the ballot box separately from other issues.

This is why an in/out referendum was necessary in the first place.

Precisely. In the decade or two leading up to 2015 the most effective way to express an anti-EU view was to vote UKIP. Increasing numbers of voters did just that, leading to Cameron’s decision to make a referendum part of his manifesto. A good example of democracy in action.

It’s just a pity Cameron clearly had no intention of implementing one of the options.

 

[bramling]

Today's Guardian reporting David Lidington as telling the French that it's either May's Chequers "agreement" or no deal:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...equers-plan-says-lidington?CMP=share_btn_link
Quite apart from any question of the absurdity of May trying to dictate her terms to the 27, it's interesting to see how the last part of the article deals only with trying to keep the Tory party together — there's no question of trying for agreement across parliament or doing what is in the national interest, rather for him and so presumably for May it's just party politics.

The whole point of leaving is so that we *can* dictate *our* terms, no deal being a perfectly valid option.

 

[Senex]

The whole point of leaving is so that we *can* dictate *our* terms, no deal being a perfectly valid option.

But do we want no deal if the 27 very properly refuse to be dictated to by the one still wanting to eat its cake and have it?

 

[bramling]

But do we want no deal if the 27 very properly refuse to be dictated to by the one still wanting to eat its cake and have it?

From a personal point of view, very much yes.

There are a number of aspects of EU membership which I find increasingly unacceptable, so if the EU is not prepared to meet our requirements then quite simply we need to walk away - and without paying any divorce goodwill contribution payment to keep the EU’s budget propped up.

For many leavers I suspect none of this is much of a problem. It’s that EU divergence from what we want, and lack of flexibility, that led to the leave vote in the first place. So more of the same now is hardly a surprise.

 

[WelshBluebird]

There are a number of aspects of EU membership which I find increasingly unacceptable, so if the EU is not prepared to meet our requirements then quite simply we need to walk away - and without paying any divorce goodwill contribution payment to keep the EU’s budget propped up.

Regardless of consequence? Even if it ends up being worse for us, not better? Brexit at all costs for the sake of Brexit and nothing else?
To me that sounds very much like "I'm taking my ball home in a strop"!

 

[Intercity 225]

That’s true, but many people consider themselves Northern Irish as well as Irish, or Northern Irish as well as British. For those people it’s like a tag line or sub brand. I think this is well understandable as Northern Ireland is a unique place. My dad’s pushing 70 but I’ve always seen him, and he’s seen himself as Irish and Northern Irish - if you’re born in Derry you’re Irish but it’s a slightly different sort of Irish to being born south of the border.

Yes, I agree with all of that - it's very similar to the fact that some people see themselves as both British and English whereas others just consider themselves one or the other. The same methods of identifying can also apply to people from Scotland, Wales or the Isle of Man. We're quite unusual across these set of islands in that we can identify in a whole number of different ways... perhaps we should just have a single European identity instead to simplify things (My turn to not be serious for a moment! )

Ah no, you spoiled it.

Northern Irish identity is not a national identity but more a civic one. It doesn’t come with any aspirations of self determination. There is literally zero chance of an independent Northern Ireland. It cannot support itself, for a start.

In my post before my previous one I did refer to that I thought Northern Irish independence was extremely unlikely and that the current power sharing setup and constitutional arrangements are likely to continue for the foreseeable future. Even though I think a hard border or Scottish independence would increase it's likelihood, I still think it's highly improbable.

In terms of the national identity though I know a significant number of younger Northern Irish people who don't identify as either British or Irish but solely Northern Irish. All of these people are under 40 and come from a mix of protestant/catholic, unionist/republican backgrounds. I've met a lot of these people separately too, it's not just one bunch of friends who all feel the same way. Obviously it's a very small sample size and I know they aren't necessarily going to be representative of NI as a whole but it gave me the impression that a generational shift could be underway and the previous Wiki link I posted seemed to support that.

 

[bramling]

Regardless of consequence? Even if it ends up being worse for us, not better? Brexit at all costs for the sake of Brexit and nothing else?
To me that sounds very much like "I'm taking my ball home in a strop"!

In the medium and long term I firmly believe Britain will do much better outside the EU. There may well be short-term pain, and my leave vote factored this in.

I think a lot of people will come to realise Brexit was the right choice. With hindsight it would have been a lot better if we'd left sooner.

And the end of free movement can't come soon enough.

 

[bnm]

And the end of free movement can't come soon enough

That's a two way street remember.

 

[Intercity 225]

Hong Kong. It's as unlikely as all the others, when Hong Kong was seeded back to China, it kept it's autonomy (to a degree) and managed with customs and checks from China (ie within it's own country). This is about as unlikely as any other "solution" and would require the Irish Sea border, but a "third way" was asked for and there you go.

It's about the only place in the world where there is anything resembling Norn/UK and Ireland (??).

I appreciate that you're already referred to this being unlikely to happen and I agree that is the case. There is no chance the DUP would support such an arrangement and considering they hold the balance of power at Westminster there is zero chance of it happening until after the next election. Even if hypothetically work were to begin today to make that solution a reality it would also likely take until 2022 (and most likely even longer) to get all the necessary infrastructure in place.

The reason I keep referring to 2022 is because by the time of the next election it will have been six years since the referendum and the following is likely to have caused a shift in the public opinion against Brexit:

They'll be c.4,500,000 young voters who will be eligible to partake in an election for the first time. Widespread analysis shows that these are more likely to be pro-European (c.75% in favour of EU membership).

• Turnout in this age group is c.60% - c.2,025,000 likely supporting EU membership and c.675,000 likely supporting Brexit
• This equates to an extra c.1,350,000 the 2022 electorate likely being in favour of EU membership

Sadly c.2,750,000 of older voters who took part in the referendum will also have passed away between 2016-2022. Widespread analysis shows that these would have been more likely to have been pro-Brexit (c.65% in favour of Brexit).

• Turnout in this category is c.80% - c.770,000 likely supporting EU membership and c.1,430,000 likely supporting Brexit during the 2016 referendum
• This equates to a further c.660,000 who would have likely voted in favour of Brexit in 2016 sadly no longer being with us.

Now there are obviously some estimations/assumptions in the above and it goes without saying that I hope I've over-estimated the number of older voters who will have sadly passed away!! I have however based the above on reasonable statistics available - sources used for those interested:

https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/how-britain-voted-2016-eu-referendum

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/06/13/how-britain-voted-2017-general-election/

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages

https://www.dyingmatters.org/page/frequently-asked-questions

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/eu_referendum/results

The reason I've done that top level analysis is because I can see the 2022 general election becoming essentially a proxy second referendum with a major party having shifted to support EU membership. I think it's inevitable that the transition period will be extended until 2022 because I can't see how we can possibly get all the infrastructure in place in order for us to have diverged from EU regulations beforehand. That means it would be far easier in 2022 to rejoin the EU than it would to continue going our own way and the change in national demographics means that a return to EU membership is likely to be the "will of the people" at the time.

So my question to Brexiters is, what's the solution?

How do you realistically resolve the Irish border issue and prevent our port cities/surrounding areas becoming permanently gridlocked within the next four years?

Because unless you can, I think it's realistic that Brexit will completely unravel in 2022.

 

[Billy A]

.....And the end of free movement can't come soon enough.

Is this an important thing for the British, to keep Johnny Foreigner out? Here in Ireland we've been looking at all this Brexit nonsense with some bewilderment and the general theory is that the Brexiteers are hankering after their old Empire, that is that they want to be masters of their world again and sharing with all kinds of foreigner isn't part of the scheme of things at all. It's been funny watching how with agonising slowness they come to realise they're going to have a land border with the EU which isn't presently defended and which is going to have all manner of implications. Some of the more barking of the Brexiteers - and there are a lot of those - have even suggested that we should leave too just to make life easier for them!

 

[bramling]

Is this an important thing for the British, to keep Johnny Foreigner out? Here in Ireland we've been looking at all this Brexit nonsense with some bewilderment and the general theory is that the Brexiteers are hankering after their old Empire, that is that they want to be masters of their world again and sharing with all kinds of foreigner isn't part of the scheme of things at all. It's been funny watching how with agonising slowness they come to realise they're going to have a land border with the EU which isn't presently defended and which is going to have all manner of implications. Some of the more barking of the Brexiteers - and there are a lot of those - have even suggested that we should leave too just to make life easier for them!

The main reason for concerns about population growth is the impact on housing, infrastructure and services. I don’t know enough about Ireland to know if that’s a salient issue there.

Here in Britain many look with bewilderment at the Irish situation where there are two separate countries who apparently can’t maintain peace without having a “soft” border.

 

[bnm]

I've just thought of a positive.

No more "Brewed and canned/bottled in the EU" nonsense on the packaging of supposedly continental beers.

The brewers of Kronenbourg, Carlsberg, San Miguel, Stella, Heineken, Amstel etc will have to be honest and say the beers are brewed in Northampton, Magor and Tadcaster.

 

[Jonny]

The reason I've done that top level analysis is because I can see the 2022 general election becoming essentially a proxy second referendum with a major party having shifted to support EU membership. I think it's inevitable that the transition period will be extended until 2022 because I can't see how we can possibly get all the infrastructure in place in order for us to have diverged from EU regulations beforehand. That means it would be far easier in 2022 to rejoin the EU than it would to continue going our own way and the change in national demographics means that a return to EU membership is likely to be the "will of the people" at the time.

Hardly, either of the main parties seeking to turn the General Election into a proxy referendum would be in very dangerous territory as this could risk alienating the leave-supporting elements of their core support, especially since the Lib Dems would seek to pull a stunt like that. Especially if a certain Mrs Miller becomes leader of the Liberal Democrats without being an MP.

 

[bramling]

Hardly, either of the main parties seeking to turn the General Election into a proxy referendum would be in very dangerous territory as this could risk alienating the leave-supporting elements of their core support, especially since the Lib Dems would seek to pull a stunt like that. Especially if a certain Mrs Miller becomes leader of the Liberal Democrats without being an MP.

The LDs tried to fight the last election on an anti Brexit ticket and it got them basically nowhere. I can’t see either of the others trying it - Labour are hopelessly muddled over the issue and as you rightly say it’s many of their voters, especially in “core vote / non-ethnic-minority” territory outside London. So this leaves the Conservatives and I simply can’t see them doing it with their die-hard core of EU sceptics.

Unless a very pro-EU set of politicians take over one of the two parties I can’t see it happening. At the moment it’s so hard to say who the next generation of leaders will be - both parties have a massive lack of talent, and this is a major threat to our country going forward.

 

[Bromley boy]

I've just thought of a positive.

No more "Brewed and canned/bottled in the EU" nonsense on the packaging of supposedly continental beers.

The brewers of Kronenbourg, Carlsberg, San Miguel, Stella, Heineken, Amstel etc will have to be honest and say the beers are brewed in Northampton, Magor and Tadcaster.

Good!

God only knows why people are still drinking that muck when there are so many better alternatives out there. Perhaps BREXIT will encourage them to experiment a bit more.

 

[Intercity 225]

Hardly, either of the main parties seeking to turn the General Election into a proxy referendum would be in very dangerous territory as this could risk alienating the leave-supporting elements of their core support, especially since the Lib Dems would seek to pull a stunt like that. Especially if a certain Mrs Miller becomes leader of the Liberal Democrats without being an MP.

The LDs tried to fight the last election on an anti Brexit ticket and it got them basically nowhere. I can’t see either of the others trying it - Labour are hopelessly muddled over the issue and as you rightly say it’s many of their voters, especially in “core vote / non-ethnic-minority” territory outside London. So this leaves the Conservatives and I simply can’t see them doing it with their die-hard core of EU sceptics.

Unless a very pro-EU set of politicians take over one of the two parties I can’t see it happening. At the moment it’s so hard to say who the next generation of leaders will be - both parties have a massive lack of talent, and this is a major threat to our country going forward.

I'll expand on my reasoning:

• I think the Lib Dems will soon cease to exist and have essentially been a dead party since they reneged on some key policies upon entering coalition with the Conservatives. This stunt they're pulling about potentially installing a non-MP as leader is a desperate attempt to remain relevant and interesting in a country where they're now an insignificance. I'm a passionate pro-European but I couldn't bring myself to vote for the Lib Dems during the last election and there's a very sizeable chunk of the electorate who will have thought similarly.

• In addition, the Lib Dems didn't stand on a proper anti-Brexit ticket - they just promised a second referendum. If they'd stood on cancelling Brexit altogether they'd have won a huge number of votes including my own. The fact they didn't do this showed they had embarrassingly weak leadership and were unable to spot opportunities. For me that makes them unsuitable for power and again, a very large number of voters will have felt similar.

• Both the Conservatives and Labour are on the verge of civil war and for the first time in my lifetime it's a possibility that one or both parties could actually split. The pro-Europeans in the Conservatives and the centrists within Labour have far more in common with one another than they do with their respective leaderships - this provides an opening for them to work together unless their respective leaderships change to positions closer to their own. Some big ifs in there but nothing too far fetched.

• The Labour membership has been overrun by the hard-left and the youth and that means Corbyn will remain in post for the foreseeable future. Despite his claims before the referendum, he is in reality a Brexiter and will resist all attempts to move Labour to a pro-EU position however the youth in the party who he relies on for support may push him to a point where he needs to concede in order to keep them on board.

• If Corbyn doesn't change his position before c.2020 he stands a risk of seeing his most pro-EU MPs resign from the party - this Labour splinter group would most likely be lead by Chuka Ummuna and whilst I can't see them forming a new party immediately they'd continue in Westminster as independents.

• It's almost a certainty that May will be replaced as Conservative leader before the next election, she'll see out the Brexit negotiations and then be replaced to give her replacement around a year to settle in before the 2022 election. As unlikely as it may seem now I think that this individual could be a pro-European because I suspect the polls will be start to switch towards a pro-EU position within the electorate, partly for the reasons outlined in my previous post but also because of the disillusion caused by the fact that Brexit is taking up the majority of parliamentary time and many will want to see day to day governance restored.

• I understand that there are a significant number of Eurosceptics within the Conservative parliamentary party and certainly within the overall membership however the moderate Eurosceptics wouldn't break rank even if a pro-European took over the leadership. That's because they'd do anything necessary to prevent a Corbyn-lead Labour taking power. The hard-line Eurosceptics would leave the party though - probably to join a resurgent UKIP.

• On the flip side, if a hard-line Brexiter such as Johnson or Rees-Mogg replaces May then you'll likely see the pro-EU Tories leave the party in a similar fashion to the Labour splinter group I mentioned earlier... sitting as independents before starting discussions with Labour centrists and the runt of the Lib Dems about starting a new party.

• If that new party consisting of pro-EU Tories and Labour centrists did form before the 2022 election and stood on a cancelling Brexit ticket (not a second referendum but a complete cancellation) it's unlikely they'd win the election outright but it is likely they'd gain enough seats to hold the balance of power. They could then negotiate a coalition with either of the two main parties on the condition of a second referendum which using the analysis from my previous post would likely result in pro-EU victory.

Now, there are a HUGE amount of assumptions and hypotheticals in my reasoning above but nothing outlandish. I could end up being completely wrong in my forecast or some of it may happen and other parts of it not, but one things for sure and that's that there's going to lots of turbulence for a long time yet. A week is a long time in politics never mind four years!

I also agree with @bramling in the sense that there's a lack of real talent in both major parties at the moment and that is very concerning indeed.

But you two are both Brexiters and you've ignored the question in my previous post - what are your views on how we solve the issues at the Irish border and at/around our ports?

 

[Bromley boy]

I'm a passionate pro-European but I couldn't bring myself to vote for the Lib Dems during the last election and there's a very sizeable chunk of the electorate who will have thought similarly.

I think the Lib Dems will soon cease to exist and have essentially been a dead party since they reneged on some key policies upon entering coalition with the Conservatives. This stunt they're pulling about potentially installing a non-MP as leader is a desperate attempt to remain relevant and interesting in a country where they're now an insignificance. I'm a passionate pro-European but I couldn't bring myself to vote for the Lib Dems during the last election and there's a very sizeable chunk of the electorate who will have thought similarly.

If you weren’t even prepared to vote for them despite their anti brexit ticket, doesn’t that speak volumes about how irrelevant the Lib Dem’s are in 2018!

I completely agree with you. Nick Clegg basically destroyed the party’s credibility when he went into coalition with the the Tories. He sold his party down the river, presumably because he wanted the title of “deputy PM” on his business card.

I can remember when the Lib Dems used to represent a genuine middle option between centre right Tories and centre left labour (they were a wasted vote even then). Politics is more polarised now so there are fewer middle of the road voters for them to appeal to. They achieved some success by moving to the left when new labour were in vogue but have clearly been outflanked on that front by Labour’s current (ageing-1970s-marxist-whose-somehow-down-with-the-kids) incarnation.

In addition, the Lib Dems didn't stand on a proper anti-Brexit ticket - they just promised a second referendum. If they'd stood on cancelling Brexit altogether they'd have won a huge number of votes including my own. The fact they didn't do this showed they had embarrassingly weak leadership and were unable to spot opportunities. For me that makes them unsuitable for power and again, a very large number of voters will have felt similar.

I accept that your viewpoint is wishing to cancel BREXIT.

But, looking at it objectively, I’m sure you can see why the Lib Dem’s pomised what they did: running on a ticket of unilaterally overriding the 2016 leave result (which over 50% of a huge plebiscite turnout voted for) would destroy any political party under a first past the post GE. They’d alienate all leave voters, and many remain voters would be prioritising other issue.

As it turned out even promising a second vote got the Lib Dems nowhere last year.

The Labour membership has been overrun by the hard-left and the youth and that means Corbyn will remain in post for the foreseeable future. Despite his claims before the referendum, he is in reality a Brexiter and will resist all attempts to move Labour to a pro-EU position however the youth in the party who he relies on for support may push him to a point where he needs to concede in order to keep them on board.

He will certainly remain in post for the foreseeable, although I doubt he has more than one more GE failure in him. At that point the party may indeed split or Corbyn’s successor will prove more moderate and relevant. Corbynism as a political phenomenon will (hopefully) burn itself out in due course. He’s a 1970s relic who isn’t offering anything fresh or new, just the same tired dogmas he subscribed to in the 1970s. As you say he’s actually a brexiteer and is incapable of changing his message. He also isn’t getting any younger!

The starry eyed, idealistic dim-wits who support him have a short attention span and will rapidly lose interest as he continues to blunder from faux pas to faux pas. Even they will eventually realise he’s fundamentally out of his depth and is incapable of delivering the results they are expecting.

On the flip side, if a hard-line Brexiter such as Johnson or Rees-Mogg replaces May then you'll likely see the pro-EU Tories leave the party in a similar fashion to the Labour splinter group I mentioned earlier... sitting as independents before starting discussions with Labour centrists and the runt of the Lib Dems about starting a new party.

I’d disagree that Johnson is a hard line brexiteer. He’s not a conviction politician: he’s a careerist whose eyes have always been on the top job. His game plan was clearly to go from mayor of London role to a high profile role spearheading the (intended to fail) leave campaign thereby shutting down UKIP and then succeeding Cameron. Sadly for him things turned out rather differently, but he now appears to be biding his time for one last stab at the top job.

Overall, UK politics is in a dreadful state of malaise due to weak and incompetent leadership in all the main parties. The country is polarised into left and right and is increasingly divided and angry.

What most concerns me most, as a centre right moderate, are the following plausible scenarios:

- the Tories collapsing and giving Corbyn a decent shot at no 10. 5 years of his lunacy would see this country enjoying second world status;

- Brexit being thwarted, or going badly over the next few years, and paving the way for a smooth talking far right populist party to enter stage left, so to speak, and gaining real traction.

We are living in interesting political times for sure...

 

[bnm]

Good!

God only knows why people are still drinking that muck when there are so many better alternatives out there. Perhaps BREXIT will encourage them to experiment a bit more.

Yes, there are some fantastic Pilseners, Bocks, Helles etc brewed on the continent.

Getting hold of them, at similar prices to today, after March 29th 2019...

 

[furnessvale]

The reason I keep referring to 2022 is because by the time of the next election it will have been six years since the referendum and the following is likely to have caused a shift in the public opinion against Brexit:

They'll be c.4,500,000 young voters who will be eligible to partake in an election for the first time. Widespread analysis shows that these are more likely to be pro-European (c.75% in favour of EU membership).

• Turnout in this age group is c.60% - c.2,025,000 likely supporting EU membership and c.675,000 likely supporting Brexit
• This equates to an extra c.1,350,000 the 2022 electorate likely being in favour of EU membership

Sadly c.2,750,000 of older voters who took part in the referendum will also have passed away between 2016-2022. Widespread analysis shows that these would have been more likely to have been pro-Brexit (c.65% in favour of Brexit).

• Turnout in this category is c.80% - c.770,000 likely supporting EU membership and c.1,430,000 likely supporting Brexit during the 2016 referendum
• This equates to a further c.660,000 who would have likely voted in favour of Brexit in 2016 sadly no longer being with us.

I do tire of this simplistic approach to age related voting intentions.

Do people really believe that EVERY OAP Tory was born that colour? There are older members of the Tory party who were left wing firebrands in their youth but who changed their views as they matured and learned about life.

One million youngsters may enter the voting chain, and one million OAPs may shuffle off this mortal coil, but in the middle, one million voters will mature and change their views.

 

[bnm]

I changed my views too as I aged.

Once voted Tory in my youth. I grew out of it.

 

[WelshBluebird]

In the medium and long term I firmly believe Britain will do much better outside the EU. There may well be short-term pain, and my leave vote factored this in.

I think a lot of people will come to realise Brexit was the right choice. With hindsight it would have been a lot better if we'd left sooner.

And the end of free movement can't come soon enough.

But as I said, are we talking about Brexit for the sake of Brexit regardless of consequence here? Because that is what it sounds like.
What if Brexit doesn't give us any longer term benefits? Or what if the short term pain ends up being too much?
Is Brexit still worth it, just because it is Brexit? Or should we actually be taking into account consequences?

I do tire of this simplistic approach to age related voting intentions.

Do people really believe that EVERY OAP Tory was born that colour? There are older members of the Tory party who were left wing firebrands in their youth but who changed their views as they matured and learned about life.

One million youngsters may enter the voting chain, and one million OAPs may shuffle off this mortal coil, but in the middle, one million voters will mature and change their views.

"Matured and learned about life". Seriously?
If anything, I have become more left wing since finishing university, getting a "proper" job and paying (a fairly large amount of) tax.
The idea that people "mature and learn about life" so turn blue is frankly insulting as you seem to be suggesting those of us who don't vote Tory are not mature and haven't learned about life.

 

[furnessvale]

"Matured and learned about life". Seriously?
If anything, I have become more left wing since finishing university, getting a "proper" job and paying (a fairly large amount of) tax.
The idea that people "mature and learn about life" so turn blue is frankly insulting as you seem to be suggesting those of us who don't vote Tory are not mature and haven't learned about life.

Not meant as an insult but I am happy enough that you accept it as one.

I was simply explaining the paradox that the majority of young people are left wing whereas the majority of older people are right wing. If some don't change with age what other explanation is there?