• 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.

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Well then yes, there was no reason to "reform" our relationship (whatever that means?), as full member but with significant opt-outs and a sizable rebate was pretty damned good.
Do many Remainers actually think the EU is perfect? Personally I believe there is quite a lot that ought to change, but even in its present form on balance it's a force for good. On the outside we have no chance to argue for reform, but we will still be under the influence of whatever it may become in the future.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,669
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
Do many Remainers actually think the EU is perfect? Personally I believe there is quite a lot that ought to change, but even in its present form on balance it's a force for good. On the outside we have no chance to argue for reform, but we will still be under the influence of whatever it may become in the future.

I think most people, for or against the EU think that change is needed. However as you say, we can only affect change from within. So given that we will need to continue to trade heavily with the EU, having some say might form part of a logical argument for remaining, or at least staying within a customs union. Its the sort of debate that should have been going on in early 2016, instead of each side slagging each other off.
 

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,752
Location
York
Do many Remainers actually think the EU is perfect? Personally I believe there is quite a lot that ought to change, but even in its present form on balance it's a force for good. On the outside we have no chance to argue for reform, but we will still be under the influence of whatever it may become in the future.
Right from the time we went in I've always thought there was a great deal that needed changing, but equally I've always thought that we should be right there in the middle, fighting for change as enthusiastic and committed members, not as the semi-outsider, always sniping and fault-finding. We seem only ever to have been half-hearted members. But for all its faults, the EU is the best we've got, and Britain in the EU is far stronger in the world than Britain-dreaming-of-past-glories outside and reliant on itself alone. Also, for those of us who think of ourselves as inheritors of and participants in a European cultural history and heritage, it is natural for us to see ourselves every bit as much European as English or Scottish or Irish.
It remains interesting to speculate whether things might have been different if we'd gone in right at the start, as one of the founding members, and helped to shape the institutions. Might our attitudes have been different?
 

Aictos

Established Member
Joined
28 Apr 2009
Messages
10,403
I think most people, for or against the EU think that change is needed. However as you say, we can only affect change from within. So given that we will need to continue to trade heavily with the EU, having some say might form part of a logical argument for remaining, or at least staying within a customs union. Its the sort of debate that should have been going on in early 2016, instead of each side slagging each other off.

Indeed and that's why the UK is basically screwed at the moment by that I mean our politicians instead of working for the good of the country are only interested in their own agendas least the EU presents a unified side which is something the UK is failing miserably at!
 

Puffing Devil

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2013
Messages
2,742
Right from the time we went in I've always thought there was a great deal that needed changing, but equally I've always thought that we should be right there in the middle, fighting for change as enthusiastic and committed members, not as the semi-outsider, always sniping and fault-finding. We seem only ever to have been half-hearted members. But for all its faults, the EU is the best we've got, and Britain in the EU is far stronger in the world than Britain-dreaming-of-past-glories outside and reliant on itself alone. Also, for those of us who think of ourselves as inheritors of and participants in a European cultural history and heritage, it is natural for us to see ourselves every bit as much European as English or Scottish or Irish.
It remains interesting to speculate whether things might have been different if we'd gone in right at the start, as one of the founding members, and helped to shape the institutions. Might our attitudes have been different?

Agree - it's not perfect, just like our country and government are not perfect. We are better off in it and working to change it than we are outside it.

The sooner we, as a country, come to terms with the new world order and that we are no longer an Empire or the leading world power, nor likely to be again soon, the sooner we will be able to move on. We no longer have the military power to dominate, empires are a thing of the past, we need to function in the world as it is and that means forming working alliances.
 

malc-c

Member
Joined
1 Dec 2017
Messages
990
I'm no expert when it comes to politics so forgive me if this is incorrect. All this cross party discussion about cancelling Brexit or extending it yet again, seems to imply the British government have the say and control in this, but doesn't the rest of EU have some control in this. The Lib Dems voted that they would scrap Brexit if they came to power after an election, but having submitted article 50 can that be revoked ? - Presumably if article 50 can be cancelled it would be based on a unanimous vote by the other EU members ? - If they vote against it, then we are legally compelled to leave on an agreed date, which seems to be constantly moved.

Bottom line as I see it, regardless of being a leaver or stayer, is we live in a democracy (well you would think so), and that by a slim margin the vote in the referendum was to leave the EU. Irrespective of what side of the fence you voted that was the outcome. To not respect that result and to cancel or have another vote is not democratic at all. It would also set a president in that any public or private vote on any future policies could be simply overturned. Public vote on HS2 / Heathrow expansion... whatever... it wouldn't matter as we would be living under a dictatorship government because they would point to the fact the Brexit result was ignored.

Maybe we should leave with no deal, and then having a clean sheet, negotiate after Brexit as they haven't seemed to have done much in the 3 years after the result leading up to it. I'm sure all those EU countries with businesses that have the UK as a big customer would be putting pressure on their governments to ensure trade with the UK after Brexit can remain.

Finally, do you think the UK people are as passionate about leaving as they were shortly after the result was announced... if they scrapped Bexit do you think there would be riots and protest such as the "polltax" riots decades ago ? or are the UK so disillusioned with the whole political mess that they have lost interest in Brexit ?

My brain is logically wired. The UK went to the vote and the results were to leave 2 years after handing in our resignation of membership of the EU... we should have left by now ! - Calling for a second vote just because some people didn't like the result of the original is just so illogical.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
The Lib Dems voted that they would scrap Brexit if they came to power after an election, but having submitted article 50 can that be revoked ?
Yes.

Article 50: Can the UK revoke Brexit?

The European Court of Justice (ECJ) ruling last year confirmed that the UK could revoke Article 50 itself, without having to ask the other 27 EU countries for permission.

This could be done by writing a letter to the European Council, made up of EU heads of state.

The ECJ said the UK would then remain a member of the EU on the same terms - as it has now - including keeping its budget rebate.

But it did set some conditions.

The ruling said revocation should be "unequivocal and unconditional", suggesting that the UK could not simply revoke Article 50 in order to buy more time and then resubmit it at a later date.

A senior lawyer at the ECJ said that "appropriate legal instruments" could be used if a member state tried to trigger and revoke Article 50 in order to secure a better withdrawal deal.
My brain is logically wired. The UK went to the vote and the results were to leave 2 years after handing in our resignation of membership of the EU... we should have left by now ! - Calling for a second vote just because some people didn't like the result of the original is just so illogical.
The issue isn't that "some people didn't like the result of the original" vote, the issue is that we were fundamentally lied to by those leading the Vote Leave campaign. They repeatedly said that we would leave with a deal and/or that we would remain part of the customs union.

The margin between leave and remain was some 4% of the total votes cast. Logically it stands to reason that a proportion of those who voted to leave would either not have voted or have voted to remain if no deal was the only option on offer.

If nothing else, we should have a confirmatory vote to ensure that the majority of the population wants a no deal Brexit before taking that route (especially given the expected level of disruption it will cause).
 
Last edited:

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,539
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Bottom line as I see it, regardless of being a leaver or stayer, is we live in a democracy (well you would think so), and that by a slim margin the vote in the referendum was to leave the EU. Irrespective of what side of the fence you voted that was the outcome. To not respect that result and to cancel or have another vote is not democratic at all. It would also set a president in that any public or private vote on any future policies could be simply overturned. Public vote on HS2 / Heathrow expansion... whatever... it wouldn't matter as we would be living under a dictatorship government because they would point to the fact the Brexit result was ignored.

Do you therefore not support re-election of Parliament every 5 years or so, then? By that argument we should elect it once and then only re-elect to replace MPs that stand down at their choice? Only a fool fails to revisit a decision based on changing evidence.

I think the most sensible thing is another referendum because there is more evidence available than there was at the start. It would include at least one actually viable Brexit option as well as "we don't like those so remain".
 

Bantamzen

Established Member
Joined
4 Dec 2013
Messages
9,669
Location
Baildon, West Yorkshire
I'm no expert when it comes to politics so forgive me if this is incorrect. All this cross party discussion about cancelling Brexit or extending it yet again, seems to imply the British government have the say and control in this, but doesn't the rest of EU have some control in this. The Lib Dems voted that they would scrap Brexit if they came to power after an election, but having submitted article 50 can that be revoked ? - Presumably if article 50 can be cancelled it would be based on a unanimous vote by the other EU members ? - If they vote against it, then we are legally compelled to leave on an agreed date, which seems to be constantly moved.

Bottom line as I see it, regardless of being a leaver or stayer, is we live in a democracy (well you would think so), and that by a slim margin the vote in the referendum was to leave the EU. Irrespective of what side of the fence you voted that was the outcome. To not respect that result and to cancel or have another vote is not democratic at all. It would also set a president in that any public or private vote on any future policies could be simply overturned. Public vote on HS2 / Heathrow expansion... whatever... it wouldn't matter as we would be living under a dictatorship government because they would point to the fact the Brexit result was ignored.

Maybe we should leave with no deal, and then having a clean sheet, negotiate after Brexit as they haven't seemed to have done much in the 3 years after the result leading up to it. I'm sure all those EU countries with businesses that have the UK as a big customer would be putting pressure on their governments to ensure trade with the UK after Brexit can remain.

Finally, do you think the UK people are as passionate about leaving as they were shortly after the result was announced... if they scrapped Bexit do you think there would be riots and protest such as the "polltax" riots decades ago ? or are the UK so disillusioned with the whole political mess that they have lost interest in Brexit ?

My brain is logically wired. The UK went to the vote and the results were to leave 2 years after handing in our resignation of membership of the EU... we should have left by now ! - Calling for a second vote just because some people didn't like the result of the original is just so illogical.

The single largest problem with the referendum was the question asked, basically did we want the then government to invoke Article 50. That was it, no options on the type of deal post Brexit, no mention of no deal, just asking the government to start the process. After that with no mandate on how or when to leave, the referendum result handed responsibility over to Parliament.

However on inspection of the options, it became clear that the lack of an initial mandate created deep divisions in Westminster (and indeed Whitehall too). So when May's government finally agreed a deal with the EU, MPs could not agree because no single route out of the EU had been agreed be it by the referendum, or any legislation to enact it. In short the referendum was the problem, to which no one solution was proposed.

This is why we are where we are, and why simply carrying on with the notion that the UK voted to leave, with or without a deal is deeply flawed. If, and its a big if, a deal can be negotiated & passed in the next few weeks, the Brexit should go ahead as per the referendum result because this represent the best Brexit option. If no deal can be agreed, then regardless of what the PM or public desire, we should not simply chuck ourselves over the economic cliff simply to say "we did it". Any post no deal negotiations will be considerably more difficult, will take far longer than trying to reshape the current proposals, and will leave the UK with a very uncertain short term economic future, with no guarantee it will get better with time.

Sometimes in life you have to accept, in the face of new evidence, that previous decisions were either wrong or made without the full picture. This is life, and applies to Brexit just as much as it does everything else. It can now be said with some degree of certainly that no deal is not only the worst case scenario, it is really one we as a country should not be even contemplating, let alone aspiring to. Therefore we need to re-ask the question properly, and answer it with a more considered, informed view.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Bottom line as I see it, regardless of being a leaver or stayer, is we live in a democracy (well you would think so), and that by a slim margin the vote in the referendum was to leave the EU. Irrespective of what side of the fence you voted that was the outcome. To not respect that result and to cancel or have another vote is not democratic at all. It would also set a president in that any public or private vote on any future policies could be simply overturned. Public vote on HS2 / Heathrow expansion... whatever... it wouldn't matter as we would be living under a dictatorship government because they would point to the fact the Brexit result was ignored.
There are two issues here. Firstly the details of terms for leaving were not known in 2016, so people could form their own impression of what it meant, and many of these were contradictory. This partly accounts for the second reason, that it was in the interests of the Leave campaign not to make clear what they expected, so as to maximise their support, and this led to outright lies in some cases. With the narrow majority of 52%, it's quite likely that had the details of leaving been made clear, enough people would have been put off to reduce it below 50%. For these reasons I, and I suspect many other Remainers, don't accept the result of the referendum as being a fair expression of the will of the people. If there was a vote on HS2 or Heathrow, the public would have detailed plans and impact assessments to go by, so any untruths would be obvious and people could make their own decision based on the facts.

I should also point out that the 2017 election that produced the current Parliament was more recent than the referendum, so arguably Parliament is more representative of people's views. In that election the Conservatives campaigned on a "hard Brexit" but with a deal with the EU, but lost their majority. If it says anything this says that the people don't want a hard Brexit - but it looks like we are now heading for a no-deal Brexit, which is even more extreme. However an election is about multiple issues and Labour actively avoided the issue of Brexit, so this isn't a definitive answer to anything. But most opinion polls for the last two years have indicated that if there was another referendum a small majority would vote to remain. Taking this into the "will of the people" is even more questionable.

I don't believe this means we should unilaterally cancel Brexit. But I believe it means that we really have to go back the people again to ask them whether, in the light of what has happened since 2016, they still wish to leave on the terms now available.
Maybe we should leave with no deal, and then having a clean sheet, negotiate after Brexit as they haven't seemed to have done much in the 3 years after the result leading up to it. I'm sure all those EU countries with businesses that have the UK as a big customer would be putting pressure on their governments to ensure trade with the UK after Brexit can remain.
We could do that but trade between the UK and Europe is a much bigger part of the UK economy than it is for the rest of Europe, so no deal will hurt the UK far more than the EU. It's a bit like saying we'll burn our house down and you might get a bit of a cough from the smoke drifting into yours! There is no sign that the EU is prepared to sacrifice its principles for the benefit of a country that wants to leave, and no sign of the likes of Germany putting pressure on it to do so. So after taking the economic damage of leaving without a deal for however long it takes to get one, the deal we get is going to be no better than the one we've already negotiated. Several prominent Leave supporters have said that deal is worse than remaining.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
I don't believe this means we should unilaterally cancel Brexit. But I believe it means that we really have to go back the people again to ask them whether, in the light of what has happened since 2016, they still wish to leave on the terms now available.
The Lib Dem position is that a vote for them is a vote for revoking Article 50, so if they get a majority government (stop laughing down back!) then there wouldn't be a need for a separate referendum.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
The Lib Dem position is that a vote for them is a vote for revoking Article 50, so if they get a majority government (stop laughing down back!) then there wouldn't be a need for a separate referendum.
I think I would have opposed that had I been a member. A referendum is the better option to shut down the "will of the people" argument which is about the only reason people cite to go ahead with Brexit, since all the other ones have pretty much been discredited. Nothing will shut down Farage and his ilk, but a clear vote for Remain is the least bad option to move on and start doing things that will improve the pretty dire state of the UK, instead of actively pursuing something that makes it worse. If a referendum with a fair campaign based on clear facts still results in a majority to leave then so be it - the will of the people is indeed to support such a suicidal option.

But as someone pointed out on one of those threads, opposing Brexit is the main policy of the LibDems, so if they get a majority it's pretty much saying that the people support remaining. However if they turn out to be the "kingmakers" in a hung parliament, they should require a referendum not revocation as a condition of their support for another party, as in that situation there is no public mandate for revocation.
 

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,812
Location
Sheffield
The Lib Dem position is that a vote for them is a vote for revoking Article 50, so if they get a majority government (stop laughing down back!) then there wouldn't be a need for a separate referendum.

With 25 MPs after the next election it's unlikely to make much difference. If they want to get any higher they'll have to very urgently find a way to convince millions of closed minds that they are wrong and to love the EU.

From the ones I've encountered hell might freeze over first. Yesterday I saw a claim that Poland is reducing the pension age from 65 to 60 on the back of our contributions to the EU. Not easy to even find if that's half true, but there's always a way to spin any fact to suit one's argument.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
With 25 MPs after the next election it's unlikely to make much difference. If they want to get any higher they'll have to very urgently find a way to convince millions of closed minds that they are wrong and to love the EU.
There are plenty of previously Tory supporters in more Remain-leaning areas who would never vote for the current lot. Predictions are hard enough at the best of times but some seem to suggest that Boris will lose more to the LibDems in Remain areas than he gains from Labour in Leave areas. Last I heard was a prediction of 25 more MPs (mostly LibDem) in the likely event of a pact with the Greens, TIG and Plaid only to put up one Remain candidate in each constituency. And another 25 in the unlikely event of a pact with Labour.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland

Killingworth

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2018
Messages
4,812
Location
Sheffield
That isn't even close to true. The retirement age increase to 67 has been postponed, but there's no direct link between that and EU funding. (Source: https://fullfact.org/online/polish-pensions-are-not-directly-subsidised-uk/)

Unfortunately this is the sort of stuff some believe just because it has been said and suits their mindset. As I said "If they want to get any higher they'll have to very urgently find a way to convince millions of closed minds that they are wrong and to love the EU."
 

dosxuk

Established Member
Joined
2 Jan 2011
Messages
1,742
It's gone well in Luxemburg... Boris has had to abandon holding a press conference due to a load of noisy protesters (allegedly British who live locally) with the Luxembourg PM, who's now going it alone and isn't holding back with his criticisms of the process, all to applause from the (finally) silent protesters.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
It seems Johnson asked for the press conference to be moved inside due to the noise being made by protestors. This seems a reasonable request and the fact it was refused suggests he's seriously annoyed someone in Luxembourg who is now treating him like a badly-behaved toddler.

Mark Ruffalo, who plays the Incredible Hulk, has tweeted: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/09/16/europe/ruffalo-johnson-hulk-reminder-intl-scli-gbr/index.html
Boris Johnson forgets that the Hulk only fights for the good of the whole. Mad and strong can also be dense and destructive. The Hulk works best when he is in unison with a team, and is a disaster when he is alone. Plus...he’s always got Dr. Banner with science and reason.

This follows a put-down from the director of the Godfather which Boris claimed to be his favourite film. Next up, bus operators and wine box makers complaining their reputations are being besmirched.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
This seems a reasonable request and the fact it was refused suggests he's seriously annoyed someone in Luxembourg who is now treating him like a badly-behaved toddler.
Equally, why should they accede to his request to hide from his constituents (seeing as the protesters were largely Brits living in Luxembourg)?
 

Howardh

Established Member
Joined
17 May 2011
Messages
8,120
Well, the people's favourite, Captain Runaway, the Incredulous Sulk, cancelled a press-conference with the Luxembourg PM because he could hear a few dozen "protesters" on the other side of the fence. I presume he won't be turning up in parliament to face 350+ protesters on the opposition benches? No wonder he shut down parliament, he's a spineless, answerless pathetic individual.

Who's the chicken now Boris??
 

dosxuk

Established Member
Joined
2 Jan 2011
Messages
1,742
It seems Johnson asked for the press conference to be moved inside due to the noise being made by protestors. This seems a reasonable request and the fact it was refused suggests he's seriously annoyed someone in Luxembourg who is now treating him like a badly-behaved toddler.

The rumour is that the request to do the conference outside originally came from the UK, so it could be the civil service getting their own back.

The move indoors was refused due to the short notice, and that no space large enough for the assembled media was available, and the luxembourgians didn't want to get into a game of choosing who was and wasn't allowed in.

It was pretty clear from what was said during the press conference, that Boris did not please his hosts today.

And most of his supporters will doubtless spin it to claim that it proves how evil the EU is

The main spin seems to be that the behaviour of these European anti-brexit protesters is a great reason to be out of the thing, and not to notice that it was mostly Brits doing the protesting.
 

EM2

Established Member
Joined
16 Nov 2008
Messages
7,523
Location
The home of the concrete cow
Brave Sir Boris ran away
Bravely ran away
When some tubas played the Ode to Joy
He bravely hid from the ex-Pat noise!
To Bettel Boris cried:
'I only do my chats inside!'
Then swiftly taking to his feet,
He left Luxembourg covering his retreat.
Bravest of the brave!

Sir Boris!
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,692
Location
Scotland
Brave Sir Boris ran away
Bravely ran away
When some tubas played the Ode to Joy
He bravely hid from the ex-Pat noise!
To Bettel Boris cried:
'I only do my chats inside!'
Then swiftly taking to his feet,
He left Luxembourg covering his retreat.
Bravest of the brave!

Sir Boris!
+100 cool points for you, good Sir! :lol:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top