EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[Tetchytyke]

I wouldn't say wasted as it's far from certain that we won't leave on October 31st - with or without a deal.

"Things will change, be prepared, but we won't say how because we don't know".

£100m well spent

I wish they had called it something with historic significance like "Thaler", "Ducat" or, for a laugh, "Dubloon".

I'd have gone with Simoleons, personally.

 

[JamesT]

It’s arguable that the Eurozone is too big as it stands, never mind how it would be if we joined. You need the member economies to be reasonably well aligned as you’ve lost the ability for currency changes to rebalance. The issues in Greece and Italy have potentially been exacerbated by not being able to work some of the levers that a country with its own currency can. The alternative is usually even tighter integration, so you can make transfer payments from successful areas to struggling ones like you would within a country. But that tends to be somewhat unpopular politically.
We did briefly try to align in the past as part of the ERM (which is a prerequisite for the Euro). But we’d joined at very much the wrong level and it wasn’t particularly working even before George Soros forced us out. We had Gordon Brown’s five tests for Euro membership which we never got near passing. I suspect nobody’s looked recently to see if we’d pass now.

 

[Peter Kelford]

If you don't want to go to a polling station you can postal vote. The problem with electronic systems is the possibility of hacking.

I realise that but not enough people showed up to vote last time. Many people are not registered for postal voting.

 

[Peter Kelford]

nobody’s looked recently to see if we’d pass now.

Our debt is too high, sadly.

 

[Geezertronic]

Euro, Schengen.

**Although to be honest I hate the Euro coins, too fiddly, but I'd rather have that than leave the EU.

I believe you are the second person within this thread to advocate a Hard Remain. Maybe if a 2nd Referendum comes to fruition then, in addition to a couple of Leave options, Remain as is and Hard Remain should be on the ballot as well.

 

[Peter Kelford]

I believe you are the second person within this thread to advocate a Hard Remain. Maybe if a 2nd Referendum comes to fruition then, in addition to a couple of Leave options, Remain as is and Hard Remain should be on the ballot as well.

Whilst I do support many elements of a hard remain, I think that voting on it on the same ballot would split the vote too much. This is the kind of ballot paper I would think better:

Q1] Based on what is known to be possible, would you rather

A] Leave the European Union
B] Remain in the European Union

Q2] Out of the Leave options, which would you rather

A] Leave with a deal
B] Leave without a deal

Q3] Out of the Remain options, which would you rather

A] Remain as per previous arrangements
B] Remain, but with closer integration

Q4] Out of the Leave with a deal options, which would you rather

A] A customs union
B] The presently negotiated deal

 

[Howardh]

Whilst I do support many elements of a hard remain, I think that voting on it on the same ballot would split the vote too much. This is the kind of ballot paper I would think better:

Q1] Based on what is known to be possible, would you rather

A] Leave the European Union
B] Remain in the European Union

Q2] Out of the Leave options, which would you rather

A] Leave with a deal
B] Leave without a deal

Q3] Out of the Remain options, which would you rather

A] Remain as per previous arrangements
B] Remain, but with closer integration

Q4] Out of the Leave with a deal options, which would you rather

A] A customs union
B] The presently negotiated deal

Q4 should also include (or have a Q5) the Single Market.

This highlights why there should never have been a referendum, how can Kevin with his one GCSE grade D in woodwork sort that lot out? No, how can someone with an honours degree in politics sort that lot out....they've had three years (and it still doesn't solve the UK/EU land border....) and they are supposed to know what they're doing!!

 

[Killingworth]

Q4 should also include (or have a Q5) the Single Market.

This highlights why there should never have been a referendum, how can Kevin with his one GCSE grade D in woodwork sort that lot out? No, how can someone with an honours degree in politics sort that lot out....they've had three years (and it still doesn't solve the UK/EU land border....) and they are supposed to know what they're doing!!

And that says it all about power to the people!

Remember Gove's opinion of experts.

 

[edwin_m]

Whilst I do support many elements of a hard remain, I think that voting on it on the same ballot would split the vote too much. This is the kind of ballot paper I would think better:

Q1] Based on what is known to be possible, would you rather

A] Leave the European Union
B] Remain in the European Union

Q2] Out of the Leave options, which would you rather

A] Leave with a deal
B] Leave without a deal

Q3] Out of the Remain options, which would you rather

A] Remain as per previous arrangements
B] Remain, but with closer integration

Q4] Out of the Leave with a deal options, which would you rather

A] A customs union
B] The presently negotiated deal

I think this carries the risk of distorting the vote. Q1 effectively repeats the mistake of 2016 in that it bundles all Leave options together in one choice when they are actually very different, so as in 2016 Leave might get a majority on this question even if Remain was more popular than any single Leave option. To some extent the sub-options of remaining create a similar issue on that side.

Previous suggestions of a single transferrable vote mostly avoid this problem, but the list of options to cover all of the above would still be too long. I'd suggest omitting "hard Remain" entirely as that's an entirely separate discussion and with such a large proportion of the population clearly opposed to the EU it's not appropriate to be looking at moving closer to it.

Given that the current deal seems to be commanding significant support amongst Leavers, could it not be simplified down to the binary choice of that deal (or whatever it looks like after the current debate) versus Remain?

 

[Bletchleyite]

One can avoid splitting the vote by using AV (Alternative Vote), no need for a complex set of questions, just rank your preference in order.

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-of-voting-system/alternative-vote/

 

[Esker-pades]

I think this carries the risk of distorting the vote. Q1 effectively repeats the mistake of 2016 in that it bundles all Leave options together in one choice when they are actually very different, so as in 2016 Leave might get a majority on this question even if Remain was more popular than any single Leave option. To some extent the sub-options of remaining create a similar issue on that side.

Previous suggestions of a single transferrable vote mostly avoid this problem, but the list of options to cover all of the above would still be too long. I'd suggest omitting "hard Remain" entirely as that's an entirely separate discussion and with such a large proportion of the population clearly opposed to the EU it's not appropriate to be looking at moving closer to it.

Given that the current deal seems to be commanding significant support amongst Leavers, could it not be simplified down to the binary choice of that deal (or whatever it looks like after the current debate) versus Remain?

I agree on the STV point. Because, some Leave people will want to leave with a deal, but see no-deal as far too risky. Others want a "hard-Brexit", but see any form of tying to the EU as worse than being inside. Then there are people who want to leave whatever.

 

[SteveP29]

There might be circumstances where Britain could have become a net beneficiary.

We will if we actually do leave and crash badly (as expected) and beg to be readmitted.
We'll be like those Eastern European countries that we sneered at when they were to join, flooding our country with immigrants etc.
Imagine the roles reversed and the likes of Poland saying 'we don't want them coming here taking our jobs etc' A taste of our own medicine and attitudes might just be what's required to dampen this ridiculous superiority complex we have over the rest of the world

the campaigns should have been banned outright and a series of television, radio, online and print publications commissioned to give facts and facts only (and emphasize unknowns).

There'd have been even more claims of 'Project fear'
But I do however agree, it should never have been political for a start (even though it was a Tory party problem, exacerbated into a nationwide one) and there should only ever have been factual reporting.
Every lie, untruth, misleading piece of information should have been corrected there and then, in fact, every claim should have been screened prior to printing, posting or broadcasting for accuracy (EU army, Turkey joining the EU etc)

Yes, chosen not simply as a supply of cheap labour that keeps wages low.

The pursuit of profit keeps wages low, not immigration, especially when you have a national minimum wage (Anyone willing to pay under the minimum wage is to blame, not the people who, needing the work, will accept those conditions.

I already feel that way. Sometimes things need to be broken before they can be properly fixed. The UK needs to leave - with a deal - and then reassess a generation later once all its trade agreements are finally in place.

A generation? this won't be over in my lifetime, try at least 2 generations.

Why didn't we use a qualifying majority system in 2016? The way the polls went just 1m more people needed to show up to the polls to do so. Furthermore, why doesn't one use an electronic voting system whereby the public is able to not go to polling stations?

The reason? it goes back to the tipping point of the whole thing, Cameron thinking he'd call UKIP's supporters and Euro sceptic Tories bluff and get them back to the Tory party by calling a referendum, whilst at the same time, being confident to the point of arrogance that remain would win comfortably, therefore not building any insurance or contingency into the process.

 

[Peter Kelford]

Q4 should also include (or have a Q5) the Single Market.

There would have to be a Q4] asking about a close or less close deal and a Q5] asking between the customs union and single market.

One can avoid splitting the vote by using AV (Alternative Vote), no need for a complex set of questions, just rank your preference in order.

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-of-voting-system/alternative-vote/

We do need this

 

[Northhighland]

The deal on offer is a disaster for the union.

It leaves Northern Ireland tied economically to the republic and half in half out of the UK and the EU.

It creates a border between two parts of the UK. No-one voted for that.

It also plays into the nationalists hands in Scotland. They are already banging on that this shows it is possible to be in the EuSingle market and the UK single market at the same time.

It is a mess and much worse than anything May put forward. Boris has surrendered to the EU to keep his party together.

The break up of the union will be the ultimate cost of this deal.

 

[Struner]

Yes, the Union is a disaster...

 

[thejuggler]

The deal on offer is a disaster for the union.

It leaves Northern Ireland tied economically to the republic and half in half out of the UK and the EU.

It creates a border between two parts of the UK. No-one voted for that.
.

The head of Barclays believes this is a wonderful deal for NI, but hasn't said it should be a model for the whole of the UK. Hypocrite.

Action has started in the Courts over the deal breaking the Good Friday Agreement.

 

[Senex]

So willl there be any action against the 19 Labour MPs who voted against their party's three-line whip and in favour of the right-wing Tory Brexit "deal", or will their action once again be quietly tolerated because it has had the result that is actually what the party leader really wanted (but of course could not support publicly)? Maybe one should now hope that Jon Lansman's threats of deselection turn into reality.

 

[Kite159]

How long before the EU turns round and says enough is enough, no future extension. Either accept the deal, leave next Thursday or send a letter to revoke A50.

 

[Struner]

There’s always hope...

 

[AlterEgo]

How long before the EU turns round and says enough is enough, no future extension. Either accept the deal, leave next Thursday or send a letter to revoke A50.

They don't really want us to leave.

 

[bramling]

How long before the EU turns round and says enough is enough, no future extension. Either accept the deal, leave next Thursday or send a letter to revoke A50.

I guess it depends on how they think things are going. Outwardly we now have a deal which Parliament seems able to accept, so in theory it’s not unreasonable for all sides to agree a short extension to allow everything to be tied up - as clearly it’s not ideal to expect everything to be rushed through in the space of a week. However the difficulty will arise if the time becomes an opportunity for more smoke and mirrors.

I don’t think Boris will necessarily lose too much face if the 31st deadline isn’t met, so long as things are at last visibly moving forwards and any delay is short. For me short is something like 2-4 weeks.

Obviously there’s a few side-issues in the mix too - not least that at some time soon there will have to be a general election simply due to the parliamentary numbers, and mixed in with that is this is of course Corbyn’s last and only chance to gain power. The more successfully Boris manages to move Brexit forwards and get his deal in relatively smoothly then I think the worse Corbyn’s electoral prospects become.

 

[Killingworth]

Obviously there’s a few side-issues in the mix too - not least that at some time soon there will have to be a general election simply due to the parliamentary numbers, and mixed in with that is this is of course Corbyn’s last and only chance to gain power. The more successfully Boris manages to move Brexit forwards and get his deal in relatively smoothly then I think the worse Corbyn’s electoral prospects become.

To get an election before 2022 a 2/3 majority of MPs is required, or the loss of a vote of confidence. If Corbyn continues way behind in the polls he isn't going to vote for extinction, surely. The Tories are going to have to make some interesting moves if they have to get round the Fixed Term Parliament Act to get an election, like some of them voting no confidence in their own government. At which point we can speculate that Corbyn might whip his forces to abstain, or even vote in favour of the government. Anything could happen the way this is playing out. Like it or not, Boris probably holds the best cards.

Corbyn is trapped.

 

[ainsworth74]

They don't really want us to leave.

And equally don't want to be seen to have thrown us out of the EU either. As long as we request an extension they're likely to grant one because of those two reasons no matter how much they protest at it all dragging out interminably.

 

[nlogax]

The EU doesn't want the UK to leave without a deal in place. That's all. Entirely understandable. Other than that they're heartily sick of us. Tbh I'm sick of us too, and I live here.

 

[SteveP29]

Some people on a Facebook group from my home town are now calling their MP, Kevan Jones a traitor, because he voted against the government last night.
They're talking about Labour betraying their constituents yet again and the Brexit Party is the only way forward.

I honestly don't understand how ensuring that proper scrutiny to any deal is traitorous and how voting for a company that has one aim and will be defunct when we do eventually leave, which will mean they will be returning to the choice of the 3 main parties in future elections is the way forward.

I'm drafting in reply, something along the lines of:
You have an offer of a £200,000 mortgage.
Your repayments are 55% of your income.
You're given 45 minutes to read the 150 pages of t&c's
The bank manager is pressuring you to sign
A sympathetic bank teller (I know, mythical beings these days) puts it to you and the manager that you should be given the option to take the offer away to properly read it.
The bank manager agrees and you take that option and find out that in the clauses, once the mortgage is complete, the house is only 80% yours and you'll have to continue to pay the mortgage amount in rent every month instead and never fully own the property, that your next door neighbour can move his/ her fence halfway across your garden, but will give you access to the half they took, only for a fee and a full body check every time you want to use it AND when you want to go back to your own garden.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

One can avoid splitting the vote by using AV (Alternative Vote), no need for a complex set of questions, just rank your preference in order.

https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/voting-systems/types-of-voting-system/alternative-vote/

Actually, you can't. You can reduce the problem, but you can't eliminate it altogether,

Try this.... imagine that
45% of the population prefers remain,
30% prefer no-deal leave. All would opt for the Boris deal as a 2nd choice.
25% prefer Boris's deal - these split 50/50 on their second preference,

So we have a AV referendum on those choices. Obviously, Boris's deal gets eliminated. Those votes are redistributed, and Remain wins with 57.5% of the votes on the 2nd round.

Now imagine that - because opinion polls are showing this likely outcome, 5% of the no-deal voters decide to vote tactically for Boris's deal. Now we have a first round result of 45% remain, 30% Boris, 25% no-deal. No deal gets eliminated, all their voters swap to Boris's deal, so Boris's deal wins. On exactly the same voter opinions and referendum options, but just with some tactical voting added.

There's no electoral system yet devised that can give perfect results when you have more than 2 choices. The best you can say is that AV is not as bad as the current system.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I don't get why the Government have put the legislation for the current deal on hold. It's pretty clear from the Commons votes that the deal probably has the numbers to pass the Commons - it's just that MPs want proper scrutiny of it. It looks like, all the Government has to do is accept a short delay to Brexit, rearrange the timetable for their legislation to give MPs time to look at it properly, and there's a good change it would be passed and we'd be out of the EU by 31 January.

Instead, they've put it on hold, Boris is calling for an election but he doesn't have the numbers in Parliament to get one. It seems like a strongly pro-Leave Government has just sabotaged our chances of leaving with a deal.

Can anyone explain why/what's (probably) going on?

 

[Peter Kelford]

I don't get why the Government have put the legislation for the current deal on hold. It's pretty clear from the Commons votes that the deal probably has the numbers to pass the Commons - it's just that MPs want proper scrutiny of it. It looks like, all the Government has to do is accept a short delay to Brexit, rearrange the timetable for their legislation to give MPs time to look at it properly, and there's a good change it would be passed and we'd be out of the EU by 31 January.

Instead, they've put it on hold, Boris is calling for an election but he doesn't have the numbers in Parliament to get one. It seems like a strongly pro-Leave Government has just sabotaged our chances of leaving with a deal.

Can anyone explain why/what's (probably) going on?

So that Boris Johnson can (this analogy comes from this thread) go into his computer store and 'explain' why computer and electronic stores are closing and why people are out of employment and why the high street is in decline by saying that the 'corporate fat cats' are refusing to accept compromises thus destroying society, but his 'compromise' is £20 instead of £10 on a £500 computer.

In other words, so he can say 'they' stopped Brexit, not me. They don't want Brexit. They are anti-democratic, not me.

The fact that the 'deal' is accepted is of no consequence. He set this bill up to fail. He wanted it to be rejected by parliament, but realising he might actually win the vote, he decided to make a routine programme motion un-votable by making it rushed and then saying that he would withdraw the whole bill if the programme motion was rejected.

 

[nlogax]

I honestly don't understand how ensuring that proper scrutiny to any deal is traitorous and how voting for a company that has one aim and will be defunct when we do eventually leave, which will mean they will be returning to the choice of the 3 main parties in future elections is the way forward.

Those sorts of Facebook conversations don't deal in logic or reason. Devoid of any rationality or critical thinking.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Corbyn is trapped.

Corbyn is unelectable. This is all very frustrating, as if Labour fielded a moderate (Blairite style but without the phony wars and stupid grin) in an election next week I'm near certain they would win it with a landslide.