EU Referendum: The result and aftermath...

[TheKnightWho]

If you believe that people are too stupid, ignorant, gullible, racist etc to be able to make important decisions, then why the hell would you be in favour of democracy?

If you are arguing that the referendum results prove that democracy doesn't work and should be abolished, then just say so. Nail your colours to the mast.

If you're in favour of democracy only when the people make decisions you agree with, you're not in favour of democracy at all.

Because I believe that we should also have responsible media! Or do you think the £450bn advertising industry wastes its money and that the media uses none of their psychological tricks as well?

I do notice you set up a spectacular false dichotomy though, seemingly solely to avoid the issue. Par for the course with you.

 

[Tetchytyke]

FWIW, I don't think Theresa May is lacking in courage or intelligence.

(snip)

In that respect, Theresa May is probably doing the most sensible thing in actually seeing what Brexit should look like, what we are going to negotiate for, and what we will accept or not accept.

I disagree, in that I think it is obvious she didn't want Brexit- indeed she campaigned against it- and is simply trying to kick it into the long grass. She has said movement won't happen until the end of the year and when the Sun's political editor reported this as "movement in early 2017" she was at great pains to see that isn't what she said.

Kicking things into the long grass works as a short-term measure. It doesn't work as a long-term measure. Already we have companies saying they cannot commit to the UK whilst there is this state of limbo- just in the north east Nissan are making noises at leaving, and United have cancelled their transatlantic flights from Newcastle- and this is one situation where there needs to be a speedy resolution.

The issue is that May clearly doesn't want Brexit but doesn't have the courage to say so.

BTW, I think it's too easy to characterize Leavers as some homogenous group (i.e. old, white, racist). My mum (white, 80 years of age) voted stay. My sister in law voted Leave (white, 34, not racist in the slightest).

I don't think they are racist, I rather unkindly said stupid or racist.

And I stand by that, harsh as it sounds.

I think a lot of people who voted Leave are guilty of what may be charitably described as naivete. Certainly up here there was lots of talk of "bringing back control" and "saving £350m/week for the NHS"; nurses at my wife's work said they voted Leave on that basis. The claims from Leave were clearly weapons-grade bollocks, yet people lapped them up.

The talk of the colour of passports is just another symptom of this. One of my passports is blue, one is red, and I couldn't give a rat's ass about either of their colours.

I believe we have to now respect the decision and hopefully make the best of things in future. However, you can't have a referendum and then ignore the will of the people (even if it was only 73% of the electorate).

As I've said above, I respect the decision of the referendum, even if I question the intelligence of many of the people who made it. I don't unconditionally accept that it is the "will of the people" though, given there was 1.5% in the vote and 27% didn't express an opinion either way.

 

[Gutfright]

and in any event there was not a majority vote in favour of Brexit.

There most certainly was not a majority in favour of remaining in the EU.

If it were to be treated as binding then there should have been a set barrier to allow a pass, something in the region of 70% vote in favour. It is impossible for even the most ardent Brexiteer to seriously argue they have a majority when they won the vote by 1.5%, but 27% of the electorate did not express an opinion either.

Why not just decide that votes for Remain count double? That's just as fair as saying "Leave needs an arbitrarily high number of votes, say 70%, otherwise Remain wins".

It is impossible for even the most ardent Remainiac to seriously argue that they have a majority when they lost the vote.

 

[TheKnightWho]

There most certainly was not a majority in favour of remaining in the EU.



Why not just decide that votes for Remain count double? That's just as fair as saying "Leave needs an arbitrarily high number of votes, say 70%, otherwise Remain wins".

It is impossible for even the most ardent Remainiac to seriously argue that they have a majority when they lost the vote.

No-one's arguing they have a majority mate. You really do think there are only two possible conclusions to any give problem!

 

[Gutfright]

Because I believe that we should also have responsible media! Or do you think the £450bn advertising industry wastes its money and that the media uses none of their psychological tricks as well?

I do notice you set up a spectacular false dichotomy though, seemingly solely to avoid the issue. Par for the course with you.

So you're saying democracy should be suspended until we have what you deem to be a "responsible media"?

That doesn't sound like a very pro-democracy position to me.

 

[TheKnightWho]

So you're saying democracy should be suspended until we have what you deem to be a "responsible media"?

That doesn't sound like a very pro-democracy position to me.

I don't think that's what I said did I? You're the one who keeps talking about democracy being suspended! Personally I think having unregulated propaganda isn't very democratic - democracy is far more about discourse than it is about the vote itself.

What you don't seem to have got into your head yet is that there are numerous reasonable objections to the referendum that don't rely on overturning some mythical infallible vox populus, which is the very thing I'm arguing doesn't exist.

I'll ask again - is the £450bn advertising industry a giant waste of money? Do you really think the media don't want to use the same techniques to get more people to buy their paper and only their paper?

 

[Tetchytyke]

There most certainly was not a majority in favour of remaining in the EU.

Indeed not, but that isn't what I said (which of course you fully understand).

I said there was a 1.5% difference in the vote, with 27% of people expressing no preference either way. That is not a majority for Leave. That is not the "will of the people" when over 60% of people did not want to Leave.

That's just as fair as saying "Leave needs an arbitrarily high number of votes, say 70%, otherwise Remain wins".

Why?

Most companies will require a supermajority of shareholders to agree to a significant and/or controversial change. The small charity I was a trustee for required 75% membership approval for significant changes, as defined in our articles of association.

Changing the status quo should require more votes than would otherwise be the case in a straight election.

 

[Gutfright]

No-one's arguing they have a majority mate. You really do think there are only two possible conclusions to any give problem!

There are only two conclusions to this particular problem: the UK will either leave the EU as a result of the democratic referendum, or it will remain a member of the EU in spite of it.

 

[TheKnightWho]

There are only two conclusions to this particular problem: the UK will either leave the EU as a result of the democratic referendum, or it will remain a member of the EU in spite of it.

One person said it was a majority, another person said it wasn't because of non-voters, and your genius concluded that that was saying Remain had a majority.

Your skills of interpretation are truly unmatched.

 

[radamfi]

Out of the people voting "leave", many of them prefer a Norway-style relationship with the EU, and so staying in the single market and keeping freedom of movement. If you reasonably assume that all remainers also want to stay in the single market and keep freedom of movement, there must surely be a majority who want that.

So it is wrong for the Government to try to end free movement, as that is not what the majority of referendum voters wanted.

 

[Gutfright]

One person said it was a majority, another person said it wasn't because of non-voters, and your genius concluded that that was saying Remain had a majority.

Your skills of interpretation are truly unmatched.

I was pointing out that remain most certainly do not have a majority, and asking why they should therefore be awarded the "win".

Your skills of interpretation are truly unmatched.

 

[Tetchytyke]

So it is wrong for the Government to try to end free movement, as that is not what the majority of referendum voters wanted.

Is it? How do we know? Nobody bothered to set out what Brexit means. Farage says he wants the immigrants out, Hannan says he just wants the bureaucrats out, and Fabricant says he just wants a blue passport. The Sun just want some birds with nice knockers.

And this is the problem with the whole show. Nobody set out what Brexit is, nobody asked what people wanted from their Brexit.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I was pointing out that remain most certainly do not have a majority, and asking why they should therefore be awarded the "win".

Your skills of interpretation are truly unmatched.

Ah yes - with no prompting. I shall conclude that you were saying it for no purpose and that it was completely unrelated to any previous statements?

I know you like to take statements out of context to deny racism, sexism or anything else, but frankly this takes the cake. :roll:

 

[Tetchytyke]

I was pointing out that remain most certainly do not have a majority, and asking why they should therefore be awarded the "win".

Because they should only change the status quo when a majority of people wanted it. And they didn't. If the majority of people wanted Brexit, then Brexit would have had a majority.

Works in every other walk of life.

 

[Gutfright]

Out of the people voting "leave", manyof them prefer a Norway-style relationship with the EU, and so staying in the single market and keeping freedom of movement. If you reasonably assume that all remainers also want to stay in the single market and keep freedom of movement, there must surely be a majority who want that.

So it is wrong for the Government to try to end free movement, as that is not what the majority of referendum voters wanted.

How many is many?

All we know from the referendum is that more people voted to leave than voted to stay.

 

[Howardh]

At least the immigration issue is becoming clearer.
Work permits for EU and rest of world citizens, and they cannot be given work without one - or the employer faces sanctions.
OK, that will do for me. It means there will be no need for increased checks at borders (in or out) - just carry on as we are today where EU/EEA/UK have only the merest glance of the passport, the onus will be on employers (and perhaps landlords) to check the legality of their employees.

However, if we did go down the route of questioning everyone at the border, how do we ascertain one group from another? Clearly tourists and businessmen will be perfectly allowed to enter, but what if a job seeker comes in as a tourist?

We can have tourists here for just one day, or who enter without pre-booked accommodation (ie using youth hostels/camp sites etc) and won't have booked their journey home + those without work permits who are here to visit and stay with friends.

So, basically, the answer is not to check at the border, just ensure the law on employers is upheld.

It's free movement of people withing the EU/EEA with the cavetat they must have a certificate to work if they wish to do so. It's a bit like if the EU turned round and said we must have our EHIC card to receive medical treatment. I can't see any real difficulties with that. Solves one part of the Irish border problem too - the other question though is what to do when we revert back to tiny duty-free amounts whereas any one can bring back any amounts of cheap EU_duty-paid booze and fags across that Irish border unchallenged?

 

[TheKnightWho]

How many is many?

All we know from the referendum is that more people voted to leave than voted to stay.

You're against status quo bias - you literally said so above. Why should we take any one of the possible options without establishing consensus for it?

Brexit should have been a vote for a particular course of action - not a vague notion of optimism which could be any number of things. Bremain was very simple: the current course of action.

 

[radamfi]

How many is many?

All we know from the referendum is that more people voted to leave than voted to stay.

It only needs to be about 2% of those who voted leave to make it a majority in favour of keeping free movement. I don't think anyone seriously thinks that 98% of leavers want to lose free movement.

 

[WelshBluebird]

If you believe that people are too stupid, ignorant, gullible, racist etc to be able to make important decisions, then why the hell would you be in favour of democracy?

If you are arguing that the referendum results prove that democracy doesn't work and should be abolished, then just say so. Nail your colours to the mast.

If you're in favour of democracy only when the people make decisions you agree with, you're not in favour of democracy at all.

You do realise that there are different types of democracy right?
And it is perfectly possible to be against direct democracy but for representative democracy?

The whole point of representative democracy is that the people who represent us are clued up and informed about complex issues that most of the public aren't informed about.

 

[Gutfright]

Because they should only change the status quo when a majority of people wanted it. And they didn't.

I would suggest that if the non-voters didn't want to change the status quo, they should have voted "remain".

 

[Tetchytyke]

I would suggest that if the non-voters didn't want to change the status quo, they should have voted "remain".

And if they wanted to change it they should have voted Leave.

But they didn't, which is why Leave didn't get a majority and did not- despite claims to the contrary- gain a mandate.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It only needs to be about 2% of those who voted leave to make it a majority in favour of keeping free movement. I don't think anyone seriously thinks that 98% of leavers want to lose free movement.

I'd agree with this, but again we're back to the problem of not knowing what people wanted from Brexit because David Cameron didn't bother to ask them.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I'd agree with this, but again we're back to the problem of not knowing what people wanted from Brexit because David Cameron didn't bother to ask them.

I do think he missed a trick here. If he'd forced Leave to come up with a distinct plan, quite a number of people wouldn't have voted for it because it wasn't the Brexit they wanted.

After all - we have to pick a Brexit plan at some point, so it would have been entirely fair to know what it was before the referendum.

 

[Gutfright]

And if they wanted to change it they should have voted Leave.

But they didn't, which is why Leave didn't get a majority and did not- despite claims to the contrary- gain a mandate.

Nope.

You don't get to decide that 100% of non-voters want to remain.

Sorry.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Nope.

You don't get to decide that 100% of non-voters want to remain.

Sorry.

Except you're forgetting that point about large changes usually requiring supermajorities. There is a reason for that.

 

[PHILIPE]

It's not people from the EU who are the biggest problem enen though it needs scaling back. The biggest problem is all these economic migrants from African and Middle East countries who try to sneak in via Calais and who cross the Meditteraneum in unseaworthy boats hoping eventually ro reach the UKs

 

[TheKnightWho]

[deleted]

 

[Tetchytyke]

The biggest problem is all these economic migrants from African and Middle East countries who try to sneak in via Calais

Currently they're all in Calais because they can't get across the UK Border, which is in Calais.

Thankfully Brexit is here to save the day.

The French have made it clear they won't tolerate juxtaposed borders if we're not in the EU. Which means the border will be back in Dover, just like in the good old days, and the only thing stopping them will be the fines handed out to P&O if they give someone a ticket without the correct papers.

Nope.

You don't get to decide that 100% of non-voters want to remain.

Sorry.

And you don't get to decide they want to Leave.

Which leaves us in the awkward position of neither Leave nor Remain having a majority. In which case, status quo wins.

 

[Senex]

It's not people from the EU who are the biggest problem enen though it needs scaling back. The biggest problem is all these economic migrants from African and Middle East countries who try to sneak in via Calais and who cross the Meditteraneum in unseaworthy boats hoping eventually ro reach the UKs

I agree with you completely. And yet the Brexiteers seem to have next to nothing to say about controlling (and massively reducing) those flows whilst banging on all the time about the EU immigrants.

Controlling the EU flows could have been most easily done by moving to a contributory entitlement for benefits, as was suggested to Cameron's government more than once, IIRC.

 

[Gutfright]

Except you're forgetting that point about large changes usually requiring supermajorities.

Any evidence for that claim, or are we just supposed to take your word for it?

To try to move the goalposts now and to require a supermajority to leave the EU would be unfair, undemocratic and authoritarian.

The State should not rig the rules to achieve the result it wants.

If you're going to have a referendum, do it properly. Let the voters decide among themselves. If the majority of voters want to leave (which they do), then we should leave.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Any evidence for that claim, or are we just supposed to take your word for it?

To try to move the goalposts now and to require a supermajority to leave the EU would be unfair, undemocratic and authoritarian.

The State should not rig the rules to achieve the result it wants.

If you're going to have a referendum, do it properly. Let the voters decide among themselves. If the majority of voters want to leave (which they do), then we should leave.

So do it properly and give the voters a choice between two actual outcomes - not the status quo and a million different imagined fantasies.

Still waiting for an answer to the question on advertising and the media!