The 2019 General Election Result and Aftermath

[Esker-pades]

With respect, the popular vote wasn’t with remain in 2016. That remains the purest indication we have of the will of the people of this country.

And yet, Johnson would rather have an election than another referendum.

With respect to the election, you can’t simply add up the votes of all the losing parties and claim that was the “popular vote”. Like it or not, first past the post is the system we have. In any case, wasn’t the Labour leader a brexiteer?

You claimed that the election demonstrated that people hadn't changed their views. The proportion of votes suggested otherwise.

I never quite understood Labour’s position on Brexit. Neither did a great many other people it would seem. Hence the crushing (in favour of leave) Tory majority.

Corbyn's leadership was more of a problem (according to ex-Labour voters, ex-Labour MPs and polling) than their Brexit policy.

 

[Starmill]

Acting against the law to most people means committing a criminal offence and is completely different.

Really? So refusing to repay a civil debt isn't 'against the law'? I think most people would use that form of words, and would be happy to call it as bad as theft (a crime) of cash of the same value actually.

 

[Starmill]

It was nothing like a serious change to our relationship.

Well I thought that it, if changes were needed, they were the changes that could and should be made. Clearly you don't share this view.

 

[yorksrob]

To be fair to Cameron, the end of 'Ever closer union' was a big achievement. One of the other asks was enshrining the pound as a European currency, but didn't quite get it through.

That was probably the best deal we would ever get.

 

[Starmill]

In short, Mr Cameron asked for next to nothing and got somewhat less than that. In no way did they go any way towards "leaving" as the compromises proposed for Remainers (such as remaining in the Customs Union and Single Market) went towards "remaining".

I completely disagree.

 

[Starmill]

That was probably the best deal we would ever get.

There is absolutely no doubt about this in my opinion.

 

[43066]

That's exactly what the term is generally understood to mean!

We don’t decide elections by adding up the results of the losing parties.

And the result of the 2016 referendum was the “popular vote”, by any measure. Much as you may wish to deny it!

No?

He voted against remaining in the 1975 referendum (albeit for the wrong reasons - a rare occasion when Jezza was actually right about something - in the same way that a broken clock is right twice a day).

 

[Ferret]

Say please and I'm sure I can organise a link for you.

Haha! Name them please

 

[Ferret]

There is absolutely no doubt about this in my opinion.

Inclined to agree. But, to win the referendum, Cameron had to come back with something tangible. He didn’t really have a tangible concession from the EU to wave with, and it went a long way to the Brexit vote going as it did!

 

[43066]

And yet, Johnson would rather have an election than another referendum.

Quite right. It would be highly undemocratic to have another referendum before the result of the first has been implemented.

You claimed that the election demonstrated that people hadn't changed their views. The proportion of votes suggested otherwise.

Would that be the same proportion of votes that has led to a crushing Tory victory, on a firmly leave ticket?

It strikes me that certain posters on this thread are only in favour of democracy when it delivers the results they want.

Democracy only functions with the losing side’s consent, as Mr. Farage has reminded us many times.

 

[TrafficEng]

Although the popular vote was still with Remain and 2nd Ref supporting parties by about 52/48.

Although the Labour party policy was quite difficult to decipher, I don't remember them declaring themselves as an outright party of Remain at any point during the election campaign.

Therefore a lot of Labour votes will have been cast on the basis of a promise of a further negotiation and a referendum on a 'better' deal, in which the GE voter might have intended to vote Leave.

It is interesting - but not unexpected - that these votes have been appropriated by the Remain side as evidence that a majority of people are Remainers.

At best they should be counted as 'undecided' or perhaps 'neutral'.

You can claim legitimacy for any mandate which you like.

Quite true.

 

[yorksrob]

Inclined to agree. But, to win the referendum, Cameron had to come back with something tangible. He didn’t really have a tangible concession from the EU to wave with, and it went a long way to the Brexit vote going as it did!

I do wonder if Cameron had taken a more cross-party approach to the renegotiation, and come up with a few goodies for the left (restricting state aid rules, control over VAT etc) this might have played better in the labour heartlands.

As I remember, there was a lot of guff about 'markets', which is what the EU is anyway.

 

[DarloRich]

Corbyn has written an article for the observer stating he thinks he won the argument in the election. Ffs. Clueless.

Just get to chuff you silly old fool!

 

[Enthusiast]

Really? So refusing to repay a civil debt isn't 'against the law'?

No it isn't. Generally it would be a breach of contract and dealt with in the County Court. All that court could do is to order payment of the debt plus any costs.

I think most people would use that form of words, and would be happy to call it as bad as theft (a crime) of cash of the same value actually.

Then they'd be spectacularly wrong. That's why people can fail to pay debts but not go to prison and ultimately have those debts written off via bankruptcy. Theft is a criminal offence which attracts criminal sanctions but we don't have "debtors' prisons" any longer.

 

[43066]

Corbyn has written an article for the observer stating he thinks he won the argument in the election. Ffs. Clueless.

Just get to chuff you silly old fool!

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

There’s no fool like an old fool.

 

[TrafficEng]

The Supreme Court ruled that the PM had acted unlawfully. Quite a difference from illegally.

Many thanks for pointing this out Enthusiast. The difference is something I was aware of, and had used this word deliberately (in italics) to mimic the preferred phrasing used by the opposition collective. (as well as referring to Boris as a 'criminal', and wondering when he was going to be arrested and jailed).

Starmill has helpfully contributed to the clarification and expansion of this point. For which I am grateful.

 

[Ferret]

Corbyn has written an article for the observer stating he thinks he won the argument in the election. Ffs. Clueless.

Just get to chuff you silly old fool!

He’s been stuffed by the headline writer a little. But it’s still a delusional piece.

 

[EM2]

We either leave or remain. Anything that simply removes our name from the list of members is not leaving. Leaving means adopting the status of a normal (i.e. non-EU) country.

No it doesn’t. Leaving simply means no longer being an EU member state. That could be a non-member state like Norway is, or it could be a non-member state like Namibia is, or it could be a whole host of other options in between.

 

[yorksrob]

It's interesting. Looking back to the referendum, the Cameron renegotiation wasn't high in my consciousness at the time (and I was generally quite switched onto politics at the time). Perhaps more could have been made of it.

 

[43066]

Many thanks for pointing this out Enthusiast. The difference is something I was aware of, and had used this word deliberately (in italics) to mimic the preferred phrasing used by the opposition collective. (as well as referring to Boris as a 'criminal', and wondering when he was going to be arrested and jailed).

Starmill has helpfully contributed to the clarification and expansion of this point. For which I am grateful.

Nobody knew whether or not he had acted unlawfully until the judgement was handed down. As with most areas of law, the law was an unknown until it was decided upon and applied retrospectively by the Supreme Court justices in that particular case.

Of course, we could have an entirely separate argument about whether that judgement was politically motivated or not, and whether or not it was right that the (legal aspect) of the House of Lords was converted into the “Supreme Court” which sounds horribly American to me.

 

[Starmill]

We don’t decide elections by adding up the results of the losing parties.

I didn't say that.

that these votes have been appropriated by the Remain side as evidence that a majority of people are Remainers.

It's one piece of evidence among many.

Democracy only functions with the losing side’s consent, as Mr. Farage has reminded us many times.

Many Remainers feel robbed. That a part of their identity has been lost while simultaneously enduring economic pain which was said to be a work of fiction in order to get people to vote for it wouldn't leave anyone feeling the game had been played fairly. It should be obvious that they won't consent to the illegitimate Brexit the Prime Minister intents to foist upon us. Brexit is happening with half of the country still in resistance to it because of the way the Leave politicians have acted. There is obviously not going to be consent here.

 

[43066]

No it doesn’t. Leaving simply means no longer being an EU member state. That could be a non-member state like Norway is, or it could be a non-member state like Namibia is, or it could be a whole host of other options in between.

That may be true in terms of the letter of the law, but the spirit of leaving means leaving the EU and withdrawing from its constituent institutions.

Leave voters were not voting for things to remain exactly the same, in all but name.

 

[Starmill]

He’s been stuffed by the headline writer a little. But it’s still a delusional piece.

Anna Turley wrote a piece in The Independent which they titled "I lost my seat because of Jeremy Corbyn and I'm furious". She did not seem happy.

 

[Starmill]

That may be true in terms of the letter of the law, but the spirit of leaving means leaving the EU and withdrawing from its constituent institutions.

Leave voters were not voting for things to remain exactly the same, in all but name.

This wasn't expressed in the referendum campaign at all. You've come up with these ideas after the results.

 

[Starmill]

Ultimately the problem is that the game of Brexit has obviously been played unfairly. The people who've won won't acknowledge that because they don't want to lose the victory, and the people who've lost feel they tried to fight fairly and lost because of it.

 

[43066]

Many Remainers feel robbed. That a part of their identity has been lost while simultaneously enduring economic pain which was said to be a work of fiction in order to get people to vote for it. It should be obvious that they won't consent to the illegitimate Brexit the Prime Minister intents to foist upon us. Brexit is happening with half of the country still in resistance to it because of the way the Leave politicians have acted. There is obviously not going to be consent here.

If you feel robbed, how on Earth do you think leavers feel, some three and a half years after we voted to leave?

We have spent the last three years going nowhere, re running the same arguments, because remainers, and especially the remainer stacked parliament, have refused to accept the result of the referendum!

 

[Busaholic]

Corbyn has written an article for the observer stating he thinks he won the argument in the election. Ffs. Clueless.

Just get to chuff you silly old fool!

I'll get to see that tomorrow, but probably won't read it in full. He's never knowingly changed his mind on anything, apparently, so always thinks he's 'right', whatever that means. Bit like Tony Benn, his hero.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This wasn't expressed in the referendum campaign at all. You've come up with these ideas after the results.

As has been pointed out repeatedly, one Nigel Farage campaigned for a Norway style solution.

 

[EM2]

That may be true in terms of the letter of the law, but the spirit of leaving means leaving the EU and withdrawing from its constituent institutions.

Leave voters were not voting for things to remain exactly the same, in all but name.

Says who? The question was whether to leave or to remain, nothing else. There were plenty of people in interviews saying that the UK could be like Norway or Switzerland, there were plenty angling for a Canada-style deal, there were some who wanted no deal at all and to trade WTO. It cannot be all things to all men, not even all of those of a Leave persuasion. If it was, May’s deal would have walked it through Parliament.

 

[43066]

Ultimately the problem is that the game of Brexit has obviously been played unfairly. The people who've won won't acknowledge that because they don't want to lose the victory, and the people who've lost feel they tried to fight fairly and lost because of it.

I agree! It was played unfairly against the leave camp, the political classes were emphatically in favour of remaining, and tried to terrify us into voting their way. We still won, against all odds.

If you’re a democrat, you need to finally accept the result, albeit not to your liking. That’s just the way democracy works, I’m afraid.

If Thursday’s GE result won’t make you finally do that, I’m not sure what else to suggest!