[Closed] EU Referendum - are you in or out?

You might refer to it as advise but the bottom line is we are leaving EU.

Not sure you understand.

It was defined categorically as advice. An advisory referendum. That's not my interpretation of it, that's what it was.

The bottom line is that May has opted to go for it anyway. She didn't need to, but she chose to.

You might refer to it as advise but the bottom line is we are leaving EU.

It's referred to as advice because that's what it is, it's not legally binding, its essentially an opinion poll, one that was based on a pack of lies.

Blair might not be the most likeable person but he knows how to win general elections and get people behind him.

sorry mol - (some) lawyers disagree

First, the Conservative General Election Manifesto of 2015 promised a referendum on membership of the EU in the following terms:

[b]“We believe in letting the people decide: so we will hold an in-out referendum on our membership of the EU before the end of 2017.”[/b]

It should be noted that the election promise was to “let the people decide”. I[b]t was not a promise to hold an advisory referendum, with the final decision being left to Parliament.[/b] Nor was there any mention of minimum thresholds of percentage of vote or of turnout before the referendum would be binding. Therefore the British people were given[b] a politically and constitutionally binding promise[/b] in the election manifesto of the successful party that they would be given the final and deciding say in a referendum in which the majority would prevail.

Plus the government was explicit in how the referendum result would be viewed

The referendum on Thursday, 23rd June is your chance to decide if we should remain in or leave the European Union.

The Government believes it is in the best interests of the UK to remain in the EU.

This is the way to protect jobs, provide security, and strengthen the UK’s economy for every family in this country – a clear path into the future, in contrast to the uncertainty of leaving.

[b]This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.[/b]

If you’re aged 18 or over by 23rd June and are entitled to vote, this is your chance to decide.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/515068/why-the-government-believes-that-voting-to-remain-in-the-european-union-is-the-best-decision-for-the-uk.pdf#page=14

molgrips - Member
Not sure you understand.

It was defined categorically as advice. An advisory referendum. That's not my interpretation of it, that's what it was.

The bottom line is that May has opted to go for it anyway. She didn't need to, but she chose to.

I do understand you want a vote in Parliament etc ...

I also know it is very hard and painful to know that things are not going the way the remainders want.

But do you think the other side will let others walk all over them?

That's like a business selling a product with no warranty, they can say it doesn't have one, it doesn't suddenly become enshrined in law and change the fact that legally it still does.
Just because someone says something, it doesn't override their legal obligations.

mattyfez - Member
That's like selling a product with no warranty, you can say it doesn't have one, because legally it does.

I have never had to present ID to any health professional in France, Jamba. The Carte Vital is all they ask for, your European health cards are equivalent. I've gone to a doctor with nothing on me at all, got treatment and left with the old paper version of the "fiche de soins" and a bill to pay (edit: a hospital too).

But do you think the other side will let others walk all over them?

Whatever happens, a solution which doesn't sit in the middle ground means we're in for decades of a divided society. To me, the middle ground looks like freedom of movement and the common market will remain.

And you get your money back.

Yes, there is warranty but do you go for a warranty claim just because the warranty is there and where nothing is wrong with the product/services?

Irrelevant to the point, point being that government can't pass pr amend laws no matter what they appear to promise, or indeed revoke rights from half the electorate, the government can suggest the changes to parliament, who then vote on whether they pass or not.

Yup but only 60 or 70% unless you're very pregnant and then you get 100%. In private clinics you often pay over the odds and that isn't reimbursed either.

thm,

Why is it undemocratic to ask the people/parliament after the negotiations have been concluded without interference, are you really sure about this(now you know the reality)?

Strikes me that if public opinion is massively against the agreement post negotiations, then it's undemocratic to actually go ahead with it.

Democracy should be able to stand up to being questioned, to simply say in 2019, right we had a vote 3 years ago about this, we must follow it through regardless of consequences, is undemocratic in itself.

Being allowed to change your mind, i would think, is a fundamental tenet of democracy.

RichPenny - Member

But do you think the other side will let others walk all over them?

Whatever happens, a solution which doesn't sit in the middle ground means we're in for decades of a divided society. To me, the middle ground looks like freedom of movement and the common market will remain.

cchris2lou - Member
And you get your money back.

mattyfez - Member
Irrelevant to the point, point being that government can't pass pr amend laws no matter what they appear to promise, or indeed revoke rights from half the electorate, the government can suggest the changes to parliament, who then vote on whether they pass or not.

Nobody is restricting anyone to travel with passport so that's a non issue.

I disagree.

The government's position was clear on how it would treat the result. Very clear. To repeat

This is your decision. [b]The Government will implement what you decide[/b].

They [s]wasted[/s] spent a lot of money on sending us all that document lets not forget.

The Remainers laid out their case, and the Brexshiteers did they same. The latter won the debate. Yes it was a crap debate and yes the Brexshiteers lied through their teeth, but more fool the voters who believed them - they are the losers in the end.

We also knew the base case scenario and voted on that basis. It is disingenuous to argue the opposite now just because we (the minority) don't like the result.

Democracy did stand up to be questioned. The people spoke and now the government is standing by its [b]explicit [/b]promise.

It takes some gall to argue against that (or an SNP membership card perhaps 😉 )

chewkw - Member

But do you think the other side will let others walk all over them?

It somewhat depends on whether they can actually deliver anything.

They promised the moon on a stick, now it turns out the best they can offer is a mouldy old turd.

Will the Brexiting public be happy with a turd? What do you think?

I'm expecting to need a visa to get into GB post Brexit. If I don't what will have changed?

slowoldman - Member

Nobody is restricting anyone to travel with passport so that's a non issue.

I think you misunderstand freedom of movement with respect to the Brexit argument.

I just disagree with that.

oldnpastit - Member
It somewhat depends on whether they can actually deliver anything.

They promised the moon on a stick, now it turns out the best they can offer is a mouldy old turd.

Will the Brexiting public be happy with a turd? What do you think?

We have been on middle ground for so long we do not even know what ground we are on.

Full in would be with Euro and moving towards federal Europe.
Middle ground is somewhere between where we were, towards to Norway model and toward the Swiss.
Full out would be same terms as we deal with non European countries currently.

Norway looks closest to the middle to me.

Disagree all you like, just because they said they will implement a50, or anything else for that matter, if it's contrary to a law, it's illegal and they can't.

The only way to get around that is through parliamentary decision. Not sure why that's such a difficult concept to grasp.

I perfectly understand that is part of EU agreement to have freedom of movement without having to wave your passport around like visa etc. i.e. part of the "rule of the club".

It's not really related to passports. It's about having common rights and responsibilities across a number of countries.

Disagree all you like, just because they said they will implement a50, or anything else for that matter, if it's contrary to a law, it's illegal and they can't.

That is not what I am disagreeing about. The issue or royal perogative v passing a new Act is a different (albeit related) issue

The only way to get around that is through parliamentary decision. Not sure why that's such a difficult concept to grasp.

Decision? The Government needs to pass a new Act. TM should stop farting around. The gov has a majority. It should present the Act, get it passed and trigger A50. There is nothing difficult to grasp in this either.

wood and trees....

RichPenny - Member
Norway looks closest to the middle to me.

It's not really related to passports. It's about having common rights and responsibilities across a number of countries.

It's a poor democracy that refuses to factor in public opinion and crack on regardless.

richpenny - the Norway option requires fee movement of people so is not going to happen as ending free movement of people ( no matter how much it benefits us) is a red line for the outies

the only options are stay in as we are or leave completely. No halfway house is possible without the outies crying foul!

Decision? The Government needs to pass a new Act. TM should stop farting around.

The government doesn't pass the act, the clue is in the name, act of parliament..the government put it before parliament to decide. Lol!

Indeed. The public spoke. Accept it. Move on.

Joe, you are merely arguing against the democratic process and/or advocating a constant requirement for public approval depending on the strength and direction of the wind. Understandable given the daily feed of the same ideas from yS folk, but still not right.

seosamh77 - Member
It's a poor democracy that refuses to factor in public opinion and crack on regardless.

THM, the public was hoping for something that is clearly impossible and not going to happen. Accept it and move on 🙂

the only options are stay in as we are or leave completely. No halfway house is possible without the outies crying foul!

They can cry foul all they like - the only sensible money is on a compromise

Agreed matty - hence my words. Present the Act (and since they have a majority and it was an explicit election pledge) get it passed etc.....

some of the public believed the lies that the outies put out there - that we could have our cake and eat it. Now those lies are exposed for what they are and the fact all we have is a busted flush to play is obvious then public opinion is clearly changing

They voted to leave - what they were hoping to achieve is up to them.

Doesnt change anything.

yS presented a whole book of lies not just five of them. None of you guys were suggesting that this should disqualify the result if it was YES. There was even an argument repeated that it doesnt matter if we are worse off, the desire to be FRREEEEEE was more important.

We lost, get over it. Move on or at least go and watch celebrity masterchef.

chewkw - Member
seosamh77 - Member
It's a poor democracy that refuses to factor in public opinion and crack on regardless.
What accurate measure do you have for public opinion?

Put it this way, in 2019 if the polls are say 65% against and the government doesn't take it back to the people, then we don't live in a democracy.

Aye your argument will be that the polls have been wrong recently, but they've not been that wrong. If you factor in margin of error.

You're right that the vote doesn't change anything. Apart from the hole it's blowing in the economy right now. Though of course that's more to do with the govt's cluelessness than the vote per se.

he only sensible money is on a compromise

You have a certain way or writing that always manages to explicitly state anyone who disagrees is not sensible or an idiot or some such

TBH I think none of us have a clue what is going to happen as we have no idea what our elected leaders will ask for and we have said we wont be in the customs union, wont accept free movement and they have said its all or nothing on the four pillars.

Perhaps you could paint us a picture of this "sensible option" no one so far is espousing?

teamhurtmore - Member
Indeed. The public spoke. Accept it. Move on.

Joe, you are merely arguing against the democratic process and/or advocating a constant requirement for public approval depending on the strength and direction of the wind. Understandable given the daily feed of the same ideas from yS folk, but still not right.

Not arguing constant. Only on issues of this importance, particularly when the justification for it comes from the peoples opinion. What the people think should be taken into account throughout the whole process. Not just once, when the wind was (very weakly) blowing in a certain direction.

richpenny - the Norway option requires fee movement of people so is not going to happen as ending free movement of people ( no matter how much it benefits us) is a red line for the outies

I don't think it is a red line, since no vote was had on that issue. May has stated it is, but she's a politician walking a tightrope. I do understand your desire for in/out to be clear cut. I just don't think either is possible.

They voted to leave - what they were hoping to achieve is up to them.

Doesnt change anything.

The only democratic method is to have another vote when the deal is done and see if the people want that. Parliament could pass a binding ref on that?

I agree we lost but the remainers are no more going to stop than the leavers would with such a narrow margin
Giving up is odd advice.

I also know it is very hard and painful to know that things are not going the way the remainders want.

You're nothing if not an optimist, but actually I think they are starting to drift in the right direction. The desperation of the brexmaniacs is starting to surface.

In other news, Farage as ambassador to the court of Trump sounds excellent. The Trumpsters would love him, everyone else would realise that we were taking the mickey, it would keep him busy elsewhere and (now this is important) it would allow him to leave Europe whether Britain does or not. Wins all round.

Now if we could just change the locks while he's out...

The public spoke.

TBH I think none of us have a clue what is going to happen as we have no idea what our elected leaders will ask for and we have said we wont be in the customs union, wont accept free movement and they have said its all or nothing on the four pillars.

Isn't that standard negotiating practice though?

seosamh77 - Member
well the polls are there, and currently showing 56%. If that was to continue to grow, it'd be well within the margin of error.

Put it this way, in 2016 if the polls are say 65% against and the government doesn't take it back to the people, they we don't live in a democracy.

Aye you argument will be that the polls have been wrong recently, but they've not been that wrong. If you factor in margin of error.

Remember the Polls in Merica that completely wiped Trump chance off? (don't response about Trump coz there is another Trump thread)

You're right that the vote doesn't change anything.

No I'm not - i wasnt saying that. The vote changes everything. What people were hoping for doesnt. Different point altogether

What the people think should be taken into account throughout the whole process.

? The people have asked to leave the EU. They didn't ask to leave the EU under condition XYZ. They knew that was a matter of negotiation and who would be involved in that negotiation.

Not just once, when the wind was blowing in a certain direction.

Dont tell wee nippy that - that's exactly what she is hoping for!

mattyfez - Member

The public spoke.

The public say a lot of things, don't they.

Ok here we go

January - Mar - good snow, we can remain and go skiing.
April - Jun - lets leave
June -July - back for early continental holidays
Aug - leave the French alone
Seop - late holidays with the French back at school
Oct - Dec - back out again

Simple, but we can vote each time, just to make sure

teamhurtmore - Member
The people have asked to leave the EU. They didn't ask to leave the EU under condition XYZ. They knew that was a matter of negotiation and who would be involved in that negotiation.

Technically, they didn't know who would be involved in the negotiation. It was ment to be Cameron leading it.

There's grounds for another ref, all your refusal tells us is that you've now positioned yourself to take advantage of that. Again, your opinions come from your own self interest, imo.

The public say a lot of things, don't they.

yes and lots of it is crap - but in the ballot box, it all counts crap or not.

teamhurtmore - Member
Ok here we go

January - Mar - good snow, we can remain and go skiing.
April - Jun - lets leave
June -July - back for early continental holidays
Aug - leave the French alone
Seop - late holidays with the French back at school
Oct - Dec - back out again

Simple, but we can vote each time, just to make sure

You may have a point if opinion was continually swaying back and forth, but it isn't, it peaked once.

I'm arguing if opinion if convincingly against over the next couple of years, there's justification for another vote.

Which is interesting in itself, as in that scenario, the government that goes ahead with it is committing suicide.

I also find it interesting that ardent "democrats" are scared of another vote.

I think most people including remainers would agree with the vote if..

A) there was a more decisive majority, at least 60% as an arbitrary figure.
B) there was a coherent well thought out plan to move forward.
C) the instigators had some integrity and hadn't scuttled off like children who'd just thrown a firework into a bonfire.
D) if the instigators had been at all truthfull about the nonsense suggestions they were pedaling.

As it stands, the whole thing looks like what it is, a complete stitch up of the not so bright by a few particularly nasty politicians.

And now the not so bright are unsurprisingly too proud to reconsider their position in light of newer more reliable information.

Agreed Joe, look at wee nippy ignoring her members and avoiding another vote because her flawed narrative is even more exposed now. Democracy hey, who needs it?

matty - there was no threshold set not a minimum participation level. We cant re-write the rules juts because we got a result we dont like.

There is a plan to the extent that you can have one at this stage - admittedly its flawed but hey ho

The main instigators are on the bridge - that is what is worrying me more than anything.

D- true, but as the Scots told us, the desire to be FREE trumps everything even if we are worse off - remember that idea?

Guess an alternative conclusion we could come to is that your refusal to call for another euro ref is that you think it would probably lead to another Scottish ref. And you're scared of that, you do protest too much...

no threshold set not a minimum participation level. We cant re-write the rules juts because we got a result we dont like.

That's just one aspect of my issue with it, but as it was essentially an opinion poll, then technically there doesn't need to be a rewrite of the rules because there weren't any rules, it was simply a vage question open to all sorts of misunderstanding of what spin was put on it, and spin it they did. Then ran away.

Where's mr. Brexit farage now? he's an MEP, shouldn't he be in the thick of it, building bridges for a better exit deal? That's what he's paid for afterall, but the best he can muster is to attend one or two EU meetings a year where he basically runs up massive expenses bill that the tax payer has to foot, and insults his European peers.
No he's in America schmoozing trump and furthering his personal agenda..

Bastion of integrity is nigel.

That said if 60+% of participants voted leave it would at least be a bit more compelling..but we didn't, we essentially had a stalemate. This raises enough doubt to make a rethink of the question far more compelling than blindly going along with it.

I perfectly understand that is part of EU agreement to have freedom of movement without having to wave your passport around like visa etc. i.e. part of the "rule of the club".

Guess an alternative conclusion we could come to is that your refusal to call for another euro ref is that you think it would probably lead to another Scottish ref. And you're scared of that, you do protest too much...

You could, but it would be flawed. Massively so.

But Joe who in their right mind would want independence from a successful union with high levels of devolved power but full membership of an unsuccessful monetary union with no/little sovereignty over monetary and fiscal policy? Of all the illogical ideas bandied around that takes the shortbread biscuit.

Its not my refusal by the way. I simply want to get to an end to this awful situation of uncertainty. It screws business decisions more than the end result.

Matty - that was a vague question!?! Be serious...

so what happens if we have a second vote and its 48/52 the other way, do we have another, and another, and another?

Frankly, I would prefer to see less of Farage. Much less.

A new referendum is the worst of all possible worlds.

no leaving the EU is the worst possible outcome. Anything to stop that would be better.

that was a vague question!?! Be serious...

so what happens if we have a second vote and its 48/52 the other way, do we have another, and another, and another?

No that would not be sensible, but given the highly controversial, questionable situation, and it's far-reaching deep impacting consequences a second referendum would be more logical, and still have parliamentary ratification. either that or just call the whole thing off as the travesty it is.

Tbe fact it was such a close vote, to me at least suggests two issues.
1. The question was too vague.
2. The voters were not sufficiently informed to make a confident and informed choice.

It's as vague as my mate texting me saying lets go for a pint, immediate questions spring to mind, where will we go for a pint? is the pub nice? Who will be attending? Its the beer good? Is it reasonably priced? Are there extra expenses such as taxi fares?

Of course I know my mate, if he is that vague, he means down the local, which in this analogy, the local is the EU.

No that would not be sensible,

Good so lets not go there

but given the highly controversial, questionable situation, and it's far-reaching deep impacting consequences a second referendum would be more logical,

Woops, that didnt last long

and still have parliamentary ratification. either that or just call the whole thing off as the travesty it is.

ah, we dont like the result, so lets ignore it.

The referendum on Thursday, 23 June [b]is your chance to decide if we should remain in or leave the European Union[/b].

Just a wee reminder of the vague question....

ah, we dont like the result, so lets ignore it.

So just to clarify your position, do you think 'a' government should have supreme power over the courts and parliament to make up or amend laws willy nilly regardless of the consequences?

teamhurtmore - Member
But Joe who in their right mind would want independence from a successful union with high levels of devolved power but full membership of an unsuccessful monetary union with no/little sovereignty over monetary and fiscal policy? Of all the illogical ideas bandied around that takes the shortbread biscuit.

People that don't really believe the march towards the privatisation of the individual is the way forward. IS may not work, but we're willing to give it a go. We also don't think the future of the UK is as rosy as you think, The uks financies don't look all that much better than Scotlands.

Anyhow, stop changing the subject. This is about why there should be another ref. I believe my case above is more than compelling. Particularly, as you always tell us "in these post truth times". How you can promote that(which I agree with), and then claim our democracy as valid is a conundrum I'll never understand either.

I too think a second referendum is useless .
i am more angry at the fact that the Leave campaign was based on lies , and big ones too . Every time Boris open his mouth someone should ask him about the £350m a week for the NHS .
I cant see the MP voting agaisnt artcile 50 , Corbynn is a useless politician and other parties are not big enough .

It's funny how, the argument went, that it'll be a race to the bottom under IS too. Brexit becomes reality, and oh look, race to the bottom starts, cut corporation tax!

You can talk about the book of dreams and bullshit coming from the scottish side, fair enough, I agree, it's there. But there's a monumental amount of bullshit coming from the uk side, always has been. It's well laid bare before us all now, for all to see.

People that don't really believe the march towards the privatisation of the individual is the way forward.

Who's manifesto is that from?

IS may not work, but we're willing to give it a go.

Sounds strangely familiar..... *

We also don't think the future of the UK is as rosy as you think, The uks financies don't look all that much better than Scotlands.

😀

Anyhow, stop changing the subject.

OK, appreciate its too close to the nerve to point our the inconsistencies. And its late and none of us want nightmares.

This is about why there should be another ref.

Because we dont like the result, I know that is strangely familiar too...*

I believe my case above is more than compelling.

So do I, but we are in the minority. Tough isnt it?

Particularly, as you always tell us "in these post truth times". How you can promote that(which I agree with), and then claim our democracy as valid is a conundrum I'll never understand either.

The recent Economist leader on the Art of the Lie addresses this very conundrum. Oddly, you seemed less vexed when yS were lying about Scotland but hey ho.

Just a wee reminder of the vague question....

THM, the blurb that came in the booklet means nothing. As we've discovered. That's not what defined it.

So just to clarify your position, do you think 'a' government should have supreme power over the courts and parliament to make up or amend laws willy nilly regardless of the consequences?

No not at all.

The CoJ has slapped the Gov's wrists (rightly so) over this. We should play by the rules shouldn't we? Such as respecting the commitment to deliver the result of the people.

Another wee reminder

This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide.

No ifs, no buts, no (only if its remain)

THM, the blurb that came in the booklet means nothing. As we've discovered. That's not what defined it.

mol, get a ....oh, forget it.

Everyone* said before the Referendum Leaving the EU meant leaving the Single Market. So that much is crystal clear with regard to Brexit.

Cameron
Osbourne
Gove
Boris

[quote=thecaptain ]A new referendum is the worst of all possible worlds.

let's make it the best of 3

Yes Dave and Co spelled it out

No other country has managed to secure significant access to the single market, without having to:

follow EU rules over which they have no real say
pay into the EU
accept EU citizens living and working in their country 27’28

How vague was that? Pity the BSers in his own party cant read admittedly

jamba, you must have seen the widely circulated video with many prominent leave campaigners explicitly suggesting staying in the single market. Since they won the vote, it's reasonable to hold them to their claims. Cameron and Osborne etc are no longer in any position of power.

Everyone* said before the Referendum Leaving the EU meant leaving the Single Market.

I seem to remember Boris saying the opposite?

We should play by the rules shouldn't we? Such as respecting the commitment to deliver the result of the people.

That's not one of the rules!

This is your decision. The government will implement what you decide.
No ifs, no buts, no (only if its remain)

That document you are quoting - that's not the rules. That's the promise of a previous government led by someone who quit. Remember?

The recent Economist leader on the Art of the Lie addresses this very conundrum. Oddly, you seemed less vexed when yS were lying about Scotland but hey ho.

Again let's drag it back to the real world.
My business will not employ an additional graduate IT techie this year (we have the work) but I would rather the rest of the team run around and cover the work just in case it goes tits up. This is the basic methodology of a SME do I invest £30k (12 months salary laptops phone trying courses NI pension) or do I keep the cash knowing it would keep us out of the shit for a month or two? It's very very simple...

Jamba (and some others) - this may help

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/open-britain-video-single-market-nigel-farage-anna-soubry_uk_582ce0a0e4b09025ba310fce

Some of the Brexy-boys talking about what leave actually meant - surely they weren't lying?

PS - stick to what the Brexies said, the rest might be built around an agenda

Now then, I'm sure this isn't true or they would have made sure Farage was out of the [s]country[/s] continent.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/theresa-may-has-her-brexit-silence-spectacularly-shattered-by-eu-negotiators-claim_uk_58346818e4b0b8f7701257fd?ncid=APPLENEWS00001

"The world is closing in
Did you ever think
That we could be so close, like brothers
The future's in the air
I can feel it everywhere..." 😉

Joe, 670 pages of the most "comprehensive BS for an independent country ever published" proves my point. YS trumped the Brexshiteers mere 5 core lies and won overtricks

Plus - and this is the key - I have some sympathy with the Brexshiteers in the sense that unlike our union, the EU is fundamentally flawed in design and execution because of the folly that is the Euro. The rest is just noise. The UK fulfills the conditions required for having a shared currency, which is why it works and is why AS was so keen to keep it - despite the problems this caused for his case of independence. In contrast, the EU doesn't which is why it is rotten at its core.

So this represents a conumdrum doesn't it? Why would Remainers want to remain in something that is rotten at its core. Simple. The EU is fundamentally about maximising trade and investment. So the smart play is to work out how to maximise these benefits while minimising the weaknesses. And hey presto, we had it. Membership,but without the euro, Shengen etc, it's really doesn't get better than this. But we have chosen instead to throw this all away. Although in reality we wil end up with a watered down version that is not as good but as the French say. Tant pis.

In contrast the YS BSers' approach maximises the weaknesses and minimises the benefits. Pull out of a working union with its benefits and with whom trade and investment is concentrated and enter one where trade is much lower and under terms that commit you to joining a flawed economic and political construct.

Hence you win the BS prize by a country mile. That is some record to out-trump the three Brexshiteers and Farage by such a margin.

So the scoreboard of posttruth politics goes

1= Wee donny and wee nippy
3rd The Brexshiteers