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

I will let it go when they stop spouting nonsense. The ball is in their court.

Like ^ people should think its important to stand up to BS.

And funky I will have you know that it's a very fine Shetland pony, thank you very much

My biggest moan apart from all the lying on both sides is that anyone with half a brain would have put some small print that you had to have a specific majority say 60/40 a vote which is so close is just asking for trouble.

Steaming ahead with a narrow majority on a non binding referendum will probably not be greatest decision ever taken when history is written about this.

+1. David Cameron will go down as probably the biggest failure of a PM, well, since forever.

Although he has some tough competition for that particular award.

All political careers end in failure

Jacques Chirac ended his career with his best years and is remembered fondly even by everybody I've ever asked even those who voted against him.

His wife?

Yeah but few so disastrously and ignominiously just after winning a good majority in an election.

I think May will give DC a run for that honour - the disastrous and ignominious bit.

(Not sure if I'd call DC's majority good)

No I am not. You are deliberately choosing words to make a point.

I'm really not, I've never "chosen words" to make any point ever, I have a good grasp of language but I'm not that clever and rely consistently on the hope that people grasp meaning / intention rather than argue semantics.

They are incorrect. The vote on the 23 June 2016 was not an "opinion poll". FACT.

Yes it was. FACT.

Capitals make everything true, right?

Irrelevant - You had a chance to make that argument beforehand, you did, we listened, and decided.

The positive benefits of leaving are irrelevant? Seriously?
Don't you have any?

I'm not trying to have an argument, I'm inviting you to convince me that I've missed something and have got it all wrong.

The positive benefits of leaving are irrelevant? Seriously?

Yes, at this point they are - because the time for them was before the referendum.

You can't just pretend it didn't happen, it's a political reality

Imagine if Scotland had voted for independence, even if it was 52/42% there is no practical way the government could have ignored it, that's exactly what you are calling for them to do, its fantasy land.

Only when applied to factual content, YOU failed on that score I'm afraid.

But let's assume (for a nanosecond) that you are correct, which polling company organised what you claim on 23 June 2016?

"Imagine if Scotland had voted for independence, even if it was 52/42% there is no practical way the government could have ignored it, that's exactly what you are calling for them to do, its fantasy land."

IIRC that one *was* legally binding.

Only when applied to factual content, YOU failed on that score I'm afraid.

How so?

which polling company organised what you claim on 23 June 2016?

I've already answered this question.

Yes, at this point they are - because the time for them was before the referendum.

Why don't you humour me and list yours?

teamhurtmore - Member

But let's assume (for a nanosecond) that you are correct, which polling company organised what you claim on 23 June 2016?

You seem to have decided that's important. What polling company organises the STW poll? The UK government runs lots of polls.

So, just to change tack, presumably England & Wales will have no problem leaving the Union so Scotland can stay in the EU?

And please, no one throw in the 'economy' card, as you Brexiters aren't interested in whether leaving is good for the economy, so why worry about whether Scotland staying in is - as it won't be your problem.

"I've already answered this question."

You appear to be allowing yourself to be lured into a debate about whether a poll intended to measure opinion was an opinion poll or not. 😀

As you say, call it a cheese sandwich it really doesn't matter, it doesn't compel the Govt to do a thing.

How so? Your comment is factually incorrect.

Excuse me, I missed the name. Can you repeat it for me?

NW, ask Mark, I have no idea. OOI, what do you think took place on 23/6/16?

Why don't you humour me and list yours?

I don't need to justify my decision (I've posted in the past on it) nobody needs to justify it, because it's irrelevant, it's in the past, it's pining for the fjords, it's an ex-issue, it doesn't matter.

we voted, we voted to leave, it's a political reality that you can't now put back in the box.

We were all told beforehand told that whatever the outcome, the government would follow it, and they are.

Yes you're [b]still[/b] fighting the reasoning/justification/logic - none of it matters, it stopped mattering at the moment the polls closed.

presumably England & Wales will have no problem leaving the Union so Scotland can stay in the EU?

Sounds good to me - you do realise that on that basis only E&W get to vote on the issue though, right?

Question: Do you want to leave the UK so Scotland can remain in the EU?
Answers: Yes - set them free. NO - Drag them down with us

It's 632 pages in and the vote was to leave. Gerrrrroveriiiitt.

Vote???? It was only an opinion poll ATP (apparently)

teamhurtmore - Member

NW, ask Mark, I have no idea. OOI, what do you think took place on 23/6/16?

An advisory, nonbinding referendum.

So, what's the practical difference between a nonbinding, advisory referendum and an opinion poll then?

It's 632 pages in and the vote was to leave. Gerrrrroveriiiitt.

So, what's the practical difference between a nonbinding, advisory referendum and an opinion poll then?

One of the two the government pledged to enact the outcome of.

So, what's the practical difference between a nonbinding, advisory referendum and an opinion poll then?

Opinion poll asks 1-2,000 people then uses smoke and mirros to adjust the "results". Referendum was 35,000,000

Largest democratic excersize this country has even seen, higher turnnout than at a General Election (?)

The people that didn't vote on 23rd June where saying, we will go with the flow - you decide for us.

The Remainers are perfectly entitled to campaign for us re-joining, they can campaign for it in 2020, 2025 etc

As I have said many times the I expect the Remaines to go very quiet when the eurozone hits the buffers hard over excessive government debt

@Edukator apart from the fact the PS are going to be a distant 4th how does M expect to pay for the Universal income ? Note everyone in the EU will be entitled to arrive and claim it - no ?

[i]Sounds good to me - you do realise that on that basis only E&W get to vote on the issue though, right?

Question: Do you want to leave the UK so Scotland can remain in the EU?
Answers:
Yes - set them free.
No - Drag them down with us
[/i]

Absolutely, either way we get independence just the second way we'll have to declare UDI and appeal to EU for 'clemency' 🙂

Jambas, you say this many times despite the fact that our membership of the EU has no impact on the impact of this event.

NW, thank you, a nice defintion, as a bright guy, I know that you know the answer to the second question.

I don't need to justify my decision (I've posted in the past on it)

I'm not asking you to justify anything, I'm offering you the chance to persuade me that I'm wrong (or at best, asking you to put my mind at rest). Whilst I have read this entire thread, you'll forgive me hopefully if I don't wade back through twenty-two thousand posts looking for an answer.

teamhurtmore - Member

NW, thank you, a nice defintion, as a bright guy, I know that you know the answer to the second question.

I'm asking you. Do you not have an answer?

Of course it has an impact if for no orher reasons other than subset;

we need to ween ourselves off our trade with the EU as it will be much weaker in the future
budget confributions are based on relative economic strength
Immigration would go through the roof with a eurozone in even deeper crises
We [b]will[/b] be roped in to the bailout/recovery funds etc etc
In the event (when) the eurozone collapses we need to be free to respond quickly with regard to global trade and to do so in OUR best interests via freedom to negotiate bilateral trade deals independent of the 27

Yes, it'll like apples and a pears. As you iknow dangerous to mix the two up unless you want a pudding

Having skim read the 97 pages of the supreme court ruling I am had that they are not focused on domestic/culinary issues and prefer to focus on what needs to be done in order to move on

"One of the two the government pledged to enact the outcome of."

A problem that was solved with the resignation of Cameron.

Governments break promises all the time.

Thats ok then....carry on

One of the two the government pledged to enact the outcome of.

We pay for most of it already, Jamba, a fairer distribution is what's initially needed. You perhaps missed the "progressive introduction" part.

We'll see about the distant 4th. If Hamond is it will be just behind Fillon.

Who will centre left/centre right vote for - imo Macon. You are right of course we won't really know till April

Mrs B tells me estimated cost is €500bn, no way that's already "factored in / paid for"

How do you stop the entire EU turning up under the Lisbon Treaty with the legal right to be treated as a French citizen would ?

So you are beginning to take Macron seriously. 🙂

Ask the Finns about how they cope with the mass of migration their universal income has created (not).

I'm offering you the chance to persuade me that I'm wrong

I don't need to persuade you

It's the 17,410,742 that were persuaded that matter.

#Disunity

These Brexies couldn't bring the country together if they... well they're just not going to be able to are they?

😆

Face it ninfan, the only difference between you traitorous Brexies and the honest remainder patriots is that we know we lost, and it hasn't dawned on you yet that you lost too.

😀

Zokes, perhaps the reason we lost is a tendency to lose perspective as you wilder comments highlight. By 2020, our economy is likely to be somewhere around 4% smaller than it would otherwise have been. [b][u]OK, not good but not a disaster[/u][/b]. Behind this will be more costly trade and investment. Sad but true, but this is not a rogering, it is merely an avoidable deviation from a trend. We will survive.

You say that so blithely I think you almost believe it yourself. I've emboldened and underlined the important bit.

For the country as a whole, perhaps not. But the country is not one homogeneous entity so that this 4% would be lost equally by all. Rather, certain parts of it, including parts that matter to me an awful lot, such as scientific research, will be impacted to a much greater extent. This is even more acute if you happen to be involved with any form of research that isn't immediately linked to industry, e.g. environmental, ecological or agricultural research.

But as molgrips has already pointed out, it's not just the financial cost, which I'm guessing given your change of tone you've worked out how to dodge. It's also things like the right to live and work where you choose amongst at least 27 other countries. The right for people who you may know or even love to stay in the UK.

Those are but two of the reasons why I'm still angry. Without a hint of hyperbole, Brexit has been the singularly worst political decision to affect me in the 33 years of my life, and by some margin. Some could dismiss that as "first world problems". Perhaps they'd be right. But we live in the first world, and this is a particularly vexatious and self-inflicted problem that can still be avoided if a few hundred men and women sitting on green benches would just do what they're paid for and act in this country's best interests.

You are guessing incorrectly

The referendum (see what I did there) had a significantly detrimental impact on my life in 2016. But one person'/misfortune should not be allowed to overrule the decision of the the majority. The would be extremely selfish.

Are you sure that your final line should not end with your best interests?

Edukator isn't the Finnish one a trial of a subset of the long term unemployed ? 2000 people ? BFM poll below.

Le pen 25
Fillon 22
Macron 21
Hamon 15
Melenchon 3.5
Dupont ?

I don't need to persuade you

It's the 17,410,742 that were persuaded that matter.

So you still don't have an answer then? We're leaving Europe because yay numbers?

C'mon man, it's surely not a difficult question.

The referendum (see what I did there) had a significantly detrimental impact on my life in 2016.

Any business worth doing in H1 2016 is worth doing in H2 2016 and moving in Q4 2019 if necessary, no ? EU cost my business a huge amount 2014-15, all significant players are now outside EU jurisdiction, billions in AUM. I tried to get mine moved to the US but was told regulatory oversight would still be EU based on firm's HQ. What's doubly galling is that EU investors bypass rules by investing via Lichtenstein.

The referendum (see what I did there) had a significantly detrimental impact on my life in 2016. But one person'/misfortune should not be allowed to overrule the decision of the the majority. The would be extremely selfish.

But it's not one person's misfortune is it? It's on average everyone's misfortune to the tune of 4-6%, and as I've said already, that really underplays the far more acute effect that it will have on an awful lot of people.

By all means roll over and let Jamby tickle your tummy, but don't be surprised if many of us do not, for the reasons I've already clearly stated.

If we're in the business of not challenging what's not right, I assume you're wholly happy with all of Trump's decisions so far, as he won an election, so nothing he does should be questioned? It'll be interesting if you aren't, given that he did at least win an election, which is not what the non-binding advisory referendum in June was. Far from it, in fact.

I am not rolling over, I am respecting the decision and getting on with things. I would suggest that you do the same. We are leaving the EU. Get ready, that is not going away..

I am also studying how the Brexshiteers won. This is important if we are to prevent a repetition. That's practical, whining and obstructing democracy isn't.

C'mon man, it's surely not a difficult question.

Fortunately we didn't just ask you and me, we asked forty six and a half million people a pretty simple binary question about whether they wanted to stay, or leave, of which about 3/4 could be arsed to have an opinion - and the majority agreed with me, and the minority agreed with you.

Move on man

I am not rolling over, I am respecting the decision

No decision was made. An advisory referendum, fought on grossly misleading lines, delivered a result for consideration. Nothing more has happened. You can accept May et al trying to tell you otherwise, but that won't change this subtle fact.

getting on with things.

I too am getting on with things. It is possible to both campaign against this madness and also to get on with things at the same time.

Move on man

Would you have moved on were the result reversed, or if there is a second referendum that reverses it? After all, the people would have spoken, even if some had changed their minds.

Well good luck with life/work and with overturning the democratic process.

Well good luck with life/work and with overturning the democratic process.

Your first version was better #ninjaedit

I'm not campaigning to overturn the democratic process, as I've already made clear. We've had a glorified opinion poll and a lot of waffling by some people in positions requiring far greater skill than they appear to possess (Davis et al., I'm talking about you). We've also had a legal battle to ensure that democratic process is actually followed. But, and this is the important bit, the democratic process surrounding this has yet to begin. I don't doubt a lot of the rabid Tories will try to undermine this when it happens, as is their wont, but don't be mistaken into thinking that legally or democratically we're under any more obligation to leave the EU now than we were on 22nd June. I'll concede that the referendum definitely raises a moral requirement for the government to have a grown up discussion about the pros and cons of EU membership, but it has no legal standing whatsoever, certainly not to actually go through with a self-styled hard brexit.

THM - always remember that the whole point of the democratic process is to overturn last democratic decision. Otherwise we'd elect MPs / PMs for life.

Ninfan - that vote was in the past. It's the next vote that matters. And the one after that. And so on. Democracy didn't suddenly stop at 10pm last June 23rd - time to fight the next battle. And if that is lost then the one after that.
And do stop harping on about soon to be ancient history like a broken record.

zokes is right.

I'm not campaigning to overturn the democratic process, as I've already made clear.

You are. Thats clear.

But keep believing that stuff if it makes you feel better (in ignoring the result. )

Being honest would be better

Democracy didn't suddenly stop at 10pm last June 23rd -

Let's keep it that way then

You are. Thats clear.

But keep believing that stuff if it makes you feel better (in ignoring the result. )

You may want to twist it all you want but lets not let that get in the way of the actual facts.
#alternatefacts

a pretty simple binary question

Only an idiot would call it a simple question. Sorry for the passive aggression but it's true.

The democratic process has been stitched up.

And personally, I won't move on. Our country is being screwed as I type this, it will be being screwed for many years after this. My rights are being eroded. My country is being diminished. The democratic process surely demands my point of view is listened to when this is what's at stake?

We all know the basis of the referendum. The government laid it out clearly and sent it out to every household. It's is disingenuous in the extreme to ignore that. That is the alternative fact.

The final decision will be made by parliament. It requires an Act to be passed. It will be.

So at no point are we trying to subvert democracy (that was what the PM was doing) we are free to lobby and petition MP's up until the vote - they will vote as the wish. One step at a time.

Democracy requires an informed electorate. Onthis as on many other issues there was a misinformed electorate with outright lies from many campaigners and a 20 year campaign of lies from the majority of the press

Define "informed" - give the number of factual inaccuracies that you post here, you might be ruling yourself out. Be careful what you wish for.

It's is disingenuous in the extreme to ignore that.

I would never have ignord it. It should have been the starting point for a proper debate and constructive *democratic* process.

Democracy should not be rule by plebiscite. That's utterly insane. As TJ says, and I have said many times - democracy only gives good results if the public take their responsibilty seriously and learn about the issues. They didn't - we know this. So there's no point in holding up majority vote as some kind of golden rule.

That's what parliament is for.

No one, no one was saying this before the result.

It's disingenuous to say so now and you know it.

But as the Brexshiteers have noted It doesn't matter. It's happening.... get used to it

Next step, stop the plebs voting????

A plebiscite is the purest form of democracy, it is just incredibly expensive, so representative democracy is a sensible compromise. But it is perfectly sensible for major issues to be settled by plebiscite and if you are a believer in the concept of the "wisdom of crowds", a very good one.

Our country is being screwed as I type this, it will be being screwed for many years after this. My rights are being eroded. My country is being diminished. The democratic process surely demands my point of view is listened to when this is what's at stake?

Our country will be substantially better off as a result of Leave. This will be fully apparent by 2020. The country listened to your point of view during the Referendum campaign with extra lashings of Armageddon for good measure. It then voted.

Next step, stop the plebs voting????

Nope, I want us plebs to get to vote between two fully formed options, not just "status quo" vs loads of different ill defined options.

So a vote once we can see the terms of our exit from the EU.

1) except exit terms (these will need to be defined for other countries to agree to them at some point).
2) ask our partners in the EU for us to keep current terms (they can of course tell us to do one at this point).

In the meantime, both MPs and public alike should be pressuring the government towards trying to get exit terms, and a future relationship with the EU once we leave, that is in the interest of as much of the UK population (and Brits abroad) as possible.

And would..

Shall we start with a little test on "membership of" versus "access to"?
We can disqualify anyone who cannot accurately define the Norway model?

Etc....

Or "in" or "part of" the single market.

Etc…

That's you out.

Next....

You guys might just be on to something here

The problem with a second referendum is that you completely screw up your negotiating position - it basically a back door way of saying we will remain.

That's the intention mefty. It's just that people don't have the balls/honesty to admit it

Lib Dems aside. They at least are up front about it.

We all know the basis of the referendum.

Indeed we do. It was a non-binding advisory poll of the population, in other jurisdictions known as a plebiscite. Just as it's not Jamby's fault that Boris stood in front of a great big lie on a bus, it's not my fault that Cameron was more than slightly misleading on the legal standing of the vote. In Jamby's defence, his side won the vote, regardless of the various nefarious means of garnering support it employed. In my defence, the legal significance of that vote isn't enhanced simply because Cameron told porkies himself over what a result one way or the other would actually mean.

You are. Thats clear.

It's only clear if you're being deliberately obtuse, or a moron. I'll give you the courtesy of deciding which of these two categories your current debating style leaves you in.

Neither thanks.

Go through any post oherpes ore 23 June 2016 and tell me which one was talking about the vote being merely a one off to be followed by a series of other votes. Tell me where you reminded everyone that this was for advisory purposes only, that if it was a remain that we would still be awaiting more bills to clarify and referendums on the basis of us remaining etc..

Its BS and you know it, be honest FSS.

In the spirit of the EU, bon nuit

The problem with a second referendum is that you completely screw up your negotiating position - it basically a back door way of saying we will remain.

Sophy Ridge pointed that out to Salmond today. EU guaranteed to offer a non-dealboth Remainers and Leavers reject which guarantees we stay a member. Job done from EU's perspective.

Personally I don't mind a second Referendum on the basis A50 is irreversable and WTO is the default in 2019.

Anyway Parliament is getting a vote on A50 and will get a debate on the White Paper (April/May ?). Then a Parliamentary debate/vote on the final deal too.

People need to get their heads round the fact the EU is in a weak position. Coming into Dutch, French and German elections parties will have to discuss how they will replace the UK's budget contributions and what happens if there is no deal and WTO tariffs. All during this time the EU is a passenger.

Anyway Parliament is getting a vote on A50 and will get a debate on the White Paper (April/May ?).

Then a Parliamentary debate/vote on the final deal too.

People need to get their heads round the fact the EU is in a weak position. Coming into Dutch, French and German elections parties will have to discuss how they will replace the UK's budget contributions

Given how small the actual amount is in real terms it's not that tough a choice really

Eh? We are the second biggest net contributor (only nine of the 27 are net contributors)

Ccougar, we both know that whatever reasons anyone gave,
...
blah blah blah
...

C'mon man, it's surely not a difficult question.

Democracy requires an informed electorate.

Democracy bypasses an ill-informed electorate.

Our country will be substantially better off as a result of Leave.

Now we're getting somewhere. How / why?

It's 314 million pounds per member for the UK's net contribution. (8.5 Billion/27 nations)
In perspective

Germany recorded a €18.5bn budget surplus in the first half of 2016, beating expectations and giving chancellor Angela Merkel’s plenty of financial wiggle room ahead of next year’s crucial parliamentary elections.

It's 314 million pounds per member for the UK's net contribution. (8.5 Billion/27 nations)
In perspective

But only nine (including the UK) are net contributors, so it's more like a 10% increase in EU contributions for each of them to fill the gap

and what is that as a proportion of their GDP?
What savings will the UK make from not having the UK there?
These numbers are actually small when you look at them at a whole of government level. One of the ways Leave tried to scare people by misrepresenting the figures and trying to make them sound much bigger than they were in many ways.

Its BS and you know it, be honest FSS.

No, it's the clear legal standing of the plebiscite. As I have already stated, that this wasn't discussed before the referendum is no more my fault than the big bus lie is Jamby's fault. Neither diminishes the result nor the implications of that result. The big bus lie probably contributed to an awful lot of people voting leave expecting something they were never going to get, the disingenuous implication that the vote was binding probably also influenced voters into believing they would receive something they still have no more legal right to than they did in June 22nd.

As I have said, morally it's a lot more murky, but legally it's crystal clear.

And I'll settle for deliberate obtuseness.

This was funny and desperate in equal measure.

mefty - Member
A plebiscite is the purest form of democracy