Forum menu
Where we are now, is a member of the EU, but with greatly diminished respect and influence.
But all it takes is for a large segment of society to THINK that we are picking away at the fundamentals of democracy, then we could end up in a worse place...
"We tried to tell you, you ignored us. We won the referendum, you ignored the result. We'll MAKE you listen..." leading to civil unrest, extreme politics etc...
Whether this is actually a risk hinges on to what extent people feel they were mislead, or, having looked over the precipice, decide that actually they'd rather step back from the edge.
A man who is rapidly being exposed as having nothing to say.
Call it a Boris leave then, or a Theresa May leave. ALL of the Tories are saying the same thing.... they want access to the EU free market, but want to negotiate less immigration.
They always say it in that order as well.
not seen that, torsoial
He had the clearest most coherent vision of a life outside the EU. Even if it it didn't quite stack up, and underplayed some of the negative impacts, he was a lot more impressive than any of the other leave campaigners. Say what you like about how much that comparison's worth.
If people had voted for his vision, and were openly and honestly prepared to accept a significant economic hit in the short to medium term, and those voters got a majority, I would not be complaining about the result.
My "overwhelming majority" is all those who voted remain, plus all those who regret voting leave, plus all those in either a) or b) who won't get what they want because the 2 options are totally opposite.
Ah, I get it - I misunderstood your post entirely (got a cold on top of everything else).
Yes, strongly agree!
"We tried to tell you, you ignored us. We won the referendum, you ignored the result. We'll MAKE you listen..." leading to civil unrest, extreme politics etc...
This is going to happen anyway. The people who voted for significant drops in immigration aren't going to get it. As above Free trade agreement with Europe is first priority, we won't be able to get that without free movement.
Ignoring this result would be fine in my book due to the amount of mis-informaton pedalled by Boris's lot - people weren't voting on the actual issues they could do anything about and weren't told the consequences in a believable way (Corbyn at big fault here).
I think ignoring the result but putting up taxes on middle and high earners, at least temporarily, in order to fund a Big infrastructure investment in the deprived parts of the country that voted Leave would be a very good way of appeasing everyone.
The middle and high earners might be put out, but the net effect is probably a lot better for them than brexit, and the dissaffected parts of society would benefit because of the increased numbers of jobs and better infrastructure, like more doctors, etc, which is what they really wanted.
The only people hacked off would be the ones that think the EU is an organisation that we should be out of. But we don't know how many of these there really aren't because most people were cheated into voting on other issues.
But the problems of potentially large amounts of future immigration still remains
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36628894
But the problems of potentially large amounts of future immigration still remains
why do you see 'large amounts of future immigration' as a problem?
And here we get to the crux of the matter. Instead of promoting his dreamworld where we stay best bros with the single market and all that entails, while slowly repatriating laws, we got the 'Immigrants, £350mil, Take Control Back' bollocks.He had the clearest most coherent vision of a life outside the EU. Even if it it didn't quite stack up, and underplayed some of the negative impacts, he was a lot more impressive than any of the other leave campaigners. Say what you like about how much that comparison's worth.If people had voted for his vision, and were openly and honestly prepared to accept a significant economic hit in the short to medium term, and those voters got a majority, I would not be complaining about the result.
And where is he now? Getting into fights with interviewers, calling everyone that disagrees with him "toddlers" and then signing off a massive sulk with "This isn't a good time to sulk". Great. Thanks for crystallising your vision, Danny.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/28/we-leavers-are-not-racists-bigots-or-hooligans--no-matter-what-t/
why do you see 'large amounts of future immigration' as a problem?
I think he means it's a political problem rather than a real one. - as in, it won't look good to the large numbers of leave voters.
To be fair, he did promote all that, but like all the other campaigners, he did next to nothing to point out that his aims for leaving were totally incompatible with the others', as long as you voted Leave.
Dozens of campaigners, dozens of agendas, the only thing they have in common is that they all wanted you to put a cross in the same box.
I think ignoring the result but putting up taxes on middle and high earners, at least temporarily, in order to [b]fund a Big infrastructure investment in the deprived parts of the country that voted Leave would be a very good way of appeasing everyone[/b].The middle and high earners might be put out, but the net effect is probably a lot better for them than brexit, and the dissaffected parts of society would benefit because of the increased numbers of jobs and better infrastructure, like more doctors, etc, which is what they really wanted.
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/25/view-wales-town-showered-eu-cash-votes-leave-ebbw-vale ]Errr.....Not really[/url]
Clearly, some turkeys really enjoy Christmas.
why do you see 'large amounts of future immigration' as a problem?
don't be so stupid.
A lot of people that voted leave did so because they see overpopulation locally and stress on local services - a month to get a doctors appointment, etc.
I would like to say on behalf of Leave we all know that there may be tough times ahead,” said one woman who works as sales assistant at Marks & Spencers. “In my 53 years I’ve had my fair share of them and they are not nice. Tough times make you unable to sleep, cry yourself to sleep, panic about everything – horrible.But tough times also mean coming out on the other side – which we will – feeling stronger and able to deal with whatever life throws at us. We are a nation of strong hardworking and proud people. Do not call us morons or idiots. As a person who has nearly hit rock bottom but pulled myself up again I’m prepared to do it again for a better society
More countries are going to join the EU and more people are going to come here for economic reasons.
Or are they not ?
And have you the evidence to persuad the leave voters that they are not ?
And if you have it, why doesn't Corbyn have it and why did he not make it plain the the voters, even discounting for the fact the bloke was born not to lead but just to make speeches from the sidelines.
I think now is the time for someone to demonstrate great maturity and large bollocks, and tell us they plan to do what's best for the electorate even if that *appears* to go against what the electorate asked for.
Exactly. Whichever route you take you're going to upset a load of people so the choice is:
a) Upset between 48 and 49% of the people and commit the country to an unknown economic future
or
b) Upset 51-52% of the people and save the country from 'economic disaster'.
I like the big balls approach
Seems to me the only fair way to do this is to have a general election where the parties lay out their plans for Brexit which will probably fall into three main options:
1. Ignore the referendum
2. Trigger Article 50 and begin negotiations with a view to creating a post-EU UK with more of a focus on trade and freedom of movement with the rest of the world rather than just Europe.
3. Trigger Article 50, pull up the drawbridge, and start kicking the darkies out.
don't be so stupid.
You silver tongued charmer, you.
So quickly to the insults when all other discussion has been very civil.
Upset 51-52% of the people and save the country from 'economic disaster'.
remove the bregreters from that and I think the percentage will come down a lot. All the people that didn't realise the consequences.
Apparently the FTSE is rallying...
More countries are going to join the EU and more people are going to come here for economic reasons.
Or are they not?
They are
And have you the evidence to persuad the leave voters that they are not ?
I don't.
Though I think I have the evidence to persuade them that immigration has always led to a net gain in this country and so it should not be a problem.
Re how much of the electorate you upset, it's 52% of a 72% turnout which is about 40%.
Sounding better already.
Bruce how can it possibly be fair to ignore a simple Remain/Leave referendum ? Its only remotely acceptable if you where on the losing side.
Everything was stacked on the Remain side
Massive campaign spending advantage
All major political parties officially for Remain
No Access to civil service for Leave (no wonder "facts" where so hard to come by)
Significant external pressure from vested interests (look how much global stock marlets are down)
Website left open 2 days after deadline for 2 million extra registrations (assumed to be from younger voters who we hear voted 70/30 Remain)
With a level playing field imho Leave would have won by a mile
The referendum we've just had wasn't an act of democracy; it was an ill-conceived and poorly executed vanity
In my view Referendums are far more democratic than elections where we elect MPs then half the time they go off and do stuff they said they wouldn't. The first EEC referendum is a wonderful case in point, people voted for one thing and then a succession of governments gave them something else none of which we got to vote on
The Swiss have it right with multiple referendums per year
Bruce. Good summary.
jambalaya, do you want 2 or 3?
How do you know that the country will be in economic disaster? How do you know that, if we remained in the EU, in two years time we wouldn't be up shit creek?
Much of the 'growth' under Osborne is simply the result of net migration, more people in the economy. It might add to the GDP but could easily reduce per capita GDP (as well as help squeeze resources). So to that extent, it is a source of concern.
In my view Referendums are far more democratic than elections where we elect MPs then half the time they go off and do stuff they said they wouldn't.
Isn't that exactly what just happened in the referendum? Leave has backtracked on everything it said in the campaign.
Do you think it's a good idea to trust every voter's understanding of the question at hand?
Much of the 'growth' under Osborne is simply the result of net migration
Per-capita GDP has gone up since 2009..?
How do you know that, if we remained in the EU, in two years time we wouldn't be up shit creek?
1) What was the threat?
2) We voted FOR a whole load of risks - are they more or less than the risks in point 1) above
Bruce how can it possibly be fair to ignore a simple Remain/Leave referendum ? Its only remotely acceptable if you where on the losing side.
I'm not saying it's fair. Fair doesn't come into it. The referendum was advisory, not binding.
If a party were to run on a platform of ignoring the referendum and won then you can hardly accuse them of not doing what they said they were going to do if they don't trigger article 50.
Fair doesn't come into it.
Agree. No-one said it was binding. Cameron did promise to stand by the result, but he's now quit. And just maybe people have realised what a stupid idea it was.
Not bloody fair to plough ahead with something everyone knows is stupid, which was called and run as part of a power play between a few men, and which may cost people their jobs and livelihoods now is it?
I think there is a general misunderstanding of how referendums work - even among the political pundits. The simple fact is that there were lots of people with different visions for life outside the EU campaigning for Out. Likewise there were lots of people with different visions for life inside the EU campaigning for Remain, but we are comfortable with that because it is the status quo. There are therefore a myriad of reasons to vote one way or another, but in the end the result is the result.
Though I think I have the evidence to persuade them that immigration has always led to a net gain in this country and so it should not be a problem.
It may be for the country as a whole, but it needs to be for the localised communities that see the effects of the migration, and it obviously isn't or they would be happy about it and wouldn't have voted leave.
Bruce how can it possibly be fair to ignore a simple Remain/Leave referendum ?
Whoever makes this call is going to choose the lesser of two evils.
Fairness is not going to come into it.
(Cheer up, *maybe* when the Civil Servants do a cold objective investigation they'll decide a totally un-negotiated departure from the EU, (outside the EEA too) makes sense, we'll pull out, be richer per capita, and less over crowded. If so in 15 years time they'll put statues up to Farage and quite right too - he'll get the credit.)
localised communities that see the effects of the migration, and it obviously isn't or they would be happy about it and wouldn't have voted leave.
So you're going back to an argument of... 'because xenophobia'
brilliant! 😆
we're going round in circles here
Referendum, a request for instruction. They got their answer. Now it's time to go forward
which way? Left, right, or far right?
and it obviously isn't or they would be happy about it and wouldn't have voted leave.
False logic
Fairness is not going to come into it.
Fairness would be if you could somehow exclude leavers from EU benefits and keep them for remainers. Then the leavers could have their own recession.
Agree. No-one said it was binding.
[url= http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201516/cmhansrd/cm160222/debtext/160222-0001.htm#16022210000001 ]Hansard 22nd Feb 2016 Column 24[/url]
[i]This is a vital decision for the future of our country, and I believe we should also be clear that it is a final decision. An idea has been put forward that if the country voted to leave, we could have a second renegotiation and perhaps another referendum. I will not dwell on the irony that some people who want to vote to leave apparently want to use a “leave” vote to remain, but such an approach also ignores more profound points about democracy, diplomacy and legality. This is a straight democratic decision—staying in or leaving—and no Government can ignore that. Having a second renegotiation followed by a second referendum is not on the ballot paper. For a Prime Minister to ignore the express will of the British people to leave the EU would be not just wrong, but undemocratic.[/i]
It may be for the country as a whole, but it needs to be for the localised communities that see the effects of the migration, and it obviously isn't
Not obvious at all.
Let's consider just one possible situation, involving Steve. Steve is a lazy entitled git, who doesn't work that hard. Lukas on the other hand is a good worker. Steve gets fired, Lukas applies for the vacancy and gets it.
Steve now thinks an immigrant has stolen his job. Obvious, isn't it?
Everything was stacked on the Remain side
Massive campaign spending advantage
All major political parties officially for Remain
No Access to civil service for Leave (no wonder "facts" where so hard to come by)
Significant external pressure from vested interests (look how much global stock marlets are down)
Website left open 2 days after deadline for 2 million extra registrations (assumed to be from younger voters who we hear voted 70/30 Remain)
The facts and the evidence....
Were you actually in charge of the leave campaign? It makes so much sense, it was actually a campaign of actual facts versus #jambafacts!
I want my £350m a week. Where is it?
It's being used to build and staff 1 new hospital everyday
why do you see 'large amounts of future immigration' as a problem?
I think he means it's a political problem rather than a real one. - as in, it won't look good to the large numbers of leave voters.
Still think this,molgrips? 😉
yunki - Member
At the risk of sounding a bit (ok a lot) Hitlery..Is there nothing we can do to reduce the impact of the ignorant and belligerent on society? I mean.. these **** idiots are actually breeding and raising children, it's not exactly good for evolution is it.. ?
We now have a fairly clear idea of where they are, and how many of them there are (about 52% of the turnout)
Obviously no-one's going ahead with Brexit cos it's daft, but could we not be prioritising the building of a giant cannon* to fire Brexit voters into space? Once that's done we can all have a good laugh, breath a collective sigh of relief and go back to living like normal civilised human beings
*if we get enough velocity they'll burn up as they exit the atmosphere which should provide us with a nice celebratory firework display
Finding the hypocrisy of some of you guys quite amusing.
E.g. Islam is a ideology in the same way the beliefs behind leaving or staying in the EU is an ideology.
As a fully paid up atheist I often raise an eyebrow at some of the crazy things religious people believe, but if I were to write the above about Muslims rather than brexiteers you guys would quite rightly go nuts.
Q - who said this today?
“It was taking an American-style media approach. What they said early on was ‘facts don’t work’ and that’s it. The remain campaign featured fact, fact, fact, fact, fact. It just doesn’t work. You have got to connect with people emotionally. It’s the Trump success.”
A - Arron Banks, Brexit's biggest financial backer. Yes, we're deep in post-truth politics now. Facts don't work. Experts are not needed.
He also said this:
“The Conservatives are now trying to rewrite the campaign that immigration wasn’t important, but boy was immigration important,” Banks said. “The first thing we did was poll everybody and we found that if immigration wasn’t the issue, the issue was schools or education, proxies for immigration. It was the number one issue by a country mile.”
So, again, yes, it was all about the 'forrinners'.
Dear MP
Please ignore the democratic will of the majority of a poorly educated, ill informed, easily misled, disenfranchised electorate.
Doesn't really describe me at all tbh.
Dear MP,The poor people are so horrid aren't they.
Please ignore them.
Yours,
SmugBast.
So you're going back to an argument of... 'because xenophobia'brilliant!
we're going round in circles here
and there we go again, it doesn't have to be xenophobia - if there is increased pressure on local services because of more people and degradation in someones living standards because of it then they are going to be p1ssed off.
If he can't find a job, or has to go through 500 job applications before he finds one, because there are so many people living in his area, then he is going to be p1ssed off.
They don't have to be foreign.
Even if its only a perception, his is a vote.
Read that article I posted, tell me why that lady is wrong.