This thread shouldn't really be controversial. The fact is that we are supposed to be a representative democracy. We vote to elect people who are best placed to decide what to do. They are meant to be the ones who inform themselves as to the issues. You can argue that they don't do that job very well, but that is how it should happen.
Absolutely it should have been held. People were well informed and took the time to fully understand the situation and the implications of their vote.
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2016-06-24/leave-voter-disappointed-and-wishes-to-vote-remain/
Absolutely it should have been held. People were well informed and took the time to fully understand the situation and the implications of their vote.http://www.itv.com/news/update/2016-06-24/leave-voter-disappointed-and-wishes-to-vote-remain/
Jesus H - surely a troll...
To have a single binary yes/no question on such a serious and wide-ranging matter (and that was always likely to result in such a statistically insignificant "majority") thrown to the general populace seems quite ridiculous.
It would appear that the educated/informed voted to remain. Others didn't.
Please don't have any more about other things.
The referendum was a manifesto pledge
Every single major party has, at some point over recent years, offered us an in/out referendum on the EU
in the last Euro elections, 25% of the electorate voted for a party whose sole premise was attaining an EU referendum
We constantly hear how politicians lie and break their promises - that they don't listen to the public.
The argument that there wasn't popular support for a referendum on the issue it utterly untenable, the accepted policies of all the major parties has been clearly shown to be divergent from over half the public.
So, on what basis could you ever claim it shouldn't have been held? Oh, I know, because you lost... well, diddums!
It would appear that the educated/informed voted to remain
I thought this although it might not be as simple as being ill informed - some may have known fully what they were voting for.
My wife and I have good Jobs and transferable skills. Recently she was discussing a job in NZ, I've been talking to people about jobs in Germany and Spain. For us the EU and free movement is an opportunity.
However, others, less fortunate and with less transferable skills see the reverse. They don't see opportunity but see threats to their jobs at home from people coming to the UK.
So, on what basis could you ever claim it shouldn't have been held? Oh, I know, because you lost... well, diddums!
Not at all - I don't think it should have been held full stop win or lose and no - labour and the lib dems have not in recent pledged an in/out referendum as part of their manifesto or whilst in governement.
BJ even thanked the public for doing 'their' job for them.
Will go down as an historic error to offer the referendum - as others have said, this wasn't some un-refusable plebiscite that the public were screaming for. Couldn't be denied. It's arisen from factional squabbling within the Tory party, that Cameron couldn't be arsed / was unable to deal with in a strategic fashion, enabling the country to collectively, colossally, step on its own dick.
I work in a big car factory in Solihull, everyone was told by trade union reps to vote to remain, a lot of them young people had absolutely no idea what they were voting for. Some of them genuinely believed they would lose there jobs if they didnt vote that way, and that was there only reason for voting. So I don't think it was just people who voted to leave who are 'uninformed' or 'uneducated' people on both sides had no idea what they were voting for.
It shouldn't have been held and is a classic example of why large sections of the population should not be allowed to vote.
we allow all to vote. That's a good thing or a bad thing depending on whether we win or not. As the Op didn't like the score he has chosen to complain.
It was the same for both sides, with holding information and half truths. It boiled down to finances on one side and immigration and laws on the other.
Can we not now get back to something more interesting.
Sod all will happen for years and when it does it will be some feeble that no one will really notice or care.
Those who are /were predicting the end before or after wards are completely over estimating the interest by the average Brit. I bet virtually all care nowt as long as their bills are paid and their own interest are served.
Now what tyres for tomorrow?
Are there any who voted out who think it shouldn't have been held?
Doubt it.
Sour grapes.
Ironic that part of the reason for leaving was so we could implement this :
"Large sections of the public shouldn't be allowed to vote"
Let's leave the ruling and decision making to the educated few and save the uneducated/ill informed masses for cannon fodder ......
I got as far as standing in the booth, completely undecided as to which way was best. I put a blank slip in the box.
However, I'm of a mind that things will work out for the best, it'll take some time, but we've been is really shitty situations before as members of the EU, and we've managed to get things sorted.
And any leave thoughts had zero to do with immigration, up until recently I worked with five Poles and a Romanian, and for a while with a Spanish bloke, and they were all lovely people to work with, preferable to some of the British I also worked with.
@CZ you are a rare breed. Didn't here the exact figure but they announced papers with no marks at all and there are no more than 200.
Out of 33m that's quite an achievement:).
My granddad always advocated at least spoiling your vote instead of just staying at home and I agree...
Nope, I reckon Dave Cameron just went down as the worst PM in history.
He'll be in the running - certainly in terms of political incompetence. Prior to this catastrophic goat ****, you wouldn't have said he was ever someone who would leave much of a legacy, good or bad. Politically lightweight, PR man-style, operating in belt-tightening times without much of a mandate. John Major MkII.seosamh77 - MemberNope, I reckon Dave Cameron just went down as the worst PM in history.
Major's now looking like Clement Atlee in comparison to Cameron. To ask a political question in public, and not know the answer, is foolish. Times that by 64 million and you have Cameron's epitaph - epic political failure.
[quote=seosamh77 ]Nope, I reckon Dave Cameron just went down as the worst PM in history.
He's certainly cemented his place in history - nobody is talking about illegal wars any more (well not this week).
Well said!!Does it really matter? It's happened now and that's that. We can't change what is now documented history.We can, however move forward as best we can and that's about I think
I'd actually go with Tony Blair as his decisions cost countless lives. As to whether DC's decision was right or wrong you'd have to ask that question to both sides of the fence.Nope, I reckon Dave Cameron just went down as the worst PM in history.
we should all be allowed to vote, that's the point of voting. If we arrived at what looks like the 'wrong' result it isn't necessarily the 'fault' of the people that voted. Maybe it looked like the best option to them. Maybe they couldn't tell one set of truths from another. Maybe it should never have got to this point.
I understand the point of the question but maybe a better question would have been why isn't it clear that remain is better because to the majority of people it wasn't clear
Apparently Google is seeing a huge increase in searches from the UK such as what is the EU, what are the implications of leaving etc.
Call me old fashioned but isn't this the sort of research people should have done before voting?
@leffeboy. This illustrates my point-we should never have been asked to vote. Absolutely once we had the everyone had the right to but CMD should have sorted his party's shit out, not the public who very clearly (on both sides) didn't know what the **** was going on...
But doesn't that fly in the face of living in a democracy. The electorate choose and they have chosen. The Tory party promised a referendum in 2013 and even though it cost him his job DC delivered on his commitment. As to whether you agree / disagree with the decision that is of little importance.@leffeboy. This illustrates my point-we should never have been asked to vote. Absolutely once we had the everyone had the right to but CMD should have sorted his party's shit out, not the public who very clearly (on both sides) didn't know what the **** was going on...
@dannybgoode. I'm not sure it was for CMD to sort this shit out, it's been a long time coming. I'm also not sure I like the idea that people shouldn't vote because they don't know what is going on. If it wasn't clear the being in was better or even if it was the wrong protest vote then it had been allowed to go on for too long like this. Over half of the voters thought that being in the EU was wrong, even if that question should never have been asked. That in itself is terrible
Half the electorate believe in the death penalty, Leffeboy [an historic low - it used to be far higher], if we're talking about terrible things. Shall we have a referendum to let democracy run its course on this fundamental matter? Of course we shouldn't - it's the job of people like CMD to keep a lid on these issues, not nonchalantly present them to the mob because you didn't think things through.@dannybgoode. I'm not sure it was for CMD to sort this shit out, it's been a long time coming. I'm also not sure I like the idea that people shouldn't vote because they don't know what is going on. If it wasn't clear the being in was better or even if it was the wrong protest vote then it had been allowed to go on for too long like this. Over half of the voters thought that being in the EU was wrong, even if that question should never have been asked. That in itself is terrible
It is some feat for a Prime Minister to be caught skull ****ing a dead pig and be remembered for something else.
Bring it on. For good or bad we have to deal with it.
It's the job of the government to avoid the mob mentality. As it stands ~ 47 million didn't vote to leave, and yet we are all going to have to live with it and deal with the consequences.
More people voted to leave than remain. Those that didn't vote I assume weren't too bothered either way, or they would have voted.
Its happened, so we must deal with it and move forward. Not the end of the world.
More people voted to leave than remain. Those that didn't vote I assume weren't too bothered either way, or they would have voted.Its happened, so we must deal with it and move forward. Not the end of the world.
I understand the situation: It just demonstrates that a referendum shouldn't have been held in the first place, regardless of the result.
If the result had been reversed, the same would have been true for those who wanted to leave.
If the voting age had been amended to allow 16yr olds to express their opinion on what, ultimately will affect them throughout their lives then we would be celebrating a remain victory, not dissecting an ill-judged reactionary vote to leave the EU.
I'm still on anger btw
Yep.
This is interesting, you could extrapolate the arguments of the last few pages to by-elections, general elections etc....there is always a poor turn out in virtually everything like this.....the 'uneducated of Essex' swing voters, have they studied the manifestos?...should they really be deciding the outcome of elections?....at some point you're on a slippery slope to banning the proles from voting or having to introduce some kind of IQ and current affairs exam before allowing anyone near a polling booth.
It's democracy, everyone (no matter how pig thick) gets to vote....brilliant isn't it!
Not at all: firstly, this type of decision is what we elect parliamentary officials to make; secondly, general elections, local elections can be reversed by the next election.
On this occasion, we have only one go, and to base the decision on party politics and personal grievances with the government, at the expense of future generations, is ridiculous.
The number of people who have publicly said they didn't understand what they were voting for confirms the view that these types of decisions should not be opened up to the general public.
[quote=xcracer1 ]More people voted to leave than remain. Those that didn't vote I assume weren't too bothered either way, or they would have voted.
69% of Leave voters thought the decision “might make us a bit better or worse off as a country, but there probably isn’t much in it either way”.
Oh and of course there are all those Leavers who are disappointed that we voted to leave 🙄
For what it's worth...
Probably needed to happen but managed badly and held at the wrong time.
Putting a third box on the ballot
- I hate the current government and want to send a message
would have changed the result massively.
There were several issues being rolled into one here like a byelection a year post a GE the result tells you the mood of the people not what they want.
Trying to divorce the 2 issues is tough and in a Trump/Corbyn/Saunders (yes I am lumping those 3 together) anti establishment era of politics a lot of the remain message was lost because of who said it. Regardless of what they said it was shouted down by people telling you stats lie, politicians (except us) lie, they are all only in it for themselves, business what do they know etc.
Well as some of the banks are moving staff out then they probably have a good idea (of course we don't need them or the taxes they pay)
Couple that with the most worrying of all responses - Remain should have presented a better case - it's almost as if you are saying leave was BS but at least they had a better powerpoint. I've been in sales meetings where people make silly claims about their product because they know once it's sold they have the cash and you have to deal with it.
Finally if you are going to hold a referendum on something like this at least set out better rules.
To effect a change 50% of the Enrolled Voters need to agree to it or 60% of the turnout if you don't get there.
What doesn't amaze me is it's only taken 24hrs for the realisation to set in that it might not all be awesome.
Why can't I stop listening to discussions/reporting via the radio regarding the referendum vote?, Its not as if it's going to change the current situation is it?............I can only surmise that in some dark recess of my brain there is a small bundle of neurons that deals with reasoning/discussion and they are desperately holding out for a genuine and intelligent argument to be presented regarding the [i]Brexit[/i] outcome. I'm not asking for much, just a single valid and reasonable statement from one of the 17,410,742 Brexiters so I can allay my fears that 51.9% of the country are ****ing imbeciles who can't be trusted...........just one fact so that I can mull it over and perhaps come to a conclusion that they may have a valid point, is that too much to ask?.
However after listening to a recent 5live interview with leave voters (2am sat morning), I feel my initial reaction to cry out "****ing idiots!" rings true. I know.....I know...... "give it up - go to sleep ffsake!" I hear you cry but I can't ......not whilst I have a few electrical impulses left in my tired brain.....pop......pop-pop....fizzle.....firing away with foolish optimism but I can sense that my little bundle of neurons are withering and dying, my hope of coming to an understanding as to "Why the **** did you vote to leave?" is fading fast.
Perhaps I'll wake up tmorn and it will all have been some horrific nightmare, or perhaps I'be been correct all along.
There genuinely is 17,410,742 ****ing idiots in our country.
Gnight..........
"classic example of why large sections of the population should not be allowed to vote."
Kennyp - so you don't even want to live in a democracy then...you'd take the vote from those that disagree with you!?
Kennyp - so you don't even want to live in a democracy then...you'd take the vote from those that disagree with you!?
Perhaps a short multiple choice quiz before getting your ballot paper to prove you had taken some interest would be good
Yes the people asked and it's the system we have.
If it hasn't gone your way then one would simply look else where to relocate or make it work for you.
I think what is taking people by surprise now is the fact that the EU member states want article 50 triggered asap by the UK government, whereas, the leave camp were saying they are not going to rush.
Unfortunately, I think this has potential to get rather unpleasant. I get the impression that some members of the EU elite can't quite grasp that someone has opted out of the club. Juncker's tone is one that isn't very helpful.
I am therefore in favor of getting article 50 signed and let's get on with it.
Unfortunately, I think this has potential to get rather unpleasant. I get the impression that some members of the EU elite can't quite grasp that someone has opted out of the club. Juncker's tone is one that isn't very helpful.
It's his responsibility to look after the EU interest not the UK, thats what the UK Political Elite is for (the leave camp was stuffed with them)
Maybe something was lost in the translation but the tone seems spot on
"In a free and democratic process, the British people have expressed their wish to leave the European Union. We regret this decision but respect it.
This is an unprecedented situation but we are united in our response. We will stand strong and uphold the EU's core values of promoting peace and the well-being of its peoples. The Union of 27 Member States will continue. The Union is the framework of our common political future. We are bound together by history, geography and common interests and will develop our cooperation on this basis. Together we will address our common challenges to generate growth, increase prosperity and ensure a safe and secure environment for our citizens. The institutions will play their full role in this endeavour.
We now expect the United Kingdom government to give effect to this decision of the British people as soon as possible, however painful that process may be. Any delay would unnecessarily prolong uncertainty. We have rules to deal with this in an orderly way. Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union sets out the procedure to be followed if a Member State decides to leave the European Union. We stand ready to launch negotiations swiftly with the United Kingdom regarding the terms and conditions of its withdrawal from the European Union. Until this process of negotiations is over, the United Kingdom remains a member of the European Union, with all the rights and obligations that derive from this. According to the Treaties which the United Kingdom has ratified, EU law continues to apply to the full to and in the United Kingdom until it is no longer a Member.
As agreed, the “New Settlement for the United Kingdom within the European Union”, reached at the European Council on 18-19 February 2016, will now not take effect and ceases to exist. There will be no renegotiation.
As regards the United Kingdom, we hope to have it as a close partner of the European Union in the future. We expect the United Kingdom to formulate its proposals in this respect. Any agreement, which will be concluded with the United Kingdom as a third country, will have to reflect the interests of both sides and be balanced in terms of rights and obligations.”
You decided, you got what you wanted, we are not going to be dragged into the political games of the people who want out. YOu voted out remember...
Prolonging the exit is bad for all concerned. However as soon as it is signed the UK is at a disadvantage as it's up to the EU to like and agree to the settlement.
You have quoted a post leave statement from the union. The actual wording of article 50 is shown below.
Article 50
Print Email
1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.
2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.
3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.
4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.
A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49
The tone being used by Juncker would suggest there is an additional clause that states article 50 will be signed by the following Monday. The EU council adopting a "we will **** the UK up for leaving" is not going to help matters and just reinforces the message that the EU is in fact a dictatorship.
The tone being used by Juncker would suggest there is an additional clause that states article 50 will be signed by the following Monday. The EU council adopting a "we will **** the UK up for leaving" is not going to help matters and just reinforces the message that the EU is in fact a dictatorship.
That was Junkers statement, I made the assumption that was where the tone you were objecting to was???
Do you have something more solid that the tone, like a statement or words?