aDespite the absence of a plan, people still voted for leave, the status quo is normally dominant in referendums. You can’t ignore a result that overcomes that.

Very sort of true, a tiny majority of the turnout sent it to leave. It was not a resounding victory and the plan promised (remember all the massive promises written on busses) evaporated. This despite the fact that most remain campaigners posted out the bs. The biggest protest vote backfired.

It was a ridiculously vague question on a very complex issue, and it was an act of gross stupidity to have asked it and expect the result to be adhered to.

So of the answer had been in you’d be up in arms? What with the vague question…

All claims made by both sides came under significant scrutiny throughout the campaign, the issues were debated and remain failed to make their case sufficiently well to persuade the majority of the electorate.

The referendum was a manifesto commitment so had to be held.

>It was unambiguous, a clear majority want to leave, that is democracy.<

Elderly inlaws (2) wanted to leave over sovereignty, 2 mates voted to leave to give Cameron/Osbourne a bloody nose. Woman in local dry cleaners also the latter, seemingly without understanding the ramifications of leaving. I suggest your assertion is rubbish…

aracer discussing EU referendum:

Might I go so far as to suggest that such a narrow margin of the vote results in “unfinished business”

aracer discussing AV referendum:

In a vote for or against something, the difference between those two proportions is completely irrelevant.

There is no requirement to understand the issues to vote, they voted and it counts as much as yours and mine.

The ambiguity as you know is that the brexit that was sold is not the brexit that’ll be delivered.

Spot on.

And turning it about: if we end up with a half-in/half-out deal, like Norway, where we are no longer part of the EU but still accept freedom of movement, still contribute to the EU and still have to agree to a lot of EU regulations then will Leave voters be happy because we have left, despite it being nothing like the Leave they voted for?

So of the answer had been in you’d be up in arms? What with the vague question…

If the answer has been Remain by the same narrow margin then we would definitely still have people campaigning for us to leave and calling for a second referendum. Farage said exactly that himself.

Spot on.

And turning it about: if we end up with a half-in/half-out deal, like Norway, where we are no longer part of the EU but still accept freedom of movement, still contribute to the EU and still have to agree to a lot of EU regulations then will Leave voters be happy because we have left, despite it being nothing like the Leave they voted for?

Doesn’t matter, the vote wasn’t on how we leave, the uncertainty of how we leave was clear, but they still voted to leave.

So no matter what “Leave” actually turns out to mean, you are confident that Leave voters will be entirely happy with it? Even if it doesn’t meet any of the goals mentioned in the campaigns they voted for?

Well in that case, why don’t we just tell people we left and carry on as before? 😀

wow, I’m impressed at your trawling efforts – I have no idea what thread that is from, apart from that it’s a long time ago.

(BTW as the quotes might imply, “unfinished business” isn’t my words)

edit: 😆 I found the ancient thread in question, and that comment is taken completely out of context!

So Nigel stands up and says…
I want to negotiate a treaty that stops our young people going to Europe to work unless they can pass an Australian points system.
I want to negotiate a treaty where you can just no longer go off to the sunshine to retire.
I want to negotiate a treaty where we can no longer use European medical services for free.
I want to negotiate a treaty where our businesses can no longer freely trade their customers.
I want to negotiate a treaty where you will have to pay extra if you want to use your mobile phone abroad.

He would get laughed out of the room.

The ambiguity as you know is that the brexit that was sold is not the brexit that’ll be delivered. The question that hangs over it all is, was the vote a vote for the fantasy brexit, or was it for brexit in any form.

Brexiters now say the bullshit wasn’t important and didn’t sway anyone but that’s like cigarette advertisers; if it wasn’t important and didn’t sway anyone then why do it in the first place?

Weird thing is, if you sell any other product with false advertising then deliver something else entirely, the consumer is protected. But that only applies to important things like toasters, not to trivialities like governments and referenda.

Good job you are not Scottish NW – they had a referendum that could have caused chaos that was based on the same principle and their current government are guilty as charged – reality v rhetoric in spades

Mefty has this covered, but mol…..

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

how can you (1) claim that this is ambiguous and (2) ignore the fact that this has the highest turnout since 1992?

The question was perfectly clear as was the result. That the result was the wrong one doesn’t matter, we have to take responsibility for our actions and the fact that as a nation there remains a considerable undercurrent of xenophobia and racism and this trumps rational analysis. Nothing new here.

Democracy is flawed, we know that, but it is still (just) the best method despite the unsatisfactory results that it sometimes throws up.

People had plenty of time to “ask all they needed about the job”, including which bits were unknown but they had had enough of experts, remember?

#posttruthpolitics
#fakecontrol
#wehateJonny

Northwind B/S on both sides for certain and yes it had some impact, however like most elections I think the vast majority had decided how they would vote before Cameron set the date.

Zippy, some thoughts (Farage said none of those things you are extrapolating his words)

Many British kids go and work in Australia and the US, in fact all over the world. I have never worked in a European country only in places where I applied for a woek visa. Having to apply for a visa is a very small price to pay for control of immigration
Sunshine is available in many countries outside the EU a lot of them having policies to encourage retirees. I forsee Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece etc continuing to be very welcoming to Brits arriving in their country and soending money
European medical services can be part of a bikateral negotiation or not. Having to pay for a service / health insurance is not a bad thing.
80% plus of our business is domestic, 70% of our exports are outside the EU.
Mobile’s will still be free/included in UK contracts as that’s within the power of the UK government to legislate.

But… You can’t negotiate without triggering article 50 and once you’ve triggered it your gone, regardless of how the negotiations go.

We could have informal discussions before A50 and despite the rhetoric I suspect that’s exactly what is going on. EU commission is in massive damage limitation mode as they are well aware other members are close to a similar Referendum process. They tried to call our bluff with the Cameron non-negotaition and lost and now they are trying to intimidate other waverers

The irreversible aspect of A50 is one of its very best features 8)

70% of our exports are outside the EU.

j
a
m
b
a
f
a
c
t

About 44% of UK exports in goods and services went to other countries in the EU in 2015—£220 billion out of £510 billion total exports.
https://fullfact.org/europe/uk-eu-trade/

teamhurtmore – Member

Good job you are not Scottish NW – they had a referendum that could have caused chaos that was based on the same principle and their current government are guilty as charged – reality v rhetoric in spades

Thanks THM, I had a little bet on with myself that you would deliver some stock indyref whataboutery.

Good job you are not Scottish NW – they had a referendum that could have caused chaos that was based on the same principle..

The massive glaring difference is that for Scottish indyref the “Leave” campaign published a pretty comprehensive 670-page document, a good 10 months before the referendum date so that everyone was clear what their plan was and what they were voting on.

Now you might not agree with that document and you may dispute its contents (I wasn’t convinced myself), but at least it existed and was open for public debate.

Glad not to disappoint NW – we wouldn’t want anyone be accused of hypocrisy after all!!

M7:5

Graham – its was a 670 page excuse to blow fluff everywhere and was immediately ripped apart as a result – after all the simplest of all questions – what currency are we going to use – could not and still cannot be answered.

Lengthy deceit is not better than concise deceit. They both involve lying to the electorate in the most blatant manner. One failed, one succeeded. At least the Scots voted sensibly in both cases.

Incidentally, did you hear Lloyds of London on the Today programme this morning?

About 2:44:35 if you want a listen: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07wzvtx

The described Brexit as a “major issue” for the business. They say they stand to lose 4% of their revenue when Lloyds loses passporting rights. So they are looking to either set up a subsidiary in one of the remaining EU countries or to set up branches in each of the 27 countries.

She didn’t put figures on it but said “Some people may end up doing their jobs in other parts of Europe rather than in London”.

She said “The interesting thing is, for the London insurance market more broadly, we rely on the brokers, so the intermediary base, and that’s a huge workforce as well in London and they’ve obviously got to go through their plans and what it means for them.”

Edit: BBC now have a text article on it too: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-37437732

Passporting is a major issue/threat

[Go long Dublin apartments]

Graham – its was a 670 page excuse to blow fluff everywhere and was immediately ripped apart as a result

But what I’m saying is that’s a good thing.

It was published well in advance, discussed, debated and the majority decided the holes and uncertainties were too big.

I think the Leave EU campaigns were much harder to counter because they were myriad and had no published plan to discuss.

I suspect it would be crediting them with more ingenuity than they actually had to suggest there was a reason they didn’t publish any concrete plans, but ironically not having a clue what to do did them no harm at all.

The BSers ran with 5 simple reasons which they maintained throughout. All were lies and easily falsified. But they had the hidden weapons (X&R) that were able to work their black (sorry) magic – and that had nothing to do with facts, indeed quite the opposite it required them to be ignored.

YS was a far more insidious form of deceit. But they both marked an escalation in #posttruthpolitics trends that is only being trumped by events in the US (sorry)

I would not worry about passporting, I’m sure that like everything else, it will be included in negotiations…………

So to resume, everything will be negotiated and it will stay the same.

So to resume, everything will be negotiated and it will stay the same.

Including the bill? Or will that go up. I feel like doing a kickstarter for some bus ads.

I think we’ve got to get past the remain/leave vote and look at the actual practicalities of how to actually get out without seriously impacting the country (for a generation at least).

And until someone comes up with a decent plan I will continue to consider that there isn’t one and that means the seven P’s*.

* – Piss Poor Planning Predates Piss Poor Performance

Well to be fair to the BSers for a moment – no one is prepared for this. That’s the problem. The system was not designed that way. Hence no one knows what to di and how to proceed. Hence the buggers muddle that serves no one.

look at the actual practicalities of how to actually get out without seriously impacting the country (for a generation at least).

There’s quite a simple answer to that: don’t leave

Sir Alan Duncan says what I’ve suspected all along

Yeah I don’t think that is a huge surprise to anyone who has been following this thread.

Boris was pretty pro-EU and spoke favourably about it in the past.
He admitted on Newsnight that he’d written two versions of his Independent column: one pro-Leave and one pro-Remain before deciding which one to go for.

[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=26L2bONxWzQ[/video]

It was all just a political powerplay for him and Gove.

As I posted at the time:

@kimbers so I said 70% and you (fullfact) say 66% – was that really worth the post with charts ?

@Graham I am surprised May sided with Remain as she’s a long term eurosceptic but her tactics where clearly better as she is PM.

Passporting is a red herring, its pretty cheap and simple to setup a European subsidiary assuming you don’t already have one. As for Lloyds thats 96% of their business which is NOT with the EU. If that 4% is so important they should have paid the Government a huge fee on it to fund a share of the £10bn we paid to the EU. British Banks have been pulling back from Europe over the past few years as the business is typocally expensive and unsuccessful.

Oh I don’t think the Remain side are innocent in this jamba.
There seemed to be people on both sides who were motivated more by the game of politics than what they actually believed was best for the country. I suspect it is always thus.

Boris was just one of the most blatant.

Noted. He did make the right choice though, I think he was key to Leave winning 😉

Narcissism won

Passporting is a red herring, its pretty cheap and simple to setup a European subsidiary assuming you don’t already have one.

That’s lucky because apparently “A total of 5,476 UK-registered firms hold at least one passport to do business in another member state of the EU or the wider European Economic Area (EEA). And a further 8,008 firms, registered in other EU or European Economic Area (EEA) member states, hold passports to do business in the UK, information from the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) revealed.” (Sauce)

As for Lloyds thats 96% of their business which is NOT with the EU.

I don’t think that’s what they said. They said they faced a 4% drop in revenue. I don’t think that’s the same as saying the EU accounts for 4% of their business.

The BBC article notes that “Continental Europe accounts for about 11% of gross premiums written by the London market. “

If that 4% is so important they should have paid the Government a huge fee on it to fund a share of the £10bn we paid to the EU.

I thought that money came from the British taxpayers? Are you suggesting Lloyds doesn’t pay tax?

Also.. where are you getting 66% from on that full fact page??

Using a UK-focused retail and corporate bank as an example for any argument on passporting seems rather odd.

Narcissism won

That’s the best summary I’ve seen. A deeply British trait.

US and Germany are our two biggest X markets – 14% and 11% ie, 25% of total UK exports
Germany and the US are our two biggest sources of Ms – 13% and 8% ie, 21%

And we are in the process of pissing them both off. marvellous!