Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The percentage of CON voters saying Brexit “wrong” reaches rec

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited February 2 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The percentage of CON voters saying Brexit “wrong” reaches record high

The details of the latest YouGov Brexit tracker is out and the striking feature is the high number of Conservative voters who are now saying that the referendum decision was wrong.

Read the full story here


«13

Comments

  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 14,489
    1st. Like JRM, if he gets to membership stage.
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 883
    2nd. Like the upcoming referendum :)
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 2,427
    FPT:

    Slow day.

    But, unlike others, I do seize on the new YouGov figures. Removing Don’t Knows, we are now nearly at 54% Remain / 46% Leave.

    Yes, it’s one one poll, but the trend has been very consistent - with last month being the only anomaly.

    The reason this is important is two-fold.

    First, the design of the referendum was flawed. We simply did not know what Brexit meant, aside from formally leaving the EU. I find it obnoxious that people now seek to explain exactly what people voted for - it wasn’t on the ballot. As Brexit becomes clearer, a shift in sentiment is relevant.

    Second, the results were very close, given the profound constitutional upheaval at stake. One cannot just ignore the 48, or Scotland, or Northern Ireland.

    When feeling most optimistic I look on Brexit as a continued debate about our future relationship with Europe. What seems clear now is that WTO is off the table. It has lost the battle of ideas, and we are left with only a handful of options: An FTA outside the SM & CU (Canada); An FTA outside the SM and inside the/a CU (Turkey); EFTA/EEA (Norway); a new form of associate membership; and Remain with various opt-outs.

    I agree with Mr Nabavi that the PM has actually been clear in her preference for the first option. However, I also think her modus operandi is to play for time and let both debate and political reality resolve itself. It is possible that she has realised Canada+ would seriously dent the auto industry among others, and is now preparing for the Turkey option. That of course, renders Liam Fox redundant - and I do think that the idea of trading beyond Europe is THE ideological backbone of Brexit. I’d be amazed if JRM and the ERG signed off on it, or Boris for that matter.

    Personally, I think EEA/EFTA - or a near equivalent arrangement - during an extended transition period, is the right path, and I think the nature of our final resting place is still to play for. Once May’s deal is done, we should have another vote on whether to proceed per her deal or whether to stay in the EEA/EFTA. Not just Brexit - but the nature of Brexit - needs democratic legitimacy.
  • Soon I'll be in a majority/plurality in the Tory party.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,003
    FPPT:

    Not so. She's been 100% clear that we won't be in the SIngle Market and Customs Union, and that within those parameters she wants as comprehensive a trade deal as we can get, with the aim of a deal closer than Canada's. How on earth can anyone claim that is unreasonable or unclear? Of course we can't say for sure how much of deal better than Canada's we can get, which causes uncertainty, but the blame for that uncertainty lies squarely with the EU, who for over a year have refused to discuss the future relationship. It's bonkers to blame Theresa May for that, but hopefully the lumbering EU bureaucracy will start discussing the main issue soon.

    It is a clear position.

    It is also unattainable in the time we have.

    The problem is simple.

    The EEA agreement is 41 pages long (and there aren't that many words on each page, some pages just list the parties to the agreement, and some are the table of contents). It is not a complicated agreement, because signatories are bound by a large portion of EU law.

    The Canada deal is longer, because it deals with things on a sector by sector basis, and each area is negotiated according to special interests. It's over 1,500 pages long, and the font size looks smaller to me.

    We can (and will) negotiate a bespoke agreement with the EU. It will likely be 3,000 pages long, because we want greater integration than Canada did, and with financial services included. We also need to come up with a system for managing compliance, as it is the individual countries that make up the EU (and not the EU itself) that is responsible for day-to-day implementation. This agreement will contain provisions that prevent the erection of NTBs, and these will limit the sovereignty of the British Parliament.

    The chances of this deal being agreed by the end of 2018 are zero. The chances of it being fully locked down by the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020 are close to zero. No major trade negotiation - especially where one party has 27 members, all of whom have effective vetoes - gets done this quickly if it is bespoke in nature.

    Before the EU vote, I said that the government should be explicit in what they wanted, and that would be a near immediate exit to time limited EEA. We would sign a five year agreement with the EU based on having all the rights and obligations as Norway. This would have a provision for a single one year extension.

    This was, and is, the best solution to the problem (with the proviso that we've now managed to lose almost two years).
  • Richard_NabaviRichard_Nabavi Posts: 18,218
    edited February 2
    The poll indicates that 8% of people who voted Leave have changed their minds, which sounds not insignificant except that it also indicates that 4% of those who voted Remain have also changed their minds. It's not a big net effect overall, and it will fluctuate with sentiment and media coverage.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 42,517
    "But what about Morris Dancer's electricity?" I hear none of you cry.

    Next door neighbour is an electrician. Reckons both times it was low supply. Clearly we aren't burning enough coal.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 519

    1st. Like JRM, if he gets to membership stage.

    I doubt he has the parliamentary support (rather I hope he has not!). Nice enough bloke but I don't think he could make a very effective PM. I think his religion and moral inclination might if he were leader lead to problems like perhaps back to basics was for the conservative party in the 1990s.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 42,517
    Mr. Taxman, whilst I want Corbyn gone ASAP, Mogg versus Corbyn would be quite the contrast.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,003

    FPT:

    Slow day.

    But, unlike others, I do seize on the new YouGov figures. Removing Don’t Knows, we are now nearly at 54% Remain / 46% Leave.

    Yes, it’s one one poll, but the trend has been very consistent - with last month being the only anomaly.

    The reason this is important is two-fold.

    First, the design of the referendum was flawed. We simply did not know what Brexit meant, aside from formally leaving the EU. I find it obnoxious that people now seek to explain exactly what people voted for - it wasn’t on the ballot. As Brexit becomes clearer, a shift in sentiment is relevant.

    Second, the results were very close, given the profound constitutional upheaval at stake. One cannot just ignore the 48, or Scotland, or Northern Ireland.

    When feeling most optimistic I look on Brexit as a continued debate about our future relationship with Europe. What seems clear now is that WTO is off the table. It has lost the battle of ideas, and we are left with only a handful of options: An FTA outside the SM & CU (Canada); An FTA outside the SM and inside the/a CU (Turkey); EFTA/EEA (Norway); a new form of associate membership; and Remain with various opt-outs.

    I agree with Mr Nabavi that the PM has actually been clear in her preference for the first option. However, I also think her modus operandi is to play for time and let both debate and political reality resolve itself. It is possible that she has realised Canada+ would seriously dent the auto industry among others, and is now preparing for the Turkey option. That of course, renders Liam Fox redundant - and I do think that the idea of trading beyond Europe is THE ideological backbone of Brexit. I’d be amazed if JRM and the ERG signed off on it, or Boris for that matter.

    Personally, I think EEA/EFTA - or a near equivalent arrangement - during an extended transition period, is the right path, and I think the nature of our final resting place is still to play for. Once May’s deal is done, we should have another vote on whether to proceed per her deal or whether to stay in the EEA/EFTA. Not just Brexit - but the nature of Brexit - needs democratic legitimacy.

    It does not render Liam Fox redundant. (Lack of competence should do that.) Turkey has a customs union for physical goods with the EU, and also has its own trade deals.

    Now what I do not know is the extent to which Turkey's customs union affects Rules of Origin in Free Trade Deals. So, if a product is 40% value add in Turkey, and 40% in the EU, can the product be exported to Canada duty free? I suspect not, but I don't know. I think - for the purposes of the Canada trade deal for example - Turkey (as not part of *the* customs union and not a signatory to ) would be treated as a third party country.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,268

    "But what about Morris Dancer's electricity?" I hear none of you cry.

    Next door neighbour is an electrician. Reckons both times it was low supply. Clearly we aren't burning enough coal.

    You weren't charging up your trebuchets at the time, were you? :o
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 3,175
    Fpt Morris , we lost power yesterday for a few minutes.My father did the previous week .Hope it does not become a regular occurrence due to lack of capacity.I see Eggborough power station is closing .https://www.eveningexpress.co.uk/news/uk/eggborough-power-plant-to-close/
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,840

    The poll indicates that 8% of people who voted Leave have changed their minds, which sounds not insignificant except that it also indicates that 4% of those who voted Remain have also changed their minds. It's not a big net effect overall, and it will fluctuate with sentiment and media coverage.

    But if the trend is away from leaving surely it is time for a rethink.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,003

    "But what about Morris Dancer's electricity?" I hear none of you cry.

    Next door neighbour is an electrician. Reckons both times it was low supply. Clearly we aren't burning enough coal.

    Now is peak demand time of the day, at the peak time of the year. All our CCGTs are at full capacity, and about 55% of coal is turned on. We haven't yet lit any of the backup power (like OCGTs), and we are still exporting about half a gigawatt of power to Ireland.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 519

    Mr. Taxman, whilst I want Corbyn gone ASAP, Mogg versus Corbyn would be quite the contrast.

    I think the Lib Dems might do well in that scenario!

    It is forgotten that Tories were instrumental in Corbyn becoming leader. It would indeed be ironic if he made it to No.10 and led a very left-wing government, the very antitheist of Tory ideology.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 42,517
    Mr. D, the trebuchets are powered by a combination of peasant workers and counterweights. Bottled lightning doesn't come into it.

    Mr. City, sorry to hear you're also having such problems. Still, at least we can enjoy morally superior blackouts instead of horrible, carbon dioxide-emitting stable electricity supplies...
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,268

    Mr. Taxman, whilst I want Corbyn gone ASAP, Mogg versus Corbyn would be quite the contrast.

    I think the Lib Dems might do well in that scenario!

    It is forgotten that Tories were instrumental in Corbyn becoming leader. It would indeed be ironic if he made it to No.10 and led a very left-wing government, the very antitheist of Tory ideology.
    They were? I thought he would have won with out the supporter vote.
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 4,293
    edited February 2

    First, the design of the referendum was flawed. We simply did not know what Brexit meant, aside from formally leaving the EU. I find it obnoxious that people now seek to explain exactly what people voted for - it wasn’t on the ballot.

    Second, the results were very close, given the profound constitutional upheaval at stake. One cannot just ignore the 48, or Scotland, or Northern Ireland.

    Forgive me for eviscerating your comment, but the points above are very important, and too-often - and very conveniently - forgotten.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 42,517
    Mr. 1000, I'd sooner provide electricity to Yorkshire than Ireland!

    Mr. Taxman, not sure that claim stands up to scrutiny. And on the Lib Dems, they need a better leader.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 9,879

    Mr. Taxman, whilst I want Corbyn gone ASAP, Mogg versus Corbyn would be quite the contrast.

    I think the Lib Dems might do well in that scenario!

    It is forgotten that Tories were instrumental in Corbyn becoming leader. It would indeed be ironic if he made it to No.10 and led a very left-wing government, the very antitheist of Tory ideology.
    He had 49% of first preferences among party members. He would have won easily with or without the useful idiots Three Quidders.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 519
    RobD said:

    Mr. Taxman, whilst I want Corbyn gone ASAP, Mogg versus Corbyn would be quite the contrast.

    I think the Lib Dems might do well in that scenario!

    It is forgotten that Tories were instrumental in Corbyn becoming leader. It would indeed be ironic if he made it to No.10 and led a very left-wing government, the very antitheist of Tory ideology.
    They were? I thought he would have won with out the supporter vote.
    The £3 quid infiltrators!
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,268

    RobD said:

    Mr. Taxman, whilst I want Corbyn gone ASAP, Mogg versus Corbyn would be quite the contrast.

    I think the Lib Dems might do well in that scenario!

    It is forgotten that Tories were instrumental in Corbyn becoming leader. It would indeed be ironic if he made it to No.10 and led a very left-wing government, the very antitheist of Tory ideology.
    They were? I thought he would have won with out the supporter vote.
    The £3 quid infiltrators!
    Yeah, and he would have won without them.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 18,495
    edited February 2
    rcs1000 said:

    FPPT:

    Not so. She's been 100% clear that we won't be in the SIngle Market and Customs Union, and that within those parameters she wants as comprehensive a trade deal as we can get, with the aim of a deal closer than Canada's. How on earth can anyone claim that is unreasonable or unclear? Of course we can't say for sure how much of deal better than Canada's we can get, which causes uncertainty, but the blame for that uncertainty lies squarely with the EU, who for over a year have refused to discuss the future relationship. It's bonkers to blame Theresa May for that, but hopefully the lumbering EU bureaucracy will start discussing the main issue soon.

    Before the EU vote, I said that the government should be explicit in what they wanted, and that would be a near immediate exit to time limited EEA. We would sign a five year agreement with the EU based on having all the rights and obligations as Norway. This would have a provision for a single one year extension.

    This was, and is, the best solution to the problem (with the proviso that we've now managed to lose almost two years).
    This is a total fantasy based on a combination of overestimating the UK’s ability to call the shots and underestimating the logistical challenges in moving even to an EEA mode of operation in the short term.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 756

    rcs1000 said:

    FPPT:

    Not so. She's been 100% clear that we won't be in the SIngle Market and Customs Union, and that within those parameters she wants as comprehensive a trade deal as we can get, with the aim of a deal closer than Canada's. How on earth can anyone claim that is unreasonable or unclear? Of course we can't say for sure how much of deal better than Canada's we can get, which causes uncertainty, but the blame for that uncertainty lies squarely with the EU, who for over a year have refused to discuss the future relationship. It's bonkers to blame Theresa May for that, but hopefully the lumbering EU bureaucracy will start discussing the main issue soon.

    Before the EU vote, I said that the government should be explicit in what they wanted, and that would be a near immediate exit to time limited EEA. We would sign a five year agreement with the EU based on having all the rights and obligations as Norway. This would have a provision for a single one year extension.

    This was, and is, the best solution to the problem (with the proviso that we've now managed to lose almost two years).
    This is a total fantasy based on a combination of overestimating the UK’s ability to call the shots and underestimating the logistical challenges in moving even to an EEA mode of operation in the short term.
    What would those challenges be? It would seem that EEA wouldn't need an awful lot of work, just implementing our own ag and fish policies.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 42,517
    Mr. Anorak, I have some sympathy with that, but the circle still needs squaring. A minority keeping us in is not acceptable. An associate membership *could* be a third way but I'm not sure that's plausible.

    If the referendum result is ignored, that could have dire consequences for domestic politics. The current situation is polarised, but things could become far more bitter.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,538
    Given how Brexit has been conducted by the government, the statistic in the headline is more of an indicator to me of an unusual sample than a likely hint of Brexiters' remorse among Conservatives. Until a trend has been established more clearly, it seems hard to say that there's been any great upheaval in public opinion.
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 1,497
    edited February 2

    Mr. 1000, I'd sooner provide electricity to Yorkshire than Ireland!
    Mr. Taxman, not sure that claim stands up to scrutiny. And on the Lib Dems, they need a better leader.

    Well, Mr Dancer, Vince Cable is a far better leader than either May or Corbyn. Or would you wish to argue otherwise?

    At least everybody knows what he stands for, which is more than can be said for either of the other two.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 756

    The poll indicates that 8% of people who voted Leave have changed their minds, which sounds not insignificant except that it also indicates that 4% of those who voted Remain have also changed their minds. It's not a big net effect overall, and it will fluctuate with sentiment and media coverage.

    That would result in Remain beating Leave by 50.24 - 49.76 though.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,612

    The poll indicates that 8% of people who voted Leave have changed their minds, which sounds not insignificant except that it also indicates that 4% of those who voted Remain have also changed their minds. It's not a big net effect overall, and it will fluctuate with sentiment and media coverage.

    But if the trend is away from leaving surely it is time for a rethink.
    When the trend is away from Corbyn, will it be time for a rethink? Good luck with that on a few % change!
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,538
    rpjs said:

    The poll indicates that 8% of people who voted Leave have changed their minds, which sounds not insignificant except that it also indicates that 4% of those who voted Remain have also changed their minds. It's not a big net effect overall, and it will fluctuate with sentiment and media coverage.

    That would result in Remain beating Leave by 50.24 - 49.76 though.
    I would love to see the Daily Mail headline the day after a second referendum that produced that result.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 22,003

    Mr. 1000, I'd sooner provide electricity to Yorkshire than Ireland!

    Mr. Taxman, not sure that claim stands up to scrutiny. And on the Lib Dems, they need a better leader.

    Oh, I wasn't aware they had a leader. Is it that nice Mr Kennedy?
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,612
    rpjs said:

    The poll indicates that 8% of people who voted Leave have changed their minds, which sounds not insignificant except that it also indicates that 4% of those who voted Remain have also changed their minds. It's not a big net effect overall, and it will fluctuate with sentiment and media coverage.

    That would result in Remain beating Leave by 50.24 - 49.76 though.
    If you believe polling on the EU. It is much more likely the result would be 50.1% Leave....
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 42,517
    Mr. Clipps, and Gustavus Adolphus was a better leader than Caligula.

    Mr. Meeks, teaching the electorate that democracy only counts when the political class gets an answer it considers acceptable is a very dangerous lesson.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,612
    rcs1000 said:

    Mr. 1000, I'd sooner provide electricity to Yorkshire than Ireland!

    Mr. Taxman, not sure that claim stands up to scrutiny. And on the Lib Dems, they need a better leader.

    Oh, I wasn't aware they had a leader. Is it that nice Mr Kennedy?
    Ming the Merciful Release?
  • 1st. Like JRM, if he gets to membership stage.

    I doubt he has the parliamentary support (rather I hope he has not!). Nice enough bloke but I don't think he could make a very effective PM. I think his religion and moral inclination might if he were leader lead to problems like perhaps back to basics was for the conservative party in the 1990s.
    As a party member I have little knowledge of Jacob's policies and how effective he would be. I assume that when TM goes and a leadership race begins there could be quite a few standing and the hustings will be of interest and will get enormous media coverage.

    I reserve my judgement until there is a lot more information on Jacob and the other candidates
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 816
    Anorak said:

    First, the design of the referendum was flawed. We simply did not know what Brexit meant, aside from formally leaving the EU. I find it obnoxious that people now seek to explain exactly what people voted for - it wasn’t on the ballot.

    Second, the results were very close, given the profound constitutional upheaval at stake. One cannot just ignore the 48, or Scotland, or Northern Ireland.

    Forgive me for eviscerating your comment, but the points above are very important, and too-often - and very conveniently - forgotten.
    Although I was originally inclined against a follow-up referendum (it smacked too much of "keep voting until you get it right"), the big divergences over what would or could be offered or delivered makes me feel more along the lines of someone facing a salesman who insists that despite their offered goods being very different to the promise, I shouldn't have the right to think again about going through with the deal.

    The latter is something we accept we should be protected against, and I was indeed amused by the Crossbench peer using an analogy of his nervous aunts:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-parliaments-42882107/taking-your-nervous-aunts-to-reservoir-dogs

    Then again, though, I don't see any route for one to happen. Regardless of how popular the idea becomes in the country as a whole, how would it be in the interests of the Conservative Party? At the end of the day, Theresa May (or successor) has to keep her Party aligned behind her, and unless there was an overwhelming indication that the Tories would suffer serious electoral damage, I can't see any way that could happen.

    Separately, I've been struck by just how much vehemence some of those too young to vote in the referendum have shown about the subject. It's all purely anecdotal, but it looks like - especially if Brexit does go badly or even just a little on the dismal side - there could be a lengthy amount of loathing from the next cohort of voters for those who voted for Brexit (who could quite possibly shrug it off and take revenge by writing them out of their wills, I guess, if that makes them feel better) and for those who implemented it. The latter might be arguably unfair - the Government didn't have much in the way of options - but such is the price of power. Especially if it looks like there was a democratically valid way out, which was rejected on party-political grounds.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,612



    Separately, I've been struck by just how much vehemence some of those too young to vote in the referendum have shown about the subject. It's all purely anecdotal, but it looks like - especially if Brexit does go badly or even just a little on the dismal side - there could be a lengthy amount of loathing from the next cohort of voters for those who voted for Brexit (who could quite possibly shrug it off and take revenge by writing them out of their wills, I guess, if that makes them feel better) and for those who implemented it. The latter might be arguably unfair - the Government didn't have much in the way of options - but such is the price of power. Especially if it looks like there was a democratically valid way out, which was rejected on party-political grounds.

    Well that's storing up a world of pain for Brexit's bezzy mate, one Jeremy Corbyn....

  • rcs1000 said:

    "But what about Morris Dancer's electricity?" I hear none of you cry.

    Next door neighbour is an electrician. Reckons both times it was low supply. Clearly we aren't burning enough coal.

    Now is peak demand time of the day, at the peak time of the year. All our CCGTs are at full capacity, and about 55% of coal is turned on. We haven't yet lit any of the backup power (like OCGTs), and we are still exporting about half a gigawatt of power to Ireland.
    I have this page bookmarked - it shows the UK power generation/utilisation in real time. Right now we are in the Amber zone:
    http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
  • Given how Brexit has been conducted by the government, the statistic in the headline is more of an indicator to me of an unusual sample than a likely hint of Brexiters' remorse among Conservatives. Until a trend has been established more clearly, it seems hard to say that there's been any great upheaval in public opinion.

    Fair comment
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,538

    Given how Brexit has been conducted by the government, the statistic in the headline is more of an indicator to me of an unusual sample than a likely hint of Brexiters' remorse among Conservatives. Until a trend has been established more clearly, it seems hard to say that there's been any great upheaval in public opinion.

    Fair comment
    I never provide any other kind.
  • Given how Brexit has been conducted by the government, the statistic in the headline is more of an indicator to me of an unusual sample than a likely hint of Brexiters' remorse among Conservatives. Until a trend has been established more clearly, it seems hard to say that there's been any great upheaval in public opinion.

    Fair comment
    I never provide any other kind.
    Not sure on that to be fair
  • TonyETonyE Posts: 938
    rpjs said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPPT:

    Not so. She's been 100% clear that we won't be in the SIngle Market and Customs Union, and that within those parameters she wants as comprehensive a trade deal as we can get, with the aim of a deal closer than Canada's. How on earth can anyone claim that is unreasonable or unclear? Of course we can't say for sure how much of deal better than Canada's we can get, which causes uncertainty, but the blame for that uncertainty lies squarely with the EU, who for over a year have refused to discuss the future relationship. It's bonkers to blame Theresa May for that, but hopefully the lumbering EU bureaucracy will start discussing the main issue soon.

    Before the EU vote, I said that the government should be explicit in what they wanted, and that would be a near immediate exit to time limited EEA. We would sign a five year agreement with the EU based on having all the rights and obligations as Norway. This would have a provision for a single one year extension.

    This was, and is, the best solution to the problem (with the proviso that we've now managed to lose almost two years).
    This is a total fantasy based on a combination of overestimating the UK’s ability to call the shots and underestimating the logistical challenges in moving even to an EEA mode of operation in the short term.
    What would those challenges be? It would seem that EEA wouldn't need an awful lot of work, just implementing our own ag and fish policies.
    Customs. That's the massive issue. And the UK is not preparing properly for it. I'm starting to wonder if the lack of preparation is because we aren't going to leave. Because if there's any other explanation then it says that the Civil Service and Govt are entirely incompetent.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    I wonder whether Remoaners have actually considered the dire consequences for democracy if they were to succeed in stopping Brexit.

    After years and years of being ignored on the issue of the EU, loss of control over our borders and our own laws, after years and years of demanding and not getting a referendum, finally in 2016, finally in 2016 the People of the UK got their say and a majority of them voted to leave the EU -and it was made clear at the time that the only way that the UK could end freedom of movement and gain sovereignty was to leave the Single Market too.

    Imagine now that the Remoaners succeed in stopping Brexit. It would mean that 52% of people who voted to leave will come to the conclusion that democracy in Britain does not work, that the Establishment can simply sweep aside a democratic vote, that their voices simply do not matter, that the ballot box is just a joke.

    It will means that millions of people will feel disenfranchised, many will turn to extreme groups, some will turn to violence. Democracy will be discredited. The ballot box will be replaced with the politics of the street.

    The consequences of stopping a democratically arrived at Brexit would be dire. And a Brexit only in name would be scarcely better.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,268
    edited February 2

    rcs1000 said:

    "But what about Morris Dancer's electricity?" I hear none of you cry.

    Next door neighbour is an electrician. Reckons both times it was low supply. Clearly we aren't burning enough coal.

    Now is peak demand time of the day, at the peak time of the year. All our CCGTs are at full capacity, and about 55% of coal is turned on. We haven't yet lit any of the backup power (like OCGTs), and we are still exporting about half a gigawatt of power to Ireland.
    I have this page bookmarked - it shows the UK power generation/utilisation in real time. Right now we are in the Amber zone:
    http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
    Do those colourings have any actual meaning?

    Edit: Mousing over the meter:

    The amber warning represents the demand level that cannot be reliably met by wood or fossil burning and nuclear generation, but must be augmented by imports, or unreliable intermittent 'renewable' energy.

    Although the UK is still exporting 2GW to France...
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,654
    edited February 2
    rpjs said:

    rcs1000 said:

    FPPT:

    Not so. She's been 100% clear that we won't be in the SIngle Market and Customs Union, and that within those parameters she wants as comprehensive a trade deal as we can get, with the aim of a deal closer than Canada's. How on earth can anyone claim that is unreasonable or unclear? Of course we can't say for sure how much of deal better than Canada's we can get, which causes uncertainty, but the blame for that uncertainty lies squarely with the EU, who for over a year have refused to discuss the future relationship. It's bonkers to blame Theresa May for that, but hopefully the lumbering EU bureaucracy will start discussing the main issue soon.

    Before the EU vote, I said that the government should be explicit in what they wanted, and that would be a near immediate exit to time limited EEA. We would sign a five year agreement with the EU based on having all the rights and obligations as Norway. This would have a provision for a single one year extension.

    This was, and is, the best solution to the problem (with the proviso that we've now managed to lose almost two years).
    This is a total fantasy based on a combination of overestimating the UK’s ability to call the shots and underestimating the logistical challenges in moving even to an EEA mode of operation in the short term.
    What would those challenges be? It would seem that EEA wouldn't need an awful lot of work, just implementing our own ag and fish policies.
    The rest of it: fisheries, agriculture as you mention, also citizenship, nuclear fuels, nuclear waste, normal waste, energy markets, airline operations and safety* etc plus 800 third party agreements. And customs if we are not in the customs union.

    * Edit some of these should be easier from the EEA
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,084



    Separately, I've been struck by just how much vehemence some of those too young to vote in the referendum have shown about the subject. It's all purely anecdotal, but it looks like - especially if Brexit does go badly or even just a little on the dismal side - there could be a lengthy amount of loathing from the next cohort of voters for those who voted for Brexit (who could quite possibly shrug it off and take revenge by writing them out of their wills, I guess, if that makes them feel better) and for those who implemented it. The latter might be arguably unfair - the Government didn't have much in the way of options - but such is the price of power. Especially if it looks like there was a democratically valid way out, which was rejected on party-political grounds.



    Brexit the new Munich?
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,648
    stevef said:



    The consequences of stopping a democratically arrived at Brexit would be dire. And a Brexit only in name would be scarcely better.

    It would be the end of the use of referendums in the Uk - actually we may already be at that point for the next 20 years.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    ...and this is what Owen Jones, a Remainer wrote recently:

    "If the referendum result was simply cancelled, it would be regarded as a coup against democracy not just by leave voters, but by many remainers. Faith in democracy may never be rebuilt – “more people voted for Brexit than for anything else in British history and the establishment thwarted it”, the refrain would go. It would surely be the greatest shot in the arm for the radical right in British history – not least because the result was in part due to a sense of resentment against a contemptuous political elite."

    He is right. If Remoaners succeed, it will be a blow against democracy. Millions will turn against democracy. Many will be so angry they will turn to the hard right and perhaps even to violence. The extreme right will have been handed the biggest gift in British political history.

    Remoaners do you really want that?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 2,427
    edited February 2

    Mr. Anorak, I have some sympathy with that, but the circle still needs squaring. A minority keeping us in is not acceptable. An associate membership *could* be a third way but I'm not sure that's plausible.

    If the referendum result is ignored, that could have dire consequences for domestic politics. The current situation is polarised, but things could become far more bitter.

    Just as the 48 should not be ignored, neither should Leavers be ignored. If, in a second referendum, we voted narrowly to Stay to me that would still represent a mandate to seek reform or some form of new arrangement within the EU - for eg associate membership.

    Ultimately we need leadership, listening, and reconciliation. For all May’s Brexit means Brexit, I have yet to hear anything which indicates she is interested in addressing some of the domestic policy challenges behind the vote: the North / South divide; the mistrust of elites; stagnant working class wages; the poor performance of white working class children in education etc etc.

    Brexit is not Brexit if it is just Brexit.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 6,654
    rcs1000 said:

    FPPT:

    It is a clear position.

    It is also unattainable in the time we have.

    The problem is simple.

    The EEA agreement is 41 pages long (and there aren't that many words on each page, some pages just list the parties to the agreement, and some are the table of contents). It is not a complicated agreement, because signatories are bound by a large portion of EU law.

    The Canada deal is longer, because it deals with things on a sector by sector basis, and each area is negotiated according to special interests. It's over 1,500 pages long, and the font size looks smaller to me.

    We can (and will) negotiate a bespoke agreement with the EU. It will likely be 3,000 pages long, because we want greater integration than Canada did, and with financial services included. We also need to come up with a system for managing compliance, as it is the individual countries that make up the EU (and not the EU itself) that is responsible for day-to-day implementation. This agreement will contain provisions that prevent the erection of NTBs, and these will limit the sovereignty of the British Parliament.

    The chances of this deal being agreed by the end of 2018 are zero. The chances of it being fully locked down by the end of the transition period on 31 December 2020 are close to zero. No major trade negotiation - especially where one party has 27 members, all of whom have effective vetoes - gets done this quickly if it is bespoke in nature.

    Before the EU vote, I said that the government should be explicit in what they wanted, and that would be a near immediate exit to time limited EEA. We would sign a five year agreement with the EU based on having all the rights and obligations as Norway. This would have a provision for a single one year extension.

    This was, and is, the best solution to the problem (with the proviso that we've now managed to lose almost two years).

    I am doubtful that the EU would agree to an EEA arrangement as a temporary stepping stone to further divergence. It's a major treaty commitment. I am also doubtful we would want it. How long do we want this Brexit nonsense to go on for?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,084
    stevef said:


    It will means that millions of people will feel disenfranchised, many will turn to extreme groups, some will turn to violence. Democracy will be discredited. The ballot box will be replaced with the politics of the street.

    People feel like that already.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    TGOHF said:

    stevef said:



    The consequences of stopping a democratically arrived at Brexit would be dire. And a Brexit only in name would be scarcely better.

    It would be the end of the use of referendums in the Uk - actually we may already be at that point for the next 20 years.
    It might be but that doesnt answer my point about the dire consequences for democracy if that particular referendum in 2016 which has already been held is ignored.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 756
    RobD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    "But what about Morris Dancer's electricity?" I hear none of you cry.

    Next door neighbour is an electrician. Reckons both times it was low supply. Clearly we aren't burning enough coal.

    Now is peak demand time of the day, at the peak time of the year. All our CCGTs are at full capacity, and about 55% of coal is turned on. We haven't yet lit any of the backup power (like OCGTs), and we are still exporting about half a gigawatt of power to Ireland.
    I have this page bookmarked - it shows the UK power generation/utilisation in real time. Right now we are in the Amber zone:
    http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
    Do those colourings have any actual meaning?

    Edit: Mousing over the meter:

    The amber warning represents the demand level that cannot be reliably met by wood or fossil burning and nuclear generation, but must be augmented by imports, or unreliable intermittent 'renewable' energy.

    Although the UK is still exporting 2GW to France...
    I read it as importing nearly 2GW from France and 1GW from Holland. We appear to be exporting nearly 1GW through the two Irish interconnectors though.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,840
    A dose of common sense from Stephen Bush here.

    https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/elections/2018/02/what-polls-do-and-don-t-tell-us-about-battle-between-jeremy-corbyn-and

    Both of the big parties' partisans are probably quite pleased with their 40% share of the vote. But the reality is that the next election will probably be decided by which one holds the most of that share. A UKIP or a Lib Dem revival which shaves a bigger chunk off one of the big ones more than the other is quite likely to be decisive. If I was in charge of the Conservatives I'd be terrified of a UKIP revival and worried about a Lib Dem one. If I ran Labour I'd be worried about a UKIP revival and terrified of a Lib Dem one. I really wouldn't want to open my mouth on Brexit at all for fear of providing ammunition to the small parties to snap at my heals.

    I don't envy either leader their job.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,648
    stevef said:

    TGOHF said:

    stevef said:



    The consequences of stopping a democratically arrived at Brexit would be dire. And a Brexit only in name would be scarcely better.

    It would be the end of the use of referendums in the Uk - actually we may already be at that point for the next 20 years.
    It might be but that doesnt answer my point about the dire consequences for democracy if that particular referendum in 2016 which has already been held is ignored.
    Oh there would be other consequences - perhaps the end of one of the current main parties.

    And no more referendums - SNP should consider that carefully.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 756
    stevef said:

    TGOHF said:

    stevef said:



    The consequences of stopping a democratically arrived at Brexit would be dire. And a Brexit only in name would be scarcely better.

    It would be the end of the use of referendums in the Uk - actually we may already be at that point for the next 20 years.
    It might be but that doesnt answer my point about the dire consequences for democracy if that particular referendum in 2016 which has already been held is ignored.
    The government says "you asked for something that turned out not to be possible to deliver".
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,648
    rpjs said:

    stevef said:

    TGOHF said:

    stevef said:



    The consequences of stopping a democratically arrived at Brexit would be dire. And a Brexit only in name would be scarcely better.

    It would be the end of the use of referendums in the Uk - actually we may already be at that point for the next 20 years.
    It might be but that doesnt answer my point about the dire consequences for democracy if that particular referendum in 2016 which has already been held is ignored.
    The government says "you asked for something that turned out not to be possible to deliver".
    That would be a clear untruth though. Governments that lie tend to experience "events".
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,084
    stevef said:

    TGOHF said:

    stevef said:



    The consequences of stopping a democratically arrived at Brexit would be dire. And a Brexit only in name would be scarcely better.

    It would be the end of the use of referendums in the Uk - actually we may already be at that point for the next 20 years.
    It might be but that doesnt answer my point about the dire consequences for democracy if that particular referendum in 2016 which has already been held is ignored.
    Already happened.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 756
    TGOHF said:

    stevef said:

    TGOHF said:

    stevef said:



    The consequences of stopping a democratically arrived at Brexit would be dire. And a Brexit only in name would be scarcely better.

    It would be the end of the use of referendums in the Uk - actually we may already be at that point for the next 20 years.
    It might be but that doesnt answer my point about the dire consequences for democracy if that particular referendum in 2016 which has already been held is ignored.
    Oh there would be other consequences - perhaps the end of one of the current main parties.

    And no more referendums - SNP should consider that carefully.
    Although the SNP could then fight a Holyrood election on a manifesto of negotiating independence should they receive an absolute majority of seats.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:


    It will means that millions of people will feel disenfranchised, many will turn to extreme groups, some will turn to violence. Democracy will be discredited. The ballot box will be replaced with the politics of the street.

    People feel like that already.
    But Leave won the referendum democratically fair and square. Remoaners do not have democracy on their side. They cannot claim that they were cheated. They lost fair and square. If Leavers on the other habd had Brexit taken away from them despite winning a democratic vote, they would have the right to feel very angry indeed. The losers in an election simply do not have the right to cancel a democratic vote. That is fascism.
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,648
    rpjs said:

    TGOHF said:

    stevef said:

    TGOHF said:

    stevef said:



    The consequences of stopping a democratically arrived at Brexit would be dire. And a Brexit only in name would be scarcely better.

    It would be the end of the use of referendums in the Uk - actually we may already be at that point for the next 20 years.
    It might be but that doesnt answer my point about the dire consequences for democracy if that particular referendum in 2016 which has already been held is ignored.
    Oh there would be other consequences - perhaps the end of one of the current main parties.

    And no more referendums - SNP should consider that carefully.
    Although the SNP could then fight a Holyrood election on a manifesto of negotiating independence should they receive an absolute majority of seats.
    They could - but their opponents would turn the election into a single issue campaign.

  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 2,427
    stevef said:

    TGOHF said:

    stevef said:



    The consequences of stopping a democratically arrived at Brexit would be dire. And a Brexit only in name would be scarcely better.

    It would be the end of the use of referendums in the Uk - actually we may already be at that point for the next 20 years.
    It might be but that doesnt answer my point about the dire consequences for democracy if that particular referendum in 2016 which has already been held is ignored.
    I don’t think anyone on here is saying it should be ignored.

    Simply that, as the debate has continued and the vote was so close, there is grounds for a further vote.

    I am torn as to what the question should be.
    I am not sure it’s feasible to offer up the status quo ante.


  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,268
    rpjs said:

    RobD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    "But what about Morris Dancer's electricity?" I hear none of you cry.

    Next door neighbour is an electrician. Reckons both times it was low supply. Clearly we aren't burning enough coal.

    Now is peak demand time of the day, at the peak time of the year. All our CCGTs are at full capacity, and about 55% of coal is turned on. We haven't yet lit any of the backup power (like OCGTs), and we are still exporting about half a gigawatt of power to Ireland.
    I have this page bookmarked - it shows the UK power generation/utilisation in real time. Right now we are in the Amber zone:
    http://www.gridwatch.templar.co.uk/
    Do those colourings have any actual meaning?

    Edit: Mousing over the meter:

    The amber warning represents the demand level that cannot be reliably met by wood or fossil burning and nuclear generation, but must be augmented by imports, or unreliable intermittent 'renewable' energy.

    Although the UK is still exporting 2GW to France...
    I read it as importing nearly 2GW from France and 1GW from Holland. We appear to be exporting nearly 1GW through the two Irish interconnectors though.
    Ah, quite right.
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 756

    Mr. Anorak, I have some sympathy with that, but the circle still needs squaring. A minority keeping us in is not acceptable. An associate membership *could* be a third way but I'm not sure that's plausible.

    If the referendum result is ignored, that could have dire consequences for domestic politics. The current situation is polarised, but things could become far more bitter.

    Just as the 48 should not be ignored, neither should Leavers be ignored. If, in a second referendum, we voted narrowly to Stay to me that would still represent a mandate to seek reform or some form of new arrangement within the EU - for eg associate membership.
    It's hard to see the EU agreeing to any of that. If Brexit is abandoned, then no country will ever get any sort of opt-out or derogation ever again. "What are you going to do about it? Leave? Like the Brits didn't?"
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,084
    stevef said:

    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:


    It will means that millions of people will feel disenfranchised, many will turn to extreme groups, some will turn to violence. Democracy will be discredited. The ballot box will be replaced with the politics of the street.

    People feel like that already.
    But Leave won the referendum democratically fair and square. Remoaners do not have democracy on their side. They cannot claim that they were cheated. They lost fair and square. If Leavers on the other habd had Brexit taken away from them despite winning a democratic vote, they would have the right to feel very angry indeed. The losers in an election simply do not have the right to cancel a democratic vote. That is fascism.
    Nope. Half the population are angry now. Some are already on the street.

    Brexit: Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 2,427
    rpjs said:

    Mr. Anorak, I have some sympathy with that, but the circle still needs squaring. A minority keeping us in is not acceptable. An associate membership *could* be a third way but I'm not sure that's plausible.

    If the referendum result is ignored, that could have dire consequences for domestic politics. The current situation is polarised, but things could become far more bitter.

    Just as the 48 should not be ignored, neither should Leavers be ignored. If, in a second referendum, we voted narrowly to Stay to me that would still represent a mandate to seek reform or some form of new arrangement within the EU - for eg associate membership.
    It's hard to see the EU agreeing to any of that. If Brexit is abandoned, then no country will ever get any sort of opt-out or derogation ever again. "What are you going to do about it? Leave? Like the Brits didn't?"
    Cameron’s negotiatIon came close to a form of associate membership. As a long term policy goal, I don’t think it’s out of the question.

    Ultimately, for the purposes of the EU, we are better in than out - which means they must also find a solution to a significant body of Eurosceptism.
  • Jonathan said:



    Separately, I've been struck by just how much vehemence some of those too young to vote in the referendum have shown about the subject. It's all purely anecdotal, but it looks like - especially if Brexit does go badly or even just a little on the dismal side - there could be a lengthy amount of loathing from the next cohort of voters for those who voted for Brexit (who could quite possibly shrug it off and take revenge by writing them out of their wills, I guess, if that makes them feel better) and for those who implemented it. The latter might be arguably unfair - the Government didn't have much in the way of options - but such is the price of power. Especially if it looks like there was a democratically valid way out, which was rejected on party-political grounds.



    Brexit the new Munich?
    And on Munich it is the 60th anniversary of the Munich air disaster on the 6th February.

    I will never forget that day as I returned home from school my Grandmother telling me my beloved Busby Babes had been wiped out in a plane crash. Gone were Tommy Taylor, Roger Byrne, Eddie Colman, Geoff Bent, Mark Jones, David Pegg, and Billy Whelan and with Duncan Edwards to die in hospital two weeks later. Pictures of Matt Busby in an oxygen tent were on tv daily and of course Bobby Charlton, Harry Gregg, Bill Foukes, Jackie Blanchflower, Johnny Berry, Kenny Morgans, Albert Scanlon, Dennis Viollet and Ray Wood survived many seriously injured.

    It seems like yesterday and I remember the blank team sheets so well.

    I expect the media will cover the anniversary in some depth next tuesday
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 23,992
    My view is we'd have got similar polling on it being the right/wrong decision in hindsight had we voted to Remain.

    But, without any serious calls for a second referendum.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 2,427

    My view is we'd have got similar polling on it being the right/wrong decision in hindsight had we voted to Remain.

    But, without any serious calls for a second referendum.

    Possibly. But that’s not relevant. We are where we are, not where we might have been.
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:

    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:


    It will means that millions of people will feel disenfranchised, many will turn to extreme groups, some will turn to violence. Democracy will be discredited. The ballot box will be replaced with the politics of the street.

    People feel like that already.
    But Leave won the referendum democratically fair and square. Remoaners do not have democracy on their side. They cannot claim that they were cheated. They lost fair and square. If Leavers on the other habd had Brexit taken away from them despite winning a democratic vote, they would have the right to feel very angry indeed. The losers in an election simply do not have the right to cancel a democratic vote. That is fascism.
    Nope. Half the population are angry now. Some are already on the street.

    Brexit: Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.
    You have completely ignored my point. Remainers lost the referendum fairly and squarely. They werent cheated. They are less than half the population. And they have no right to stop Brexit which was decided democratically. And they wont be allowed to either.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 2,427
    stevef said:

    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:

    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:


    It will means that millions of people will feel disenfranchised, many will turn to extreme groups, some will turn to violence. Democracy will be discredited. The ballot box will be replaced with the politics of the street.

    People feel like that already.
    But Leave won the referendum democratically fair and square. Remoaners do not have democracy on their side. They cannot claim that they were cheated. They lost fair and square. If Leavers on the other habd had Brexit taken away from them despite winning a democratic vote, they would have the right to feel very angry indeed. The losers in an election simply do not have the right to cancel a democratic vote. That is fascism.
    Nope. Half the population are angry now. Some are already on the street.

    Brexit: Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.
    You have completely ignored my point. Remainers lost the referendum fairly and squarely. They werent cheated. They are less than half the population. And they have no right to stop Brexit which was decided democratically. And they wont be allowed to either.
    The polls indicate Remainers are now more than half the population. If so, there’s a democratic case to keep the debate going.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 18,495

    My view is we'd have got similar polling on it being the right/wrong decision in hindsight had we voted to Remain.

    But, without any serious calls for a second referendum.

    You think it would have been a non-issue in the contest to replace Cameron?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3633368/Brexit-Tory-warns-SECOND-referendum-bound-crucial-Tory-leadership-contest-replace-Cameron-Leave-lose.html
  • rpjsrpjs Posts: 756
    TGOHF said:

    rpjs said:

    TGOHF said:

    stevef said:

    TGOHF said:

    stevef said:



    The consequences of stopping a democratically arrived at Brexit would be dire. And a Brexit only in name would be scarcely better.

    It would be the end of the use of referendums in the Uk - actually we may already be at that point for the next 20 years.
    It might be but that doesnt answer my point about the dire consequences for democracy if that particular referendum in 2016 which has already been held is ignored.
    Oh there would be other consequences - perhaps the end of one of the current main parties.

    And no more referendums - SNP should consider that carefully.
    Although the SNP could then fight a Holyrood election on a manifesto of negotiating independence should they receive an absolute majority of seats.
    They could - but their opponents would turn the election into a single issue campaign.

    Indeed, which would be what the SNP want in those circumstances. But they wouldn't do so unless polls showed a clear mood for independence. I'm just saying that's how the SNP would get a mandate for independence if referenda became discredited.
  • RecidivistRecidivist Posts: 1,840
    stevef said:

    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:

    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:


    It will means that millions of people will feel disenfranchised, many will turn to extreme groups, some will turn to violence. Democracy will be discredited. The ballot box will be replaced with the politics of the street.

    People feel like that already.
    But Leave won the referendum democratically fair and square. Remoaners do not have democracy on their side. They cannot claim that they were cheated. They lost fair and square. If Leavers on the other habd had Brexit taken away from them despite winning a democratic vote, they would have the right to feel very angry indeed. The losers in an election simply do not have the right to cancel a democratic vote. That is fascism.
    Nope. Half the population are angry now. Some are already on the street.

    Brexit: Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.
    You have completely ignored my point. Remainers lost the referendum fairly and squarely. They werent cheated. They are less than half the population. And they have no right to stop Brexit which was decided democratically. And they wont be allowed to either.
    Those are good points. The majority voted to leave so leave we must. But if large numbers of leavers changed their minds I don't think a change in policy would be unreasonable.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 9,827
    stevef said:

    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:

    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:


    It will means that millions of people will feel disenfranchised, many will turn to extreme groups, some will turn to violence. Democracy will be discredited. The ballot box will be replaced with the politics of the street.

    People feel like that already.
    But Leave won the referendum democratically fair and square. Remoaners do not have democracy on their side. They cannot claim that they were cheated. They lost fair and square. If Leavers on the other habd had Brexit taken away from them despite winning a democratic vote, they would have the right to feel very angry indeed. The losers in an election simply do not have the right to cancel a democratic vote. That is fascism.
    Nope. Half the population are angry now. Some are already on the street.

    Brexit: Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.
    You have completely ignored my point. Remainers lost the referendum fairly and squarely. They werent cheated. They are less than half the population. And they have no right to stop Brexit which was decided democratically. And they wont be allowed to either.
    Any change would also be decided democratically.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 13,470
    edited February 2
    IanB2 said:

    stevef said:

    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:

    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:


    It will means that millions of people will feel disenfranchised, many will turn to extreme groups, some will turn to violence. Democracy will be discredited. The ballot box will be replaced with the politics of the street.

    People feel like that already.
    But Leave won the referendum democratically fair and square. Remoaners do not have democracy on their side. They cannot claim that they were cheated. They lost fair and square. If Leavers on the other habd had Brexit taken away from them despite winning a democratic vote, they would have the right to feel very angry indeed. The losers in an election simply do not have the right to cancel a democratic vote. That is fascism.
    Nope. Half the population are angry now. Some are already on the street.

    Brexit: Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.
    You have completely ignored my point. Remainers lost the referendum fairly and squarely. They werent cheated. They are less than half the population. And they have no right to stop Brexit which was decided democratically. And they wont be allowed to either.
    Any change would also be decided democratically.
    In the HOC yes but not in the unelected HOL

    Indeed I think the HOL could cause great anger if they are not careful
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,084
    stevef said:

    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:

    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:


    It will means that millions of people will feel disenfranchised, many will turn to extreme groups, some will turn to violence. Democracy will be discredited. The ballot box will be replaced with the politics of the street.

    People feel like that already.
    But Leave won the referendum democratically fair and square. Remoaners do not have democracy on their side. They cannot claim that they were cheated. They lost fair and square. If Leavers on the other habd had Brexit taken away from them despite winning a democratic vote, they would have the right to feel very angry indeed. The losers in an election simply do not have the right to cancel a democratic vote. That is fascism.
    Nope. Half the population are angry now. Some are already on the street.

    Brexit: Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.
    You have completely ignored my point. Remainers lost the referendum fairly and squarely. They werent cheated. They are less than half the population. And they have no right to stop Brexit which was decided democratically. And they wont be allowed to either.
    Many remainers do feel cheated. Not everyone agrees with you that the referendum was fair and square. Leavers need to deal with that even if they disagree.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 23,992

    My view is we'd have got similar polling on it being the right/wrong decision in hindsight had we voted to Remain.

    But, without any serious calls for a second referendum.

    Possibly. But that’s not relevant. We are where we are, not where we might have been.
    I think it very much is.

    Such polling is being used now as an argument to frustrate or stop Brexit, despite the referendum mandate. But there would have been no similar recourse for Remain.

    Both the EU, and the UK Government to a lesser extent, would have made it very clear the matter was closed, and the decision binding; albeit I suspect it would have caused ongoing trouble within the Conservative Party.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 23,992

    My view is we'd have got similar polling on it being the right/wrong decision in hindsight had we voted to Remain.

    But, without any serious calls for a second referendum.

    You think it would have been a non-issue in the contest to replace Cameron?

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3633368/Brexit-Tory-warns-SECOND-referendum-bound-crucial-Tory-leadership-contest-replace-Cameron-Leave-lose.html
    Oh, it certainly would have been an issue.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,268
    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:

    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:

    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:


    It will means that millions of people will feel disenfranchised, many will turn to extreme groups, some will turn to violence. Democracy will be discredited. The ballot box will be replaced with the politics of the street.

    People feel like that already.
    But Leave won the referendum democratically fair and square. Remoaners do not have democracy on their side. They cannot claim that they were cheated. They lost fair and square. If Leavers on the other habd had Brexit taken away from them despite winning a democratic vote, they would have the right to feel very angry indeed. The losers in an election simply do not have the right to cancel a democratic vote. That is fascism.
    Nope. Half the population are angry now. Some are already on the street.

    Brexit: Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.
    You have completely ignored my point. Remainers lost the referendum fairly and squarely. They werent cheated. They are less than half the population. And they have no right to stop Brexit which was decided democratically. And they wont be allowed to either.
    Many remainers do feel cheated. Not everyone agrees with you that the referendum was fair and square. Leavers need to deal with that even if they disagree.
    Yeah, that free bit of advertising the Remain side got delivered to every house in the country before the referendum started was particularly unfair.
  • YorkcityYorkcity Posts: 3,175
    edited February 2

    Jonathan said:



    Separately, I've been struck by just how much vehemence some of those too young to vote in the referendum have shown about the subject. It's all purely anecdotal, but it looks like - especially if Brexit does go badly or even just a little on the dismal side - there could be a lengthy amount of loathing from the next cohort of voters for those who voted for Brexit (who could quite possibly shrug it off and take revenge by writing them out of their wills, I guess, if that makes them feel better) and for those who implemented it. The latter might be arguably unfair - the Government didn't have much in the way of options - but such is the price of power. Especially if it looks like there was a democratically valid way out, which was rejected on party-political grounds.



    Brexit the new Munich?
    And on Munich it is the 60th anniversary of the Munich air disaster on the 6th February.

    I will never forget that day as I returned home from school my Grandmother telling me my beloved Busby Babes had been wiped out in a plane crash. Gone were Tommy Taylor, Roger Byrne, Eddie Colman, Geoff Bent, Mark Jones, David Pegg, and Billy Whelan and with Duncan Edwards to die in hospital two weeks later. Pictures of Matt Busby in an oxygen tent were on tv daily and of course Bobby Charlton, Harry Gregg, Bill Foukes, Jackie Blanchflower, Johnny Berry, Kenny Morgans, Albert Scanlon, Dennis Viollet and Ray Wood survived many seriously injured.

    It seems like yesterday and I remember the blank team sheets so well.

    I expect the media will cover the anniversary in some depth next tuesday
    Well said BigG . I was not alive However the first big match I remember was Man U beating Benfica in 1968 European cup final.An amazing achievement 10 years after.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,084
    RobD said:

    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:

    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:

    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:


    It will means that millions of people will feel disenfranchised, many will turn to extreme groups, some will turn to violence. Democracy will be discredited. The ballot box will be replaced with the politics of the street.

    People feel like that already.
    But Leave won the referendum democratically fair and square. Remoaners do not have democracy on their side. They cannot claim that they were cheated. They lost fair and square. If Leavers on the other habd had Brexit taken away from them despite winning a democratic vote, they would have the right to feel very angry indeed. The losers in an election simply do not have the right to cancel a democratic vote. That is fascism.
    Nope. Half the population are angry now. Some are already on the street.

    Brexit: Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.
    You have completely ignored my point. Remainers lost the referendum fairly and squarely. They werent cheated. They are less than half the population. And they have no right to stop Brexit which was decided democratically. And they wont be allowed to either.
    Many remainers do feel cheated. Not everyone agrees with you that the referendum was fair and square. Leavers need to deal with that even if they disagree.
    Yeah, that free bit of advertising the Remain side got delivered to every house in the country before the referendum started was particularly unfair.
    It was an intensely nasty and deliberately misleading campaign.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,268
    Jonathan said:

    RobD said:

    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:

    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:

    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:


    It will means that millions of people will feel disenfranchised, many will turn to extreme groups, some will turn to violence. Democracy will be discredited. The ballot box will be replaced with the politics of the street.

    People feel like that already.
    But Leave won the referendum democratically fair and square. Remoaners do not have democracy on their side. They cannot claim that they were cheated. They lost fair and square. If Leavers on the other habd had Brexit taken away from them despite winning a democratic vote, they would have the right to feel very angry indeed. The losers in an election simply do not have the right to cancel a democratic vote. That is fascism.
    Nope. Half the population are angry now. Some are already on the street.

    Brexit: Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.
    You have completely ignored my point. Remainers lost the referendum fairly and squarely. They werent cheated. They are less than half the population. And they have no right to stop Brexit which was decided democratically. And they wont be allowed to either.
    Many remainers do feel cheated. Not everyone agrees with you that the referendum was fair and square. Leavers need to deal with that even if they disagree.
    Yeah, that free bit of advertising the Remain side got delivered to every house in the country before the referendum started was particularly unfair.
    It was an intensely nasty and deliberately misleading campaign.
    Project fear wasn't that bad....
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,648
    Jonathan said:

    RobD said:

    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:

    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:

    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:


    It will means that millions of people will feel disenfranchised, many will turn to extreme groups, some will turn to violence. Democracy will be discredited. The ballot box will be replaced with the politics of the street.

    People feel like that already.
    But Leave won the referendum democratically fair and square. Remoaners do not have democracy on their side. They cannot claim that they were cheated. They lost fair and square. If Leavers on the other habd had Brexit taken away from them despite winning a democratic vote, they would have the right to feel very angry indeed. The losers in an election simply do not have the right to cancel a democratic vote. That is fascism.
    Nope. Half the population are angry now. Some are already on the street.

    Brexit: Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.
    You have completely ignored my point. Remainers lost the referendum fairly and squarely. They werent cheated. They are less than half the population. And they have no right to stop Brexit which was decided democratically. And they wont be allowed to either.
    Many remainers do feel cheated. Not everyone agrees with you that the referendum was fair and square. Leavers need to deal with that even if they disagree.
    Yeah, that free bit of advertising the Remain side got delivered to every house in the country before the referendum started was particularly unfair.
    It was an intensely nasty and deliberately misleading campaign.
    The losers always say that .
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,084
    RobD said:

    Jonathan said:

    RobD said:

    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:

    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:

    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:


    It will means that millions of people will feel disenfranchised, many will turn to extreme groups, some will turn to violence. Democracy will be discredited. The ballot box will be replaced with the politics of the street.

    People feel like that already.
    But Leave won the referendum democratically fair and square. Remoaners do not have democracy on their side. They cannot claim that they were cheated. They lost fair and square. If Leavers on the other habd had Brexit taken away from them despite winning a democratic vote, they would have the right to feel very angry indeed. The losers in an election simply do not have the right to cancel a democratic vote. That is fascism.
    Nope. Half the population are angry now. Some are already on the street.

    Brexit: Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.
    You have completely ignored my point. Remainers lost the referendum fairly and squarely. They werent cheated. They are less than half the population. And they have no right to stop Brexit which was decided democratically. And they wont be allowed to either.
    Many remainers do feel cheated. Not everyone agrees with you that the referendum was fair and square. Leavers need to deal with that even if they disagree.
    Yeah, that free bit of advertising the Remain side got delivered to every house in the country before the referendum started was particularly unfair.
    It was an intensely nasty and deliberately misleading campaign.
    Project fear wasn't that bad....
    The toxic mess we're in now owes much to the divisive nature of both of those campaigns
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 2,427
    edited February 2

    My view is we'd have got similar polling on it being the right/wrong decision in hindsight had we voted to Remain.

    But, without any serious calls for a second referendum.

    Possibly. But that’s not relevant. We are where we are, not where we might have been.
    I think it very much is.

    Such polling is being used now as an argument to frustrate or stop Brexit, despite the referendum mandate. But there would have been no similar recourse for Remain.

    Both the EU, and the UK Government to a lesser extent, would have made it very clear the matter was closed, and the decision binding; albeit I suspect it would have caused ongoing trouble within the Conservative Party.
    If polling post a Remain vote showed a steady trend toward Leave, I highly doubt the issue would be closed. What makes you think it would be?

    At heart, your argument is just a sneer against the Establishment, which is fair enough but not really relevant.
  • PClippPClipp Posts: 1,497
    RobD said:

    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:

    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:

    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:


    It will means that millions of people will feel disenfranchised, many will turn to extreme groups, some will turn to violence. Democracy will be discredited. The ballot box will be replaced with the politics of the street.

    People feel like that already.
    But Leave won the referendum democratically fair and square. Remoaners do not have democracy on their side. They cannot claim that they were cheated. They lost fair and square. If Leavers on the other habd had Brexit taken away from them despite winning a democratic vote, they would have the right to feel very angry indeed. The losers in an election simply do not have the right to cancel a democratic vote. That is fascism.
    Nope. Half the population are angry now. Some are already on the street.
    Brexit: Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.
    You have completely ignored my point. Remainers lost the referendum fairly and squarely. They werent cheated. They are less than half the population. And they have no right to stop Brexit which was decided democratically. And they wont be allowed to either.
    Many remainers do feel cheated. Not everyone agrees with you that the referendum was fair and square. Leavers need to deal with that even if they disagree.
    Yeah, that free bit of advertising the Remain side got delivered to every house in the country before the referendum started was particularly unfair.
    That was not really "the Remain side". It was the Government - the Conservative Government headed by Cameron and Osborne - who were responsible for that. Everybody else was excluded.

    But we need to bear in mind that unfair misuse of the system is the Conservative hallmark these days.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 32,268
    PClipp said:

    RobD said:

    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:

    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:

    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:


    It will means that millions of people will feel disenfranchised, many will turn to extreme groups, some will turn to violence. Democracy will be discredited. The ballot box will be replaced with the politics of the street.

    People feel like that already.
    But Leave won the referendum democratically fair and square. Remoaners do not have democracy on their side. They cannot claim that they were cheated. They lost fair and square. If Leavers on the other habd had Brexit taken away from them despite winning a democratic vote, they would have the right to feel very angry indeed. The losers in an election simply do not have the right to cancel a democratic vote. That is fascism.
    Nope. Half the population are angry now. Some are already on the street.
    Brexit: Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.
    You have completely ignored my point. Remainers lost the referendum fairly and squarely. They werent cheated. They are less than half the population. And they have no right to stop Brexit which was decided democratically. And they wont be allowed to either.
    Many remainers do feel cheated. Not everyone agrees with you that the referendum was fair and square. Leavers need to deal with that even if they disagree.
    Yeah, that free bit of advertising the Remain side got delivered to every house in the country before the referendum started was particularly unfair.
    That was not really "the Remain side". It was the Government - the Conservative Government headed by Cameron and Osborne - who were responsible for that. Everybody else was excluded.

    But we need to bear in mind that unfair misuse of the system is the Conservative hallmark these days.
    Headed by two prominent campaigners for the Remain side, you mean ;)
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,084
    TGOHF said:

    Jonathan said:

    RobD said:

    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:

    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:

    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:


    It will means that millions of people will feel disenfranchised, many will turn to extreme groups, some will turn to violence. Democracy will be discredited. The ballot box will be replaced with the politics of the street.

    People feel like that already.
    But Leave won the referendum democratically fair and square. Remoaners do not have democracy on their side. They cannot claim that they were cheated. They lost fair and square. If Leavers on the other habd had Brexit taken away from them despite winning a democratic vote, they would have the right to feel very angry indeed. The losers in an election simply do not have the right to cancel a democratic vote. That is fascism.
    Nope. Half the population are angry now. Some are already on the street.

    Brexit: Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.
    You have completely ignored my point. Remainers lost the referendum fairly and squarely. They werent cheated. They are less than half the population. And they have no right to stop Brexit which was decided democratically. And they wont be allowed to either.
    Many remainers do feel cheated. Not everyone agrees with you that the referendum was fair and square. Leavers need to deal with that even if they disagree.
    Yeah, that free bit of advertising the Remain side got delivered to every house in the country before the referendum started was particularly unfair.
    It was an intensely nasty and deliberately misleading campaign.
    The losers always say that .
    It was toxic from start to end. I've never seen anything like it. We're all losers because of it.
  • Two leading Conservative MPs have launched a bid to make Theresa May keep the UK in a customs union with the European Union, as the prime minister faces cabinet and party splits over the issue.

    Anna Soubry, a former business minister, and Ken Clarke, the former chancellor, said they would try to get cross-party support for keeping the UK’s current customs arrangements with the EU, in a clear challenge to May’s authority.

    They have a strong chance of causing an embarrassing government defeat if Jeremy Corbyn’s frontbench supports their amendments to two trade bills when they are debated in the House of Commons before the end of February.

    It is understood Labour is not ruling out backing the Tory rebels, who already have the support of a number of pro-EU Labour backbenchers. Soubry said it was part of “building a Brexit consensus inside and outside parliament”.

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/feb/02/tory-rebels-launch-bid-to-keep-uk-in-customs-union-with-eu
  • TGOHFTGOHF Posts: 17,648
    Jonathan said:

    TGOHF said:

    Jonathan said:

    RobD said:

    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:

    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:

    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:


    It will means that millions of people will feel disenfranchised, many will turn to extreme groups, some will turn to violence. Democracy will be discredited. The ballot box will be replaced with the politics of the street.

    People feel like that already.
    But Leave won the referendum democratically fair and square. Remoaners do not have democracy on their side. They cannot claim that they were cheated. They lost fair and square. If Leavers on the other habd had Brexit taken away from them despite winning a democratic vote, they would have the right to feel very angry indeed. The losers in an election simply do not have the right to cancel a democratic vote. That is fascism.
    Nope. Half the population are angry now. Some are already on the street.

    Brexit: Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.
    You have completely ignored my point. Remainers lost the referendum fairly and squarely. They werent cheated. They are less than half the population. And they have no right to stop Brexit which was decided democratically. And they wont be allowed to either.
    Many remainers do feel cheated. Not everyone agrees with you that the referendum was fair and square. Leavers need to deal with that even if they disagree.
    Yeah, that free bit of advertising the Remain side got delivered to every house in the country before the referendum started was particularly unfair.
    It was an intensely nasty and deliberately misleading campaign.
    The losers always say that .
    It was toxic from start to end. I've never seen anything like it. We're all losers because of it.
    The Scottish referendum was far far nastier. By an order of magnitude.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 8,084
    edited February 2
    TGOHF said:

    Jonathan said:

    TGOHF said:

    Jonathan said:

    RobD said:

    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:

    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:

    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:


    It will means that millions of people will feel disenfranchised, many will turn to extreme groups, some will turn to violence. Democracy will be discredited. The ballot box will be replaced with the politics of the street.

    People feel like that already.
    But Leave won the referendum democratically fair and square. Remoaners do not have democracy on their side. They cannot claim that they were cheated. They lost fair and square. If Leavers on the other habd had Brexit taken away from them despite winning a democratic vote, they would have the right to feel very angry indeed. The losers in an election simply do not have the right to cancel a democratic vote. That is fascism.
    Nope. Half the population are angry now. Some are already on the street.

    Brexit: Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.
    You have completely ignored my point. Remainers lost the referendum fairly and squarely. They werent cheated. They are less than half the population. And they have no right to stop Brexit which was decided democratically. And they wont be allowed to either.
    Many remainers do feel cheated. Not everyone agrees with you that the referendum was fair and square. Leavers need to deal with that even if they disagree.
    Yeah, that free bit of advertising the Remain side got delivered to every house in the country before the referendum started was particularly unfair.
    It was an intensely nasty and deliberately misleading campaign.
    The losers always say that .
    It was toxic from start to end. I've never seen anything like it. We're all losers because of it.
    The Scottish referendum was far far nastier. By an order of magnitude.
    No it wasn't. I was on Glasgow the night before ScotRef. It was a party atmosphere with families leafletting outside central station.
  • Yorkcity said:

    Jonathan said:



    Separately, I've been struck by just how much vehemence some of those too young to vote in the referendum have shown about the subject. It's all purely anecdotal, but it looks like - especially if Brexit does go badly or even just a little on the dismal side - there could be a lengthy amount of loathing from the next cohort of voters for those who voted for Brexit (who could quite possibly shrug it off and take revenge by writing them out of their wills, I guess, if that makes them feel better) and for those who implemented it. The latter might be arguably unfair - the Government didn't have much in the way of options - but such is the price of power. Especially if it looks like there was a democratically valid way out, which was rejected on party-political grounds.



    Brexit the new Munich?
    And on Munich it is the 60th anniversary of the Munich air disaster on the 6th February.

    I will never forget that day as I returned home from school my Grandmother telling me my beloved Busby Babes had been wiped out in a plane crash. Gone were Tommy Taylor, Roger Byrne, Eddie Colman, Geoff Bent, Mark Jones, David Pegg, and Billy Whelan and with Duncan Edwards to die in hospital two weeks later. Pictures of Matt Busby in an oxygen tent were on tv daily and of course Bobby Charlton, Harry Gregg, Bill Foukes, Jackie Blanchflower, Johnny Berry, Kenny Morgans, Albert Scanlon, Dennis Viollet and Ray Wood survived many seriously injured.

    It seems like yesterday and I remember the blank team sheets so well.

    I expect the media will cover the anniversary in some depth next tuesday
    Well said BigG . I was not alive However the first big match I remember was Man U beating Benfica in 1968 European cup final.An amazing achievement 10 years after.
    Thanks so much Yorky. - Just commented to my wife about it and I could feel a tear in my eye. It was hugely emotional and indeed the whole nation were caught up in it. Indeed Utd got to the FA cup final that year and lost 2-0 to Bolton with Nat Lofthouse scoring twice.

    The 1968 European Final triump was amazing and I was privileged to be with my daughter and son in law at the Nou Camp in 1999 when we beat Bayern in that amazing final
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 65,000
    edited February 2
    TGOHF said:

    Jonathan said:

    TGOHF said:

    Jonathan said:

    RobD said:

    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:

    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:

    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:


    It will means that millions of people will feel disenfranchised, many will turn to extreme groups, some will turn to violence. Democracy will be discredited. The ballot box will be replaced with the politics of the street.

    People feel like that already.
    But Leave won the referendum democratically fair and square. Remoaners do not have democracy on their side. They cannot claim that they were cheated. They lost fair and square. If Leavers on the other habd had Brexit taken away from them despite winning a democratic vote, they would have the right to feel very angry indeed. The losers in an election simply do not have the right to cancel a democratic vote. That is fascism.
    Nope. Half the population are angry now. Some are already on the street.

    Brexit: Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.
    You have completely ignored my point. Remainers lost the referendum fairly and squarely. They werent cheated. They are less than half the population. And they have no right to stop Brexit which was decided democratically. And they wont be allowed to either.
    Many remainers do feel cheated. Not everyone agrees with you that the referendum was fair and square. Leavers need to deal with that even if they disagree.
    Yeah, that free bit of advertising the Remain side got delivered to every house in the country before the referendum started was particularly unfair.
    It was an intensely nasty and deliberately misleading campaign.
    The losers always say that .
    It was toxic from start to end. I've never seen anything like it. We're all losers because of it.
    The Scottish referendum was far far nastier. By an order of magnitude.
    How many MPs were murdered during the Indyref campaign?
  • brendan16brendan16 Posts: 764
    edited February 2
    stevef said:

    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:


    It will means that millions of people will feel disenfranchised, many will turn to extreme groups, some will turn to violence. Democracy will be discredited. The ballot box will be replaced with the politics of the street.

    People feel like that already.
    But Leave won the referendum democratically fair and square. Remoaners do not have democracy on their side. They cannot claim that they were cheated. They lost fair and square. If Leavers on the other habd had Brexit taken away from them despite winning a democratic vote, they would have the right to feel very angry indeed. The losers in an election simply do not have the right to cancel a democratic vote. That is fascism.
    And while we discuss percentages and shifts in polls based on samples of 1000 Voters conducted by pollsters who in the majority of cases didn't predict the EU referendum or the last UK general election right - leave won by 1.4 million votes. 1 would of course have been enough for a win in a democracy - leave got 1.4 million times what was needed for a win. By contrast George W Bush became US President in 2000 on the basis of a lead of a mere 500 votes in one states - but legally he won under the rules.

    This poll shows an apparent shift in one week - next week it might be different. Mrs Thatcher might as well have quit in 1981 looking at the polls - within a year it was rather different. But I suppose politicians were made of tougher stuff then.

    Oh for more signposts rather than weathervanes - as Tony Benn once put it. You either stand on principle - or you might as well not bother standing at all (as Meryl Streep might have put it).
  • stevefstevef Posts: 1,044
    Jonathan said:

    TGOHF said:

    Jonathan said:

    RobD said:

    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:

    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:

    Jonathan said:

    stevef said:


    It will means that millions of people will feel disenfranchised, many will turn to extreme groups, some will turn to violence. Democracy will be discredited. The ballot box will be replaced with the politics of the street.

    People feel like that already.
    But Leave won the referendum democratically fair and square. Remoaners do not have democracy on their side. They cannot claim that they were cheated. They lost fair and square. If Leavers on the other habd had Brexit taken away from them despite winning a democratic vote, they would have the right to feel very angry indeed. The losers in an election simply do not have the right to cancel a democratic vote. That is fascism.
    Nope. Half the population are angry now. Some are already on the street.

    Brexit: Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't.
    You have completely ignored my point. Remainers lost the referendum fairly and squarely. They werent cheated. They are less than half the population. And they have no right to stop Brexit which was decided democratically. And they wont be allowed to either.
    Many remainers do feel cheated. Not everyone agrees with you that the referendum was fair and square. Leavers need to deal with that even if they disagree.
    Yeah, that free bit of advertising the Remain side got delivered to every house in the country before the referendum started was particularly unfair.
    It was an intensely nasty and deliberately misleading campaign.
    The losers always say that .
    It was toxic from start to end. I've never seen anything like it. We're all losers because of it.
    How was it not fair and square? Has the Electoral Commission declared the result invalid? On what grounds have Remainers been cheated? You lost.
    Democracy cannot function if losers can overturn elections because they do not like the results. And they will not be allowed to.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 23,992



    My view is we'd have got similar polling on it being the right/wrong decision in hindsight had we voted to Remain.

    But, without any serious calls for a second referendum.

    Possibly. But that’s not relevant. We are where we are, not where we might have been.
    I think it very much is.

    Such polling is being used now as an argument to frustrate or stop Brexit, despite the referendum mandate. But there would have been no similar recourse for Remain.

    Both the EU, and the UK Government to a lesser extent, would have made it very clear the matter was closed, and the decision binding; albeit I suspect it would have caused ongoing trouble within the Conservative Party.
    If polling post a Remain vote showed a steady trend toward Leave, I highly doubt the issue would be closed. What makes you think it would be?

    At heart, your argument is just a sneer against the Establishment, which is fair enough but not really relevant.
    No, there's no sneer. It's a legitimate point.

    Given the mixed views which the British public have towards the EU a vote either way would have shown regrets that would show up in the polling. But, I do think such calls for a revote would have been confined to a wing of the Conservative Party and UKIP. I doubt they'd be taken very seriously by the broadcast media, Government or business. So I do think there's an asymmetry there.

    Many posters here would have switched positions the other way round.
This discussion has been closed.