UK Amazon Kindle Forum discussion
General Chat - anything Goes
>
The 'Take it Outside' thread This thread will no longer be moderated ***
Jim wrote: "R.M.F wrote: "I was referring to Cumbria and Northumberland, as well you know. :). ..."
Remember Northumberland is an integral part of the North east, looking to Newcastle, Durham etc, so really..."
NHS Scotland is out-performing NHS England in most areas, and more importantly, it's bucking the trend against the creeping privitization that is happening in England.
Perhaps the good people of Northern England would appreciate a better NHS?
Will wrote: "R.M.F wrote: "Remain had every advantage going. That they lost, well...the blame for that is to be found squarely at Remain's door."Did Remain have every advantage going? I don't think so.
Most ..."
Remain had 40 years to make the case for Europe. Yes, right-wing newspapers played a small part in anti-Europe sentiment, but even Leave voters like myself did not believe one word from Farage, Bojo, or the Murdoch press.
In saying that, national unity is important, and we have to listen to Remain voters as we chart a course into an unknown future.
R.M.F wrote: "NHS Scotland is out-performing NHS England in most areas, and more importantly, it's bucking the trend against the creeping privitization that is happening in England. Perhaps the good people of Northern England would appreciate a better NHS?..."
too far away. even from Carlisle in the North, Manchester is nearer than Edinburgh and Blackpool, Preston and Newcastle nearer again. From the south of the County there's no competition, Scotland is just too far away for anything useful
The concept of 'far away' in the UK makes me giggle.
Patti (baconater) wrote: "The concept of 'far away' in the UK makes me giggle."problem with travel in England is that the population density is 413 people per square Km, as opposed to Ontario which is apparently the most densely populated area of Canada at 14.1
Yeah, shopping sucked when I was home. Sometimes there were two or three other shoppers in the store!
The increased density of traffic is noticeable. Our journey from West Wales to Dover is really bad. It's heavy even early morning on the M4. Its so noticeable that when we start off again the second day in France at 8 am there's relatively little.
With us it's when you hit junction 36 to join the M6. Head south and it gets rapidly worse until by Preston it can be manicHead north and it's reasonable and the traffic moves easily
We've had to give ourselves an extra 30 minutes to get to the airport the last few times.Getting to the M4 from our flat takes much longer now.
Jim wrote: "I'm glad you've finally noticed, so why were you saying earlier that Leave was criminally unprepared?...
Let a little honesty flow in here. This (the £4,300) was one of a range of Treasury figures and being the worst it is one that the remain campaign took
...
The BBC, to be fair to them, pointed out that it was badly flawed for a number of reasons. One is that it used a fixed number of households when we know the number of households increases
"
Let's take them one by one.
The Leave campaign were "criminally unprepared". Yup. Absolutely. They made claims that they could not back up. They dealt in myths and misconceptions. They lied. They made promises that could not be kept. We surely all know that now.
Would they have made a better case if they had been better prepared? That's harder to answer. There is little evidence for any beneficial impact of Brexit. And we do know that the Leave campaign simply ignored any evidence or fact that didn't fit their argument.
No. The lack of preparation isn't an excuse for the mess we're in. The Tory right wing had decades to get ready for this moment. The fact that they couldn't prepare any better shows how weak their argument is.
The Treasury report and "let a little honesty flow here". How many times do we have to say it? The Treasury report did not take the worst case scenario. That's becoming one of those silly myths to rank alongside bananas. Here's the report in full:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads...
"The BBC said it was badly flawed". No, they didn't. That is plain wrong. Here is the BBC article:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics...
The article finds that the Treasury report is basically sound: "a perfectly respectable piece of modelling". It does raise a question about the way that the £4,300 per household figure was calculated. The Treasury used ONS data for population instead of trying to make a prediction of the number of households. The BBC quibbled with this methodology, but agree with the basic argument - we would be much worse off economically if we leave the EU.
The BBC's verdict is:
"The precise figure is questionable and probably not particularly helpful. If you want to be influenced by economic modelling, the useful thing to take away is that the Treasury thinks leaving the EU would be bad for the economy, by an amount that would dwarf the savings from not having to contribute to the EU Budget."
That is not "badly flawed". It is putting a question mark over the precise figure of £4,300, but agreeing that leaving the EU would be bad for the economy by an amount which would dwarf the savings from not having to contribute to the EU Budget.
That's probably about right. The £4,300 figure was an approximation to try to put the numbers into context and to give the Remain camp a figure which they could use to put against the Leave's ridiculous £350 million. It's a long range forecast and like all long range forecasts it relies on the assumptions were made. But the basic conclusion is clear and not disputed by the BBC.
Facts, Jim, facts. You're peddling half truths and misconceptions.
Will wrote: ""The BBC said it was badly flawed". No, they didn't. That is plain wrong. Here is the BBC article:http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics...
..."
actually the discussion was on 'More or Less' where they check the numbers. Nothing to do with the politics show (I'm not sure I've ever listen to that, wouldn't know when it was broadcast)
And suddenly the fact that remain banned the civil service from working with Leave (and fatuous comments about not being able to work with ridiculous opinions are purely fatuous. They'll work with Corbyn in the run up to the next election and they've worked with many others) means it's all remains fault.
All you're doing is proving that voting out was right. Because it's the only way we'll get the attention of those in power
It's flushed a lot of undemocratic people out of the woodwork and it's somewhat rearranged domestic politics.
The next general election is going to be interesting, because if we haven't started moving towards the exit then there could be a major backlash in the polls and we might even see UKIP as the main opposition party
I'm quite interested to know what the next scapegoat the Leavers will choose when things are going down the pan.They'll have their 'control', they'll have their supposed safety from immigrants and from the bureaucrats in Brussels, yet their lives still won't be what they were expecting it to be like.
we can have the muted pleasure of "I told you so" as the country sinks without a trace. Perhaps we will finally be forced to accept our status as a middling nation that has no real justification to parade around the world stage, interfering in the affairs of other states (which amounts to sending a couple of warplanes cos we're so skint) and that we no longer justify calling ourselves "Great" Britain. Certainly not the United Kingdom on any level, even before Scotland ups sticks and leaves.
Jim - the civil service were not banned from talking to the Leave campaign. That's another of the myths and half-truths that litter this debate. The Leave campaign were given access to civil servants for research purposes, but not for speech writing. That's perfectly normal and reasonable. The civil servants did not start working on Brexit before the referendum for exactly the same reason that they don't start working on implementing opposition manifesto promises before a general election. There is no point in working up something that might not happen. And in this case, the Leave campaign's promises were muddled and unworkable.
But you are a perfect example of why we have a major constitutional problem. The Leave campaign got a little less than half the population worked up about the EU by spinning a story full of lies and manipulation. Some of those lies have been exposed, but many still persist. No matter how many times we point out that these myths aren't truths, people still believe in them. We get the same old chestnuts that both sides were as bad as each other, that the £350 million figure can be compared to the Treasury report, and on it goes.
And no matter how much evidence I give you, you still believe that "it's all Remain's fault". It isn't Remain's fault that the Leave campaign lied to you. It isn't Remain's fault that you are refusing to believe in the evidence put in front of you.
The undemocratic element here were the handful of political hopefuls who misled you because they wanted either right wing ideology or to get themselves into number 10. They're the ones you should be angry about, not the ones who have been trying to tell you the truth.
What amused me was a serious economist who'd been in the remain camp commenting that the biggest problem for the economy was remain supporters talking the economy down :-)
hang on a minute Will, they did so within the parameters of our democratic system. That democratic system is clearly flawed and needs changing, but the Leave campaigners are not the only ones ever to have lied on a political stump or even once acting as the ruling government.
Children, I will spank you.
Patti (baconater) wrote: "Children, I will spank you."Please go ahead. Removing my posts does not making it any more valid. Ad hominem accusations are used to close down truth. Why is only one person here using them, as a device to do that?
I made no ad hominem comment. No person was named in my posts, or in this one. The definition says "directed against a person". It is not my fault that someone here believes he, or she, is the target of that statement. That person should look inside his or herself.
Marc wrote: "hang on a minute Will, they did so within the parameters of our democratic system. That democratic system is clearly flawed and needs changing, but the Leave campaigners are not the only ones ever ..."It's the extent of the falsehood that it causing the problem.
There is an unwritten rule in UK politics that the manifestos of the main parties should be capable of being implemented. That's why the main parties are given access to the civil service before and during the election. The public then gets a reasonable choice. Labour, Conservatives or Lib Dems may all have different strategies in their manifestos but any one of those strategies ought to be possible.
The main check and balance we have to ensure that everyone is honest is that the political parties will be damaged in future elections if they tell outright porky pies.
This unwritten rule doesn't apply to the minor parties. It is generally accepted that they can have more extreme (aka unworkable) policies because they know they have no chance of being in power. They don't expect their manifestos to get them into Government, but they do hope that the Government will adopt some of the policies if enough people vote for them.
Very occasionally this catches someone out. The Lib Dems got burned in the 2010 election when they made a number of pre-election promises assuming that they wouldn't get into power. They then found themselves in a coalition Government having to vote for the very things that they promised not to do, including scrapping tuition fees. As a result, the Lib Dems are almost wiped out as a Parliamentary party.
This is how democracy normally works. We can be reasonably sure if we vote for any one of the main parties that their promises could be kept. Then it's a fair choice. The parties will spin their policies, of course. They will dress them up as well as they can. But on the whole the manifestos are more or less honest. No political party would last very long if it made too many outright lies.
The EU referendum was wholly different because the Leave campaign used the rules that applied to the minor parties. They didn't expect to win and anyway were not a political party in themselves. So they made up statistics (like the £350 million). They made promises like the points based immigration system. They invented claims that couldn't be delivered, like more money for the NHS, or a beneficial trade deal from the EU, or ... the list is very long.
If everything had followed the expected script, the Leave campaign would have lost. But then they would have got what they really wanted. Both Labour and the Conservatives would have been forced to include more Euro-sceptic policies in their next manifestos which would start a more rational process towards distancing ourselves from the EU. Gove or Boris would have been in a prime position to get into number 10.
Unfortunately for all of us, that didn't happen. The public bought into the Leave campaign's BS. Corbyn didn't turn up. Osborne and Cameron played it too cool.
We're now stuck with a section of the public who think they have been promised something and a Government which knows it can't deliver much of those promises.
So, no, this isn't normal democracy in action. This isn't the usual knockabout between the political parties. This is a genuine constitutional crisis where the country voted for something that simply cannot be delivered.
There is no constitutional crisis currently. The Remain campaign lost. The government is required to implement the will of the majority of the people.The constitutional crisis will come if the government does not take us out of the European Union. If the government and opposition do not uphold the will of the people they will never be trusted again and we will end up with a UKIP government.
Personally, even if I was a remainer, I'd prefer to be out of the EU than have a UKIP government.
Osborne & Cameron played it too cool? They were unbelievably shrill and hysterical - what was Osborne's emergency budget threat, a cool move? You also have a rosy picture of manifestos. Virtually any new government comes into power, has a look in the coffers and says, "oh there's not nearly enough there for us to carry out our pledges". Many people vote on either their core allegiance, or an instinctive vote to keep the other lot out. I wonder what percentage of voters think of manifestos when they go into the polling booth?
the referendum was a nonsense to begin with, voting for something that everyone knows is flawed but some like the idea(l) of, versus voting for the unknown. Constitutional crisis? Not yet at least, though the pressures bubbling under, not least the potential of Scottish independence and god knows what might happen in Ulster and we might yet arrive there.
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo) wrote: "There is no constitutional crisis currently. The Remain campaign lost. The government is required to implement the will of the majority of the people.The constitutional crisis will come if the go..."
Absolutely, we have no constitutional crisis. We have a crisis of confidence in a section of the population who assumed that their opinion was the one that mattered and cannot cope with an electorate who will not support them. So you get Owen Smith campaigning for labour party support promising a second referendum. I suspect that within the circles he moves that's a major draw, but I also suspect that for a majority of the electorate, and perhaps even a larger majority of those who are relatively recent members of the labour party, it's an irrelevance or even a deterrent to voting for him
With regard to UKIP, the problem would be similar to that experienced by the SNP in that they've suddenly got a lot of MPs who the party never expected to become MPs and had they know, probably wouldn't have allowed them to be selected.When you've only got a small pool of talent, too much rapid expansion can drain the pool far too quickly
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo) wrote: " .... The government is required to implement the will of the majority of the people... "Precisely. And that is where the crisis comes in, because the Government cannot implement the will of the majority of the people.
The Government cannot give £350 million a week extra to the NHS.
They have ruled out a points-based immigration system.
It looks almost certain that the EU states are not going to roll over and give us a trade deal without free movement of people.
And the list goes on. The version of Brexit that we voted on is not the one we are going to get.
The people voted for Leave because the Leave campaign made many promises about what Brexit would look like. It's now evident that almost none of these promises will be kept.
So, Jim, I absolutely agree that we have a crisis of confidence "in a section of the population who assumed that their opinion was the one that mattered". But that should be everyone and not just those who voted leave.
The Government doesn't exist to give you what you want. It is there to give all of us a little of what we want or need.
We also need to respect the views of the Leave voters. Some of them voted for Brexit because they believed the claims being made by the Leave campaign - claims which we now know to be totally wrong.
You don't see the constitutional problem ... and that is perhaps the biggest problem of all. The nation is divided on this. You might not see it because its not evident in the circles you mix in, but it's most certainly the case. Not everyone votes the way you do.
We are not going to find solutions to this divided nation until we can see it through other people's eyes, and not just our own point of view ... "yay we won - so suck it up".
That's why we need a 60/40 solution, at least. We need a solution which the clear majority can sign up to, and which all of can say was honestly reached. A 48/52 vote after a dodgy campaign is not a sound basis for a democratic decision.
It's simple, we voted to leave. Talking about 60-40 solutions is nonsense, because if that was a rule we'd never have had a government. The electorate aren't stupid. They know politicians on both sides lied, exaggerated and made promises they couldn't deliver. (We've had promises for forty years that British influence would reform the EU and stop it becoming more centralised)
They also know it'll be a negotiation and you get what you get. Given that it's a negotiation with the EU then whatever happens there'll be internal politicking as various member states threaten to veto stuff because they want their particular hobby horse included.
We voted to Leave. So we leave. What deal we get, we get. In ten years we'll have a different deal anyway, in twenty years the EU will be largely unrecognisable anyway
Will wrote: "A 48/52 vote after a dodgy campaign is not a sound basis for a democratic decision. ..."Well that invalidates a fair number of governments
Jim - there are several points of view here. Some people see it the way that you do. Brexit means Brexit. Leave means Leave. Some people don't.Right now, Theresa May is taking us in one direction - a slow negotiated soft Brexit. The hardliners want an immediate article 50 and to hell with the consequences. The Lib Dems and Owen Smith want a second referendum. The SNP wants to stay in Europe. Corbyn wants ... well, I'm not sure what Corbyn wants.
What we absolutely cannot do is to think that everyone else has the same point of view that each of us has. You had your reasons for voting to leave. You cannot assume that your neighbour had exactly the same reasons.
You don't care that the £350 million figure was a fiction or that the Treasury's report showed that Brexit means economic pain and job losses. That's fine. You have a right to that opinion. But not every one thinks like you. Some people believed that leaving the EU would save us money which could be spent on the NHS. What about these people's rights?
You say that "The electorate aren't stupid. They know politicians on both sides lied, exaggerated and made promises they couldn't deliver."
Well, no, they don't all think that. Again, it's your opinion and you're welcome to it. The vast majority of people I speak to agree that the Leave campaign told far more lies than Remain, if indeed Remain told any.
That's the problem with this debate. If you see only your own point of view, then it appears to be straight-forward. Out means out. We had a vote and we ought to stick with it. And whatever happens we should never have another vote no matter how much new information becomes available.
Or you can try to see if from all points of view. We know that the Leave campaign was dishonest. That's beyond arguing now. The Government cannot implement anything like the Brexit that was promised.
Knowing that, some people would still vote leave. Some would want to change their mind. The Government's responsibility is to represent all voters.
Will wrote: "Jim - there are several points of view here. Some people see it the way that you do. Brexit means Brexit. Leave means Leave. Some people don't...."
but that's the way our politics work. Our parties are coalitions held together by the first past the post system. You can vote Labour hoping for Blarite policies and get Ed Miliband, you can vote Conservative hoping for Boris and get May.
You know that leave lied. I know that remain lied. I watched politicians on both sides practice their usual level of mendacity. I can see all points of view, but frankly I've lost patience with a lot of sore losers who're struggling to cope with the fact that they lost.
Firstly let's get some facts sorted out.
Firstly, Government didn't promise to implement any sort of brexit. It has decided to accept the will of the people and get the best deal it can
Secondly nobody can promise to implement any sort of brexit. Just as nobody could promise what sort of EU we have next year. It will be a process of negotiation, either with a commission determined to punish us, member states wanting to guard their interests which coincide with our interests.
As you say the government is to represent all voters. The last opinion poll I saw showed that more remain voters would change their vote to leave, so disgusted were they with project fear, that leave voters would change to remain. But that's irrelevant, we voted to leave
No, it is not the way our politics works. Referendums are exceedingly rare in UK politics. This is also arguably the first time that post-truth tactics have been used in a UK vote. We can't dismiss it as normal business. We really need to get away from this idea that both sides lied, so it's all right somehow. The Leave camp made stuff up throughout the campaign in a way that was not mirrored by the Remain campaign. And even if both sides lied equally, that would be an even more powerful argument for a second referendum.
If all you can see are "sore losers" then you are not seeing it from all points of view. You are stereotyping 48% of the population as badly as someone who says that everyone who votes Leave was a racist. We need to be better than that.
Turning to your "facts". I fully agree that the Government should respect the will of the people and get the best deal it can. It's obvious that we don't know what the will of the people is. The referendum vote was a narrow decision based on flawed campaigning. If we ran the referendum again with honest information would we get the same result? I honestly don't know.
And what is the best deal for the UK? That's almost certainly remaining in the EU, which may well be what the majority of UK voters want - if they had been given accurate information.
"nobody can promise to implement any sort of Brexit" - hallelujah! You're are exactly right. So why did the Leave campaign make promises about the kind of Brexit it would definitely deliver? That's what the Remain campaign was saying all along.
"so disgusted were they with project fear" - another good one! We were all disgusted by project fear, but I suspect in different ways. I was disgusted how the Leave campaign misled the public by the whole project fear thing. They tried to pour cold water on the many experts and external organisations who told us what an economic disaster Brexit would be.
This is all going to come to a head at some point in the near future. It could be a vote in the commons or a general election or a vote of no confidence in Theresa May by her own right wing.
Will wrote: "And what is the best deal for the UK? That's almost certainly remaining in the EU, which may well be what the majority of UK voters want - if they had been given accurate information...."and this is the problem.
You believe this and are fighting for it.
But a majority of the population don't believe it
Remember they watched what happened to Greece, to Ireland etc.
In fact it's a standing joke that if a member state votes against the EU's inexorable progress, then they're made to take it again until they get it right
They didn't try that one with the french, instead they smuggled the EU constitution in through other means
And beware of what you wish for. Because you're going to be in deep trouble if instead of being grateful for being rescued, the electorate react to being patronised and 'saved' by voting for UKIP a at a general election
The libdems are hoping to make a come back in the SW but that area voted to leave, and if the libdems want to get their seats back they could well have to change their tune to match what their voters want
It's quite clear that the electorate really are stupid.2016 and people are still banging on about immigration.
As you are one of the electorate (presumably) - you are calling yourself stupid....... or is it just anyone of the electorate who has a different viewpoint to you???
I'm far too middle class to be stupid.
Shall we just leave stupidity to the upper classes then??
Sure, but I like their six-fingered hands and the way they sound so silly on the telly.
Will wrote: "No, it is not the way our politics works. Referendums are exceedingly rare in UK politics. This is also arguably the first time that post-truth tactics have been used in a UK vote. We can't dismiss..We really need to get away from this idea that both sides lied, so it's all right somehow. The Leave camp made stuff up throughout the campaign in a way that was not mirrored by the Remain campaign. And even if both sides lied equally, that would be an even more powerful argument for a second referendum.."
No it's not alright, we need a wholesale revision of our democracy. But I don't think anyone has the appetite for that right now. Except me perhaps
Michael Cargill wrote: "Sure, but I like their six-fingered hands and the way they sound so silly on the telly."Anne Boleyn had six fingers on each hand........ and she had her head chopped off on my birthday. I don't think she was on telly though!!
American presidential candidates apparently, most of them seem to be 6th or 9th cousins :-)
Jim - you don't know what a majority of the population want or believe in. None of us do.What we know is that on the 23rd of June, 16.1 million people voted to stay in the EU, 17.4 million voted to leave and 12.95 million didn't vote.
By any standards, this was a close result. The polls fluctuated on an almost daily basis. Right up to the day of the voting, most people thought that Remain had narrowly won. Farage was about to give a losing speech where he would call for a second referendum because it was so close.
We also know that the Leave campaign was highly misleading. Forget all this nonsense about both sides being as bad as each other. The Leave campaign made up statistics like the £350 million, tried to silence experts with project fear and made promises they could not keep about what Brexit would look like. The Remain camp mostly told the truth. Sure, there was spinning on both sides, but only Leave resorted to blatant lies.
We now don't know what the public want. The referendum was a snapshot at a particular time. Had it been taken a week earlier, Remain probably would have won. If it was taken a week after the referendum, Remain would probably have won.
The $64,000 question is ... what do the majority of UK voters want now? Go straight to the back of the class if you want to say "they would still vote to leave the EU." We simply don't know that. That may be what you want, but we need to see this through all points of view.
It's not difficult. A lot has changed since 23 June. We have more information about the attitude of the EU states to Brexit. We know that the £350 million figure was made up. We now have a new Government.
The Government should work out what Brexit means and how much it is going to cost. It should put a red line through all the promises that aren't going to be delivered like a points based immigration system. Then it should put the question back to the country, or at the very least to Parliament.
Theresa May should have the courage to say that this (whatever it is) is the best deal that we can get for Brexit. Do we want it or do we want to remain in the EU? That should be accompanied with full and fair evidence about the costs and the benefits of staying or leaving.
If the majority votes to leave, then so be it. Remain voters will be able to accept the verdict better if it is done on the basis of truth and not lies. If the vote is to remain, then the leave voters should also accept that.
If, as you say, the majority still want to leave then you have nothing to be afraid of. It will give the decision to leave a legitimacy that it currently does not have.
To do anything else is a mockery of democracy.
nonsenseIt's just a desperate attempt to ignore the vote and stay in.
perhaps after the next general election you want there to be another vote two months after once we've discovered what the winning party really intends to do? After all it will be proved that they have had spokesmen who were at the very least mendacious
Your suggested course of action is frankly silly. We will not know the best deal we can get for Brexit until we start negotiating.
We cannot start negotiating until we've done the whole article 50 thing (The EU commission insists on this)
Once we've done the whole article 50 thing we have announced we're leaving. A second referendum is meaningless because there is nothing to make the EU accept us back in on the same terms or any terms.
Which part of the above can you not grasp?
Jim wrote: "Which part of the above can you not grasp? "That's easy. The bits I can't grasp are:
"Nonsense"
"frankly silly"
"meaningless"
A second referendum or a parliamentary vote is perfectly possible and indeed sensible. One or other may even be enforced legally as proceeding without it could be beyond the powers of the UK Government.
You may not want another referendum. I can understand that. What I can't understand is how you can see another referendum as nonsense or impossible. The Lib Dems don't agree. Or Owen Smith. Or many of the 48% who voted Remain. Or a large number of Tory and Labour MPs (but they are keeping it quiet).
Of course we won't know all the details of the negotiations before we start them, but we don't need to. We can put the question to the public or Parliament based on what we do know at the time.
Theresa May has put a red line through a points based immigration policy. Fine, let's tell the public that as part of the second referendum. That one is off the table.
The £350 million figure is a total fiction. Fine, let's tell the public that too. Leaving the EU will almost certainly cost us more money than it saves, so we are going to have less to spend on the NHS and not more.
We can't have access to the single market without free movement of people. The EU is not likely to give us a fantastic deal like the Leave campaign promised. Throw that one in too.
Then just before we sign article 50, we have another referendum or vote in Parliament. Tell the public what the real costs and benefits of Brexit are. Of course we can't know how the negotiations will go, but we can be honest about the red lines that we take into those negotiations.
Or put it another way. Right now the Government is working frantically to figure out what Brexit means. It is examining its negotiating options. Refining the economic predictions in the Treasury report. Having discrete talks with other EU states and non-EU states about possible trade deals.
In a few months time, a big fat report will land on Theresa May's desk. It will tell her what the true costs of Brexit are likely to be and what options we have. Based on that report, Theresa May will decide whether to trigger article 50 and what options to take into the negotiations afterwards.
That is the point when we need a second referendum. The Brexit that will be on the table as we get close to signing article 50 is nothing like the one we voted on.
A second referendum might even help you. There is talk amongst UKIP and the Tory right wing that May might go for too soft a Brexit. She might do a deal with the EU which means that we technically leave but we are so closely tied into the single market and free movement of people that it won't feel much different to now.
And if that happens, you might find yourself wishing for a second referendum to get the kind of Brexit that you think you were voting for on 23 June.
Will wrote: "Then just before we sign article 50, we have another referendum or vote in Parliament. Tell the public what the real costs and benefits of Brexit are. Of course we can't know how the negotiations will go, but we can be honest about the red lines that we take into those negotiations..."so what you're saying is that you want another vote but you don't want anybody to be so vulgar as to contradict the remain campaigns point of view
Look, the leader of the remain campaign called this referendum. They set the running and spent public money ensuring they got the right answer and failed.
There is no Brexit on the table as we do article 50.
There are only negotiating stances.
The EU will not be bound by our referendum, and already we have member states saying they'll veto the agreement anyway unless they get what they specifically want.
So the only Brexit we are guaranteed is with us leaving and dealing with the EU on WTO terms
This appears to be what the Commission wants, but there has to be a power struggle within the EU over who actually will be doing the negotiation, the commission alone, or the commission with the member states controlling them.
Another referendum is a total waste of time.
Will wrote: "Jim wrote: "Which part of the above can you not grasp? "A second referendum or a parliamentary vote is perfectly possible and indeed sensible. One or other may even be enforced legally as proceeding without it could be beyond the powers of the UK Government.
Possible but not sensible. As has been repeatedly said, to go against the wishes of the majority, many who used the referendum to express their feelings of alienation if not disfranchisement from the political system, is inviting anarchy and a real threat to democracy. I actually think there should be a Parliamentary debate, but again if the outcome of that was to reverse the decision of the referendum, that invites disaster
No, Jim. The Government exists to serve the will of the people. Right now, we don't know what the will of the people is because all we have is a narrow majority in a highly misleading campaign. And it is evident that the Brexit we are likely to get is nothing like the one that we voted for.You are absolutely right that the negotiations will be far tougher than the Leave campaign promised. We may indeed get nothing more than WTO terms when some of the states use their veto on a more preferential deal. We may even find it hard to get any deal for the foreseeable future. The UK may find itself in a limbo - outside the EU and with no trade deal.
That helps to make the case for a second referendum. We were promised by Gove and Johnson that the EU would roll over and give us a preferential deal because Germany wants us to buy their cars. Many of us saw through that line of argument at the time. Others, like you, are beginning to realise it now.
Now that you've joined us in that point of view, how can you possibly think that it is safe or sensible to make a huge policy decision based on the public being told that the negotiations would be easy and clearly beneficial to the UK?
One way or another, many Leave voters are heading for a major disappointment. One possibility is that we are going to sign article 50 in a hard Brexit and the outcome will be far from the "it's going to be glorious" rhetoric from Boris. No new money for the NHS, a crashing economy, and it will take decades to agree trade deals which would be worse than we have at the moment. That may be when many Leave voters will realise that the Leave campaign lied to them.
Or we could sign article 50 in a soft Brexit which will almost certainly mean very little change to immigration policies, no new money for the NHS and a mild hit to the economy. Then the Leave voters will wonder why the Government has not given them what they wanted, and the Government will try to convince them that it was the best deal that they could get in the circumstances.
Or we could have a second referendum based on the truth rather than lies, when we may find that the outcome is very different.
Marc - no, we shouldn't go against the wishes of the majority. That means that we must find £350 million of savings to spend on the NHS, we must adopt a points-based immigration policy and we have to negotiate a gold-plated deal with the EU which allows us to have our cake and eat it. And all the rest of the Leave promises. Oh, and we need to do all of that without harming the economy.
Oops.
The problem here is that the Leave voters simply cannot have what they thought they were voting for. Nobody can give it to them because the promises were and are impossible to implement. Sooner or later this pain has to come out, whether it is dissatisfaction that May isn't going far enough or a dawning realisation that it is not going to be anything like what Boris and Gove promised.
Leave voters will complain if we have a second referendum. Remain voters will complain if we don't.
Leave voters will complain even more if we trigger article 50 and it is nothing like what they were promised. We now know that Brexit will be nothing like what they were promised.
Far from being a waste of time, a second referendum or parliamentary debate is an absolute necessity.
Will, the details of Brexit were not part of the in/out vote in the polling booth. People were voting for a principle. Yes their cross was possibly informed by the lies (Leave) or the being economic with the truth (Remain) but the public were only being asked whether to brexit or not, not what type of Brexit or even what type of future EU the Remainers wanted to see. Picking the bones out of the decision is the job of Parliament & government. I think you're right, whatever course they manage to steer will cause disgruntlement amongst some tranches of the population. But would it cause the uproar overturning the outcome of the referendum? I don't think so.
Citing Owen Smith & the LibDems as being in favour of Remain somehow moving to overturn the outcome only weakens your argument. Two perennial losers if ever there were.
Will wrote: "No, Jim. The Government exists to serve the will of the people. Right now, we don't know what the will of the people is because all we have is a narrow majority in a highly misleading campaign. And..."what bit about majority don't you understand
Now you claim that the campaign was highly misleading and the poor leave voters were so stupid they didn't realise it.
Perhaps the real problem is the people who cannot cope with the fact these stupid leave voters didn't do the decent thing and vote as their betters had decided was good for them
But the real exercise in self deception is from those who feel that if only the deluded fools could be given another chance they'd come crawling back into the fold begging to be forgiven for their stupidity
Except that in one of Lord Ascroft's latest polls, 59 per cent of people in the UK believe the country is moving in the right direction, including almost 30 per cent of Remainers.
If we have a second referendum, personally I suspect that the vote would be even more strongly to leave the EU. First because it is obvious that project fear was obviously massively exaggerated. Secondly because the Commission has done itself no favours with the UK population threatening them, and thirdly because the contempt poured out by the remain campaign has hacked off a lot of people who did vote remain
But mainly because people are sick of being ignored and effectively are being told to keep voting until they get it right
UK Amazon Kindle Forum
Books mentioned in this topic
The Beiderbecke Affair (other topics)The Grain Market in the Roman Empire: A Social, Political and Economic Study (other topics)
The Peasants Are Revolting (other topics)
How to Lie with Statistics (other topics)
That Old Ace in the Hole (other topics)
More...
..."
I'm glad you've finally noticed, so why were you saying earlier that Leave was criminally unprepared?
"For example, the civil service's estimate of the cost of leaving the EU was the £4,300 per family figure in the Treasury report. The Treasury report that the Leave campaign tried to bury."
Let a little honesty flow in here. This was one of a range of Treasury figures and being the worst it is one that the remain campaign took
The BBC, to be fair to them, pointed out that it was badly flawed for a number of reasons. One is that it used a fixed number of households when we know the number of households increases