Haysies already using % to advocate that this was a remain vote on the other thread
You obviously didn't understand my post.
Yes I did. Just because you post and somebody has a pop about it doesnt mean they dont understand it. It could just as well mean that they fully understand it but think that you're talking out of your backside.
What you were having a pop about had nothing to do with what I posted.
Thats because just like most politicians you dont really make your points clear you wrap them up in endless repeats of the same pictures and the same anti Farage, anti Brexit rhetoric. Really?
What I voted for was a total break clean and complete and as unpalateable as they may be for you that is what I want. If that causes some problems for British business in the short term tough.
Jacob Rees-Mogg said it might take 50 years for us to benefit.
Nobody worried when being in the EU closed the British fishing industry and caused the loss of tens of thousands of jobs in coal, steel and construction.
Are you really blaming the EU for all of this?
The only reason the EU is being arsee is because they dont want us to go. They need us way more than we need them. That's why theyre trying to make us pay through the nose to leave, because they cant afford to keep going at the same level without our money. Who is going to make up the shortfall if we just leave ? Ireland (tinpot nation), Italy (another ten bob mob), Greece (ha ha as if), Spain (teetering on the brink), Portugal (dodgy economy again) or maybe the plethora of nations who only joined for the money. And, at the end of the day its always about money. From those sweet deal fat cats riding the gravy train to the M.P.s sitting on boards of companies invested in the status quo. The big political sponsors now desperately trying to persuade those they have in their pockets to lessen the impact of that train hitting the buffers.
I think that the EU has behaved much netter than our side. If we are paying through the nose to leave, it will be the fault of our Government, as they agreed on how much we owe them. Are you referring to Farage, as a passenger on the gravy train?
I find it ironic that another country that we basically helped form with the dregs of our society can flourish as an Island nation with comparatively little population is 1,000s of miles away from its nearest trading partners and still manages to say fk off to anybody who it doesn't want to do business with and has a better standard of living, healthcare, policing, education and public services.
This is a curious argument. Are you saying that Australia have achieved this through their Government managing the country better? Or just because they are not members of the EU?
They are currently in negotiation with the EU.
Are you ignoring the Trans Pacific Trading Partnership, in your argument?
Australia, post no deal Brexit done properly.
Based on?
Of course this will have no impact on you as you seem resigned to the belief that only all things E.U. can work, but at least I've wasted your time reading it.
As I stated originally I saw people being interviewed on the street by regional news programmes asking for their opinions and numerous people who voted remain stated they were voting Brexit Party in the EU elections.Most giving the reason that they thought the government had failed the public vote by not delivering brexit. Are you saying that with all the news and current affairs programmes that you must watch,that you never heard a remainer state they was voting Brexit Party? I find that very hard to believe.
No, I have seen many that have changed their minds. Probably far more in the opposite direction. A very good reason for a confirmatory vote. People should be allowed to change minds.
What I found curious is that you referred to someone voting for the Brexit Party, as remainers, even though they had very obviously become brexiteers. This is not a criticism bye the way. I just found it curious, rather than wrong.
Will we be labelled for ever, according to how we voted in the referendum?
What should we call people that didn't vote?
1. Would you agree that are at least 4 Brexit options that have some popularity?
2. Lets call them, Theresa Mays deal, Norway plus, Canada plus, and no deal.
3. Would you agree that these are options that are widely talked about in the media?
4. Do you think that the 52% that voted leave thought they were al voting for the same option?
Bolded bits in order. Agree. Ex-Remainers. Abstainers. 1.Yes. 2.Agree. 3.Yes. They are now,when it's too late. 4.Yes/No. To leave the EU yes BUT all Brexit options were not discussed before the vote.I would think that quite a few % thought leaving would be a straight forward process and not as complicated as it has proven to be.
As I stated originally I saw people being interviewed on the street by regional news programmes asking for their opinions and numerous people who voted remain stated they were voting Brexit Party in the EU elections.Most giving the reason that they thought the government had failed the public vote by not delivering brexit. Are you saying that with all the news and current affairs programmes that you must watch,that you never heard a remainer state they was voting Brexit Party? I find that very hard to believe.
No, I have seen many that have changed their minds. Probably far more in the opposite direction. A very good reason for a confirmatory vote. People should be allowed to change minds.
What I found curious is that you referred to someone voting for the Brexit Party, as remainers, even though they had very obviously become brexiteers. This is not a criticism bye the way. I just found it curious, rather than wrong.
Will we be labelled for ever, according to how we voted in the referendum?
What should we call people that didn't vote?
1. Would you agree that are at least 4 Brexit options that have some popularity?
2. Lets call them, Theresa Mays deal, Norway plus, Canada plus, and no deal.
3. Would you agree that these are options that are widely talked about in the media?
4. Do you think that the 52% that voted leave thought they were al voting for the same option?
Bolded bits in order. Agree. Ex-Remainers. Abstainers. 1.Yes. 2.Agree. 3.Yes. They are now,when it's too late. 4.Yes/No. To leave the EU yes BUT all Brexit options were not discussed before the vote.I would think that quite a few % thought leaving would be a straight forward process and not as complicated as it has proven to be.
Ok so how many Brexit voters think they voted for each of the 4 options?
Should we say they are all equal, so of the 52% that voted to leave, 13% thought they were voting for each option?
Would you agree that these options are radically different?
For instance no deal is radically different from say Norway plus, which is hardly leaving. Therefore a person that voted to leave that was in favour of no deal, would feel outraged if we ended up with Norway plus?
So the four most popular 4 options all constitute leaving, but are radically different?
As I stated originally I saw people being interviewed on the street by regional news programmes asking for their opinions and numerous people who voted remain stated they were voting Brexit Party in the EU elections.Most giving the reason that they thought the government had failed the public vote by not delivering brexit. Are you saying that with all the news and current affairs programmes that you must watch,that you never heard a remainer state they was voting Brexit Party? I find that very hard to believe.
No, I have seen many that have changed their minds. Probably far more in the opposite direction. A very good reason for a confirmatory vote. People should be allowed to change minds.
What I found curious is that you referred to someone voting for the Brexit Party, as remainers, even though they had very obviously become brexiteers. This is not a criticism bye the way. I just found it curious, rather than wrong.
Will we be labelled for ever, according to how we voted in the referendum?
What should we call people that didn't vote?
1. Would you agree that are at least 4 Brexit options that have some popularity?
2. Lets call them, Theresa Mays deal, Norway plus, Canada plus, and no deal.
3. Would you agree that these are options that are widely talked about in the media?
4. Do you think that the 52% that voted leave thought they were al voting for the same option?
Bolded bits in order. Agree. Ex-Remainers. Abstainers. 1.Yes. 2.Agree. 3.Yes. They are now,when it's too late. 4.Yes/No. To leave the EU yes BUT all Brexit options were not discussed before the vote.I would think that quite a few % thought leaving would be a straight forward process and not as complicated as it has proven to be.
Ok so how many Brexit voters think they voted for each of the 4 options?
Should we say they are all equal, so of the 52% that voted to leave, 13% thought they were voting for each option?
Would you agree that these options are radically different?
For instance no deal is radically different from say Norway plus, which is hardly leaving. Therefore a person that voted to leave that was in favour of no deal, would feel outraged if we ended up with Norway plus?
So the four most popular 4 options all constitute leaving, but are radically different?
My point is that all these 'options' only came to prominence after the vote,whilst during campaigning both sides were too busy trying to discredit the others views/opinions.The referendum question was a simple leave or remain,which was answered.How the result got implemented was down to the government,which it has failed to do.The public are not to blame for answering the question (regardless of the result) that was asked of them.My personal view now is to leave asap then deal with the consequences,otherwise this is going to drag on and on for the foreseeable future with nothing resolved.
Haysies already using % to advocate that this was a remain vote on the other thread
Remainers won these elections – and they’d win a second Brexit referendum
In these elections remain was the winner, not Farage. What mattered beyond the number of seats won was the sum of remain votes. Lib Dem, Green, Scottish National party, Plaid Cymru and Change UK outpolled Brexit and Ukip by 40.4% remain to 34.9% hard Brexit. Now add in Labour and Conservative votes, divided – as pollsters Britain Thinks and YouGov suggest – by allocating 80% of Tory votes to leave, and 60% of Labour votes to remain. That suggests a remain win in a referendum by 50% to 47%. Certain? Of course not – it’s close – but this three-point remain majority certainly makes it a democratic outrage to press ahead with any kind of Brexit without giving voters the final say. And what is not in doubt is that there’s a clear majority against a no-deal Brexit.
As I stated originally I saw people being interviewed on the street by regional news programmes asking for their opinions and numerous people who voted remain stated they were voting Brexit Party in the EU elections.Most giving the reason that they thought the government had failed the public vote by not delivering brexit. Are you saying that with all the news and current affairs programmes that you must watch,that you never heard a remainer state they was voting Brexit Party? I find that very hard to believe.
No, I have seen many that have changed their minds. Probably far more in the opposite direction. A very good reason for a confirmatory vote. People should be allowed to change minds.
What I found curious is that you referred to someone voting for the Brexit Party, as remainers, even though they had very obviously become brexiteers. This is not a criticism bye the way. I just found it curious, rather than wrong.
Will we be labelled for ever, according to how we voted in the referendum?
What should we call people that didn't vote?
1. Would you agree that are at least 4 Brexit options that have some popularity?
2. Lets call them, Theresa Mays deal, Norway plus, Canada plus, and no deal.
3. Would you agree that these are options that are widely talked about in the media?
4. Do you think that the 52% that voted leave thought they were al voting for the same option?
Bolded bits in order. Agree. Ex-Remainers. Abstainers. 1.Yes. 2.Agree. 3.Yes. They are now,when it's too late. 4.Yes/No. To leave the EU yes BUT all Brexit options were not discussed before the vote.I would think that quite a few % thought leaving would be a straight forward process and not as complicated as it has proven to be.
Ok so how many Brexit voters think they voted for each of the 4 options?
Should we say they are all equal, so of the 52% that voted to leave, 13% thought they were voting for each option?
Would you agree that these options are radically different?
For instance no deal is radically different from say Norway plus, which is hardly leaving. Therefore a person that voted to leave that was in favour of no deal, would feel outraged if we ended up with Norway plus?
So the four most popular 4 options all constitute leaving, but are radically different?
My point is that all these 'options' only came to prominence after the vote,whilst during campaigning both sides were too busy trying to discredit the others views/opinions.The referendum question was a simple leave or remain,which was answered.How the result got implemented was down to the government,which it has failed to do.The public are not to blame for answering the question (regardless of the result) that was asked of them.My personal view now is to leave asap then deal with the consequences,otherwise this is going to drag on and on for the foreseeable future with nothing resolved.
I have to disagree.
There were people debating the benefits, of the different options in the referendum campaign. Although far less than they are now.
The referendum was based on a simple question, that had a complex answer.
I assume you can see the point that I was trying to make.
We can only leave by choosing one option, and therefore, only a small percentage of leave voters can feel they got what they voted for.
Yet people still support the democracy, and will of the people argument.
If say 13% of the people get what they feel they voted for, how can it possibly be the will of the people?
I agree that you cant blame the public, they did what was asked of them.
No deal clearly doesn't exist.
Nobody seems to have a solution other than the extremes.
I am not a referendum fanatic, but I have been saying for a long time that it would provide a solution. One that we are probably closer to, than ever before.
I would be happy with a deal that kept us fairly close to the EU.
I think it will come down to a no deal, even though that doesn't really exist, revoking Article 50, or confirmatory vote.
I understand your point but as I've said before % and statistics can be used for both sides of a debate.One part of a democracy is all sides agreeing to and accepting the results of any vote,when parties start rejecting the results that's when democracy starts to be questioned.Since 1918 only one general election has produced an overall % win for the winning party.Does that mean we should dismiss all other election results?Did the losing parties demand a second vote?No,they accepted the results and fought the next election,that's democracy. Look at the 2015 election as an example. UKIP polled 3,88,099 votes with a 12.6% share of votes,total MP's returned 1. SNP polled 1,454,436 votes with a 4.7% share of votes,total MP's returned 56. The winning Conservatives polled 36.8% meaning 63.2% didn't want them in power. Again,was there a demand for a re-run of the election,no the parties accepted the results and moved on. If people are unhappy with results of an election/referendum the way to change it is to use your vote at the next opportunity to back a party which represents your views,that is democracy.
Another way to look at a 2nd people’s vote is some remainers might also have changed their mind and will now vote leave.....not me...but they will have changed their mind because they now have more accurate information about what Brexit means for the UK.
I genuinely believe that a significant no of leavers did vote in the belief that eg £350+m would be recovered for use in the National Health Service...just one example of misinformation that swayed people .
There were a number of examples of what we now know is misinformation which would have swayed people to vote BOTH ways
If We knew then what We know now....2nd vote would put the issue to bed for a vast no of the population...the extremes at either end of the argument would still scream foul...as a moderate remainer, I reluctantly accept the first democratic vote outcome.
If a 2nd vote was a leave vote, I would graciously accept the genuine will of the people
Let’s then get on with more important matters that have been sidelined by Brexit.. green paper for social care for 1!
I understand your point but as I've said before % and statistics can be used for both sides of a debate.One part of a democracy is all sides agreeing to and accepting the results of any vote,when parties start rejecting the results that's when democracy starts to be questioned.Since 1918 only one general election has produced an overall % win for the winning party.Does that mean we should dismiss all other election results?Did the losing parties demand a second vote?No,they accepted the results and fought the next election,that's democracy. Look at the 2015 election as an example. UKIP polled 3,88,099 votes with a 12.6% share of votes,total MP's returned 1. SNP polled 1,454,436 votes with a 4.7% share of votes,total MP's returned 56. The winning Conservatives polled 36.8% meaning 63.2% didn't want them in power. Again,was there a demand for a re-run of the election,no the parties accepted the results and moved on. If people are unhappy with results of an election/referendum the way to change it is to use your vote at the next opportunity to back a party which represents your views,that is democracy.
I have posted about this before, but this is our electoral system.
My point is that the referendum question was simple, but the answer is complex.
We still don't know what the answer is.
We agreed there seem to be 4 possible solutions.
Only one of these solutions can be chosen.
Leave voters feel they voted for a particular solution.
Farage claims that every leave voter was in favour of no deal.
This is obviously completely untrue.
Farage would be outraged by a Norway deal, even though he was in favour of this during the referendum campaign.
It is foolish to think that all leave voters were of the same mind.
As only one option can be chosen, it means that only a small percentage of the electorate, will be able to feel that they got what they voted for.
Yet despite the small percentage, it is still billed as the will of the people.
How can it be?
Theresa May had a no confidence vote brought by her own party, then had another one brought by the Labour Party, there would have been a third brought by her own party, after a tiny number of them agreed a rule change, in order to facilitate this third vote, had she not resigned.
The Withdrawal Agreement has been voted on 3 times so far.
Theresa May was elected Tory Leader without a proper vote.
We had a General Election in 2015, the next one was supposed to be in 2020. Yet Theresa May decided to have one in 2017. So the next one is due in 2022, but we might have another one this year. We get no say on any of this.
Our next Prime Minister will be chosen by a very small number of the Tory Party.
They will decide our future Brexit strategy.
People go on and on about compromise, even though this seems incredibly unlikely.
Many MPs that voted for the Withdrawal Bill on the third occasion that it came before Parliament, vowed that they would not vote for it again.
This moved us further away from a compromised solution, rather than closer to.
People talk about a customs union compromise, despite the fact that this wouldn't help the Withdrawal Bill. Together with the fact that this compromise would alienate as many Tories, as the number of Labour MPs it would attract, and actually gain nothing.
The truth is this compromise has been talked about for months, but has never looked remotely likely.
There is a saying about the madness of getting up every day, doing the same things and expecting a different result.
I have said before that I am not a referendum fanatic, and would be happy if we left with a fairly close relationship with the EU. Which in my view would cause the least damage. However this would require the compromise that doesn't seem likely.
So my solution in the absence of any compromise is a confirmatory vote.
People everywhere knock this solution, but without a realistic alternative.
People everywhere blame our politicians, but haven't a clue about a solution.
People suggest compromise, but when could this happen.
Politicians are suggesting more negotiations. This is despite the fact that the EU have stated numerous time that this is not going to happen.
Another stumbling block is that by the time the new Tory leader is elected, there will be nobody in the EU to negotiate with until November, and we are due to leave in October.
Boris and a few others are prepared to leave in October with no deal.
I wont go into the reasons why no deal is not a real option.
So we could well be faced with a choice in October of leaving with no deal, or revoking Article 50. Neither of which could be considered democratic, or the will of the people. Compared to either of these solutions a confirmatory vote would be the most democratic option.
So I will say it again, I am not a second referendum fanatic, but I think it would provide a realistic solution.
Continual preaching about democracy, the will of the people, and compromise solves nothing.
Another way to look at a 2nd people’s vote is some remainers might also have changed their mind and will now vote leave.....not me...but they will have changed their mind because they now have more accurate information about what Brexit means for the UK.
I genuinely believe that a significant no of leavers did vote in the belief that eg £350+m would be recovered for use in the National Health Service...just one example of misinformation that swayed people .
There were a number of examples of what we now know is misinformation which would have swayed people to vote BOTH ways
If We knew then what We know now....2nd vote would put the issue to bed for a vast no of the population...the extremes at either end of the argument would still scream foul...as a moderate remainer, I reluctantly accept the first democratic vote outcome.
If a 2nd vote was a leave vote, I would graciously accept the genuine will of the people
Let’s then get on with more important matters that have been sidelined by Brexit.. green paper for social care for 1!
The likely scenario is as follows,
According to the bookies we get Boris Johnson as our new PM.
He wont be elected until late July.
Parliament then goes on holiday until 5th September.
They go off again for the conferences from 14th September, until 9th October.
That is 3 weeks before we leave.
There is nobody in the EU to negotiate with until November.
Based upon the time left and all the other factors, a very narrow choice will be available.
The different factions don't seem able to compromise.
Therefore the choice could well be between no deal and revoking.
Parliament has a majority in favour of stopping no deal.
Therefore they revoke.
In these circumstances, which seem very likely, supporters of democracy, and the will of the people, would surely have preferred a confirmatory vote.
For me a confirmatory vote puts it to bed.
The question would have to be no deal, remain, or a deal.
Even though Parliament has voted against no deal a number of times, it does have some support, so if you left it off the ballot, no deal supporters will moan forever.
In the original referendum there was a small majority in favour of leaving, but not how we left.
If the original ballot included the 3 choices, remain would have won hands down.
Surely anyone that was planning the referendum with the knowledge that we have today would have had at least these 3 choices, and maybe even the 4 that I referred to in the previous post.
With the knowledge that we have today, only a moron, would have just included leave and remain on the ballot.
I think that it will surely come down to a choice of no deal or revoke, and Parliament will choose revoke.
Whichever choice they make under these circumstances will make large numbers of the electorate very unhappy.
A good Prime Minister would have kept us informed, every step of the way.
I think that the public would have been more accepting of a confirmatory vote, if they had been able to understand the difficulties during the course of negotiating Brexit.
Even though Parliament has voted against no deal a number of times, it does have some support, so if you left it off the ballot, no deal supporters will moan forever.
In the original referendum there was a small majority in favour of leaving, but not how we left.
If the original ballot included the 3 choices, remain would have won hands down.
Surely anyone that was planning the referendum with the knowledge that we have today would have had at least these 3 choices, and maybe even the 4 that I referred to in the previous post.
With the knowledge that we have today, only a moron, would have just included leave and remain on the ballot.
I think that it will surely come down to a choice of no deal or revoke, and Parliament will choose revoke.
Whichever choice they make under these circumstances will make large numbers of the electorate very unhappy.
A good Prime Minister would have kept us informed, every step of the way.
I think that the public would have been more accepting of a confirmatory vote, if they had been able to understand the difficulties during the course of negotiating Brexit.
............................................................................... Democracy is a far more difficult concept than just one man, one vote. What when and how you ask questions is central to this. It is very easy to load the dice to ensure "your side" wins in a democracy.
I will give 2 examples in relation to this. Firstly, let us look at the @Haysie statement above. It is true that if we had given more than 2 options, the result would have been different. But that does not make the vote we DID have any less relevant. It is not true to say "only a moron" would just give the 2 options of "leave" and "remain". No. It is a perfectly valid question. It provides a very accurate answer. A small majority voted to leave. Which is why we should leave. However, it does not say how or when we should leave, or on what terms.
The 2nd example shows the same side of the same coin. When you just have "leave" or "remain", it is in the Leave camp's best interest to promise all things to all people. To avoid the difficult questions. To make it sound less dramatic. Look at the campaign to Leave in 2016. It was full of people saying it would be simple, the EU would be desperate to deal, we'd stay in the Customs Union, etc. Purely as a tactic to win. But that is no longer the case.
Now, after we have voted to leave, the self same people who sold us on a soft Brexit are claiming that, were we to do so, we would be "betraying" the people who voted to leave. By holding true to the things THEY promised in 2016.
Many Remainers seem to refuse to believe that 2016 happened. But so do many Brexiteers. Because they are demanding a totally different result than what they were saying in 2016.
I do not doubt that many people genuinely believe that we should leave with no deal. But they are following people who said nothing of the sort in 2016.
Another way to look at a 2nd people’s vote is some remainers might also have changed their mind and will now vote leave.....not me...but they will have changed their mind because they now have more accurate information about what Brexit means for the UK.
I genuinely believe that a significant no of leavers did vote in the belief that eg £350+m would be recovered for use in the National Health Service...just one example of misinformation that swayed people .
There were a number of examples of what we now know is misinformation which would have swayed people to vote BOTH ways
If We knew then what We know now....2nd vote would put the issue to bed for a vast no of the population...the extremes at either end of the argument would still scream foul...as a moderate remainer, I reluctantly accept the first democratic vote outcome.
If a 2nd vote was a leave vote, I would graciously accept the genuine will of the people
Let’s then get on with more important matters that have been sidelined by Brexit.. green paper for social care for 1!
The likely scenario is as follows,
According to the bookies we get Boris Johnson as our new PM.
He wont be elected until late July.
Parliament then goes on holiday until 5th September.
They go off again for the conferences from 14th September, until 9th October.
That is 3 weeks before we leave.
There is nobody in the EU to negotiate with until November.
Based upon the time left and all the other factors, a very narrow choice will be available.
The different factions don't seem able to compromise.
Therefore the choice could well be between no deal and revoking.
Parliament has a majority in favour of stopping no deal.
Therefore they revoke.
In these circumstances, which seem very likely, supporters of democracy, and the will of the people, would surely have preferred a confirmatory vote.
For me a confirmatory vote puts it to bed.
The question would have to be no deal, remain, or a deal.
Even though Parliament has voted against no deal a number of times, it does have some support, so if you left it off the ballot, no deal supporters will moan forever.
In the original referendum there was a small majority in favour of leaving, but not how we left.
If the original ballot included the 3 choices, remain would have won hands down.
Surely anyone that was planning the referendum with the knowledge that we have today would have had at least these 3 choices, and maybe even the 4 that I referred to in the previous post.
With the knowledge that we have today, only a moron, would have just included leave and remain on the ballot.
I think that it will surely come down to a choice of no deal or revoke, and Parliament will choose revoke.
Whichever choice they make under these circumstances will make large numbers of the electorate very unhappy.
A good Prime Minister would have kept us informed, every step of the way.
I think that the public would have been more accepting of a confirmatory vote, if they had been able to understand the difficulties during the course of negotiating Brexit.
Surely that is loading the question in favour of remaining as it's splitting the leave vote. Sometimes only a binary yes/no in/out vote is required for the question to be fair to both sides of the argument.
................................................................... Democracy is a far more difficult concept than just one man, one vote. What when and how you ask questions is central to this. It is very easy to load the dice to ensure "your side" wins in a democracy.
I will give 2 examples in relation to this. Firstly, let us look at the @Haysie statement above. It is true that if we had given more than 2 options, the result would have been different. But that does not make the vote we DID have any less relevant. It is not true to say "only a moron" would just give the 2 options of "leave" and "remain". No. It is a perfectly valid question. It provides a very accurate answer. A small majority voted to leave. Which is why we should leave. However, it does not say how or when we should leave, or on what terms.
The 2nd example shows the same side of the same coin. When you just have "leave" or "remain", it is in the Leave camp's best interest to promise all things to all people. To avoid the difficult questions. To make it sound less dramatic. Look at the campaign to Leave in 2016. It was full of people saying it would be simple, the EU would be desperate to deal, we'd stay in the Customs Union, etc. Purely as a tactic to win. But that is no longer the case.
Now, after we have voted to leave, the self same people who sold us on a soft Brexit are claiming that, were we to do so, we would be "betraying" the people who voted to leave. By holding true to the things THEY promised in 2016.
Many Remainers seem to refuse to believe that 2016 happened. But so do many Brexiteers. Because they are demanding a totally different result than what they were saying in 2016.
I do not doubt that many people genuinely believe that we should leave with no deal. But they are following people who said nothing of the sort in 2016.
I didn't want the referendum to be purposely biased in a particular direction.
I think that the stupidity of the question in 2016, is the main cause of where we are now.
How can you possibly argue. If the country had voted for either of the real options, we couldn't have an impasse, and the applicable option would have been implemented.
We would have left in March.
Had it been thought out properly, and there have been say the 4 options that I have referred to many times, then it would have forced our politicians to explain each option thoroughly during the campaign, and a more informed choice would have been made.
The fact that there were only 2 choices, allowed them all to lie in the way they did.
Many people probably thought that there were only two choices.
David Davies said we would get the same benefits after leaving. Boris Johnson said he liked the single market.
The leave campaign said we wouldn't leave until a deal was agreed.
A huge majority of remain voters would be happy to leave if we could stay in the single market and customs union.
Many leave voters were probably happy to vote that way, thinking we would get the same benefits, whilst still being able to leave.
If you accept there are four real choices, no deal, Canada, Norway, or remain, as Theresa Mays deal was not thought of at the time. Then what we did was group together no deal, Norway, and Canada, as Leave. If anything that biased the vote.
I have said before that someone that likes Norway, hates no deal. However the referendum grouped them together which was stupid, and biased.
Whats democratic about Boris going to court for lying, and the leave campaign breaking electoral rules, and being criminally investigated.
If any Government could get elected by breaking all the rules, with no real consequences, they surely would in every election.
I'd be happy to take?? the binary question now as part of the confirmatory vote/2nd referendum approach as I genuinely believe the general public, including myself are now better informed as to what the implications of leaving are...(oh and of staying of course!)
In an earlier discourse I proposed with dobies draws I suggested that there would be a swing to remain of approx 60/40...let's hope we all get the opportunity to test out the theory @Essexphil will you run the book? Nearest % split wins the pot??
I'd be happy to take?? the binary question now as part of the confirmatory vote/2nd referendum approach as I genuinely believe the general public, including myself are now better informed as to what the implications of leaving are...(oh and of staying of course!)
In an earlier discourse I proposed with dobies draws I suggested that there would be a swing to remain of approx 60/40...let's hope we all get the opportunity to test out the theory @Essexphil will you run the book? Nearest % split wins the pot??
No, they are not. Or "No deal" and "Ignore 2016" would not be gaining votes. 60-40? Possibly, though prob less. But chaos would ensue.
................................................................... Democracy is a far more difficult concept than just one man, one vote. What when and how you ask questions is central to this. It is very easy to load the dice to ensure "your side" wins in a democracy.
I will give 2 examples in relation to this. Firstly, let us look at the @Haysie statement above. It is true that if we had given more than 2 options, the result would have been different. But that does not make the vote we DID have any less relevant. It is not true to say "only a moron" would just give the 2 options of "leave" and "remain". No. It is a perfectly valid question. It provides a very accurate answer. A small majority voted to leave. Which is why we should leave. However, it does not say how or when we should leave, or on what terms.
The 2nd example shows the same side of the same coin. When you just have "leave" or "remain", it is in the Leave camp's best interest to promise all things to all people. To avoid the difficult questions. To make it sound less dramatic. Look at the campaign to Leave in 2016. It was full of people saying it would be simple, the EU would be desperate to deal, we'd stay in the Customs Union, etc. Purely as a tactic to win. But that is no longer the case.
Now, after we have voted to leave, the self same people who sold us on a soft Brexit are claiming that, were we to do so, we would be "betraying" the people who voted to leave. By holding true to the things THEY promised in 2016.
Many Remainers seem to refuse to believe that 2016 happened. But so do many Brexiteers. Because they are demanding a totally different result than what they were saying in 2016.
I do not doubt that many people genuinely believe that we should leave with no deal. But they are following people who said nothing of the sort in 2016.
I didn't want the referendum to be purposely biased in a particular direction.
I think that the stupidity of the question in 2016, is the main cause of where we are now.
How can you possibly argue. If the country had voted for either of the real options, we couldn't have an impasse, and the applicable option would have been implemented.
We would have left in March.
Had it been thought out properly, and there have been say the 4 options that I have referred to many times, then it would have forced our politicians to explain each option thoroughly during the campaign, and a more informed choice would have been made.
The fact that there were only 2 choices, allowed them all to lie in the way they did.
Many people probably thought that there were only two choices.
David Davies said we would get the same benefits after leaving. Boris Johnson said he liked the single market.
The leave campaign said we wouldn't leave until a deal was agreed.
A huge majority of remain voters would be happy to leave if we could stay in the single market and customs union.
Many leave voters were probably happy to vote that way, thinking we would get the same benefits, whilst still being able to leave.
If you accept there are four real choices, no deal, Canada, Norway, or remain, as Theresa Mays deal was not thought of at the time. Then what we did was group together no deal, Norway, and Canada, as Leave. If anything that biased the vote.
I have said before that someone that likes Norway, hates no deal. However the referendum grouped them together which was stupid, and biased.
Whats democratic about Boris going to court for lying, and the leave campaign breaking electoral rules, and being criminally investigated.
If any Government could get elected by breaking all the rules, with no real consequences, they surely would in every election.
................................................................... Democracy is a far more difficult concept than just one man, one vote. What when and how you ask questions is central to this. It is very easy to load the dice to ensure "your side" wins in a democracy.
I will give 2 examples in relation to this. Firstly, let us look at the @Haysie statement above. It is true that if we had given more than 2 options, the result would have been different. But that does not make the vote we DID have any less relevant. It is not true to say "only a moron" would just give the 2 options of "leave" and "remain". No. It is a perfectly valid question. It provides a very accurate answer. A small majority voted to leave. Which is why we should leave. However, it does not say how or when we should leave, or on what terms.
The 2nd example shows the same side of the same coin. When you just have "leave" or "remain", it is in the Leave camp's best interest to promise all things to all people. To avoid the difficult questions. To make it sound less dramatic. Look at the campaign to Leave in 2016. It was full of people saying it would be simple, the EU would be desperate to deal, we'd stay in the Customs Union, etc. Purely as a tactic to win. But that is no longer the case.
Now, after we have voted to leave, the self same people who sold us on a soft Brexit are claiming that, were we to do so, we would be "betraying" the people who voted to leave. By holding true to the things THEY promised in 2016.
Many Remainers seem to refuse to believe that 2016 happened. But so do many Brexiteers. Because they are demanding a totally different result than what they were saying in 2016.
I do not doubt that many people genuinely believe that we should leave with no deal. But they are following people who said nothing of the sort in 2016.
I didn't want the referendum to be purposely biased in a particular direction.
I think that the stupidity of the question in 2016, is the main cause of where we are now.
How can you possibly argue. If the country had voted for either of the real options, we couldn't have an impasse, and the applicable option would have been implemented.
We would have left in March.
Had it been thought out properly, and there have been say the 4 options that I have referred to many times, then it would have forced our politicians to explain each option thoroughly during the campaign, and a more informed choice would have been made.
The fact that there were only 2 choices, allowed them all to lie in the way they did.
Many people probably thought that there were only two choices.
David Davies said we would get the same benefits after leaving. Boris Johnson said he liked the single market.
The leave campaign said we wouldn't leave until a deal was agreed.
A huge majority of remain voters would be happy to leave if we could stay in the single market and customs union.
Many leave voters were probably happy to vote that way, thinking we would get the same benefits, whilst still being able to leave.
If you accept there are four real choices, no deal, Canada, Norway, or remain, as Theresa Mays deal was not thought of at the time. Then what we did was group together no deal, Norway, and Canada, as Leave. If anything that biased the vote.
I have said before that someone that likes Norway, hates no deal. However the referendum grouped them together which was stupid, and biased.
Whats democratic about Boris going to court for lying, and the leave campaign breaking electoral rules, and being criminally investigated.
If any Government could get elected by breaking all the rules, with no real consequences, they surely would in every election.
Anyway all that is just reliving the past.
What are we going to do?
Be prepared for yet another extension.
We are not going to be ready in time. But us leaving without a deal is becoming a lot more likely.
................................................................... Democracy is a far more difficult concept than just one man, one vote. What when and how you ask questions is central to this. It is very easy to load the dice to ensure "your side" wins in a democracy.
I will give 2 examples in relation to this. Firstly, let us look at the @Haysie statement above. It is true that if we had given more than 2 options, the result would have been different. But that does not make the vote we DID have any less relevant. It is not true to say "only a moron" would just give the 2 options of "leave" and "remain". No. It is a perfectly valid question. It provides a very accurate answer. A small majority voted to leave. Which is why we should leave. However, it does not say how or when we should leave, or on what terms.
The 2nd example shows the same side of the same coin. When you just have "leave" or "remain", it is in the Leave camp's best interest to promise all things to all people. To avoid the difficult questions. To make it sound less dramatic. Look at the campaign to Leave in 2016. It was full of people saying it would be simple, the EU would be desperate to deal, we'd stay in the Customs Union, etc. Purely as a tactic to win. But that is no longer the case.
Now, after we have voted to leave, the self same people who sold us on a soft Brexit are claiming that, were we to do so, we would be "betraying" the people who voted to leave. By holding true to the things THEY promised in 2016.
Many Remainers seem to refuse to believe that 2016 happened. But so do many Brexiteers. Because they are demanding a totally different result than what they were saying in 2016.
I do not doubt that many people genuinely believe that we should leave with no deal. But they are following people who said nothing of the sort in 2016.
I didn't want the referendum to be purposely biased in a particular direction.
I think that the stupidity of the question in 2016, is the main cause of where we are now.
How can you possibly argue. If the country had voted for either of the real options, we couldn't have an impasse, and the applicable option would have been implemented.
We would have left in March.
Had it been thought out properly, and there have been say the 4 options that I have referred to many times, then it would have forced our politicians to explain each option thoroughly during the campaign, and a more informed choice would have been made.
The fact that there were only 2 choices, allowed them all to lie in the way they did.
Many people probably thought that there were only two choices.
David Davies said we would get the same benefits after leaving. Boris Johnson said he liked the single market.
The leave campaign said we wouldn't leave until a deal was agreed.
A huge majority of remain voters would be happy to leave if we could stay in the single market and customs union.
Many leave voters were probably happy to vote that way, thinking we would get the same benefits, whilst still being able to leave.
If you accept there are four real choices, no deal, Canada, Norway, or remain, as Theresa Mays deal was not thought of at the time. Then what we did was group together no deal, Norway, and Canada, as Leave. If anything that biased the vote.
I have said before that someone that likes Norway, hates no deal. However the referendum grouped them together which was stupid, and biased.
Whats democratic about Boris going to court for lying, and the leave campaign breaking electoral rules, and being criminally investigated.
If any Government could get elected by breaking all the rules, with no real consequences, they surely would in every election.
Anyway all that is just reliving the past.
What are we going to do?
Be prepared for yet another extension.
We are not going to be ready in time. But us leaving without a deal is becoming a lot more likely.
It would appear that Mr Bercow will do his best to avoid no deal, and the likes of Dominic Grieve, and Philip Hammond will do whatever it takes to avoid it including supporting a no confidence motion in the Government, if necessary. If it comes down to no deal or revoke, I think Parliament will narrowly choose to revoke
I tend to agree...then i think there would be anarchy, giving the extreme leavers/brexit party even more ammunition..that's why a confirmatory/2nd referendum binary vote-Leave or Remain-again based on what we now know to be true(r) is more preferable
Still...if we do leave, at least we've got 350zillion pounds a week to pump into the NHS, eh Boris and the face you would have most like to punch until JRMogg came along, Gove!
I caught the tail end of a radio interview in the week and the guest (can't remember who) was convinced there would be another extension.So is an extension not a possibility or possible but very unlikely?
Comments
As I stated originally I saw people being interviewed on the street by regional news programmes asking for their opinions and numerous people who voted remain stated they were voting Brexit Party in the EU elections.Most giving the reason that they thought the government had failed the public vote by not delivering brexit. Are you saying that with all the news and current affairs programmes that you must watch,that you never heard a remainer state they was voting Brexit Party? I find that very hard to believe.
No, I have seen many that have changed their minds. Probably far more in the opposite direction. A very good reason for a confirmatory vote. People should be allowed to change minds.
What I found curious is that you referred to someone voting for the Brexit Party, as remainers, even though they had very obviously become brexiteers.
This is not a criticism bye the way. I just found it curious, rather than wrong.
Will we be labelled for ever, according to how we voted in the referendum?
What should we call people that didn't vote?
1. Would you agree that are at least 4 Brexit options that have some popularity?
2. Lets call them, Theresa Mays deal, Norway plus, Canada plus, and no deal.
3. Would you agree that these are options that are widely talked about in the media?
4. Do you think that the 52% that voted leave thought they were al voting for the same option?
Bolded bits in order.
Agree.
Ex-Remainers.
Abstainers.
1.Yes.
2.Agree.
3.Yes. They are now,when it's too late.
4.Yes/No. To leave the EU yes BUT all Brexit options were not discussed before the vote.I would think that quite a few % thought leaving would be a straight forward process and not as complicated as it has proven to be.
No, I have seen many that have changed their minds. Probably far more in the opposite direction. A very good reason for a confirmatory vote. People should be allowed to change minds.
What I found curious is that you referred to someone voting for the Brexit Party, as remainers, even though they had very obviously become brexiteers.
This is not a criticism bye the way. I just found it curious, rather than wrong.
Will we be labelled for ever, according to how we voted in the referendum?
What should we call people that didn't vote?
1. Would you agree that are at least 4 Brexit options that have some popularity?
2. Lets call them, Theresa Mays deal, Norway plus, Canada plus, and no deal.
3. Would you agree that these are options that are widely talked about in the media?
4. Do you think that the 52% that voted leave thought they were al voting for the same option?
Bolded bits in order.
Agree.
Ex-Remainers.
Abstainers.
1.Yes.
2.Agree.
3.Yes. They are now,when it's too late.
4.Yes/No. To leave the EU yes BUT all Brexit options were not discussed before the vote.I would think that quite a few % thought leaving would be a straight forward process and not as complicated as it has proven to be.
Ok so how many Brexit voters think they voted for each of the 4 options?
Should we say they are all equal, so of the 52% that voted to leave, 13% thought they were voting for each option?
Would you agree that these options are radically different?
For instance no deal is radically different from say Norway plus, which is hardly leaving. Therefore a person that voted to leave that was in favour of no deal, would feel outraged if we ended up with Norway plus?
So the four most popular 4 options all constitute leaving, but are radically different?
What I found curious is that you referred to someone voting for the Brexit Party, as remainers, even though they had very obviously become brexiteers.
This is not a criticism bye the way. I just found it curious, rather than wrong.
Will we be labelled for ever, according to how we voted in the referendum?
What should we call people that didn't vote?
1. Would you agree that are at least 4 Brexit options that have some popularity?
2. Lets call them, Theresa Mays deal, Norway plus, Canada plus, and no deal.
3. Would you agree that these are options that are widely talked about in the media?
4. Do you think that the 52% that voted leave thought they were al voting for the same option?
Bolded bits in order.
Agree.
Ex-Remainers.
Abstainers.
1.Yes.
2.Agree.
3.Yes. They are now,when it's too late.
4.Yes/No. To leave the EU yes BUT all Brexit options were not discussed before the vote.I would think that quite a few % thought leaving would be a straight forward process and not as complicated as it has proven to be.
Ok so how many Brexit voters think they voted for each of the 4 options?
Should we say they are all equal, so of the 52% that voted to leave, 13% thought they were voting for each option?
Would you agree that these options are radically different?
For instance no deal is radically different from say Norway plus, which is hardly leaving. Therefore a person that voted to leave that was in favour of no deal, would feel outraged if we ended up with Norway plus?
So the four most popular 4 options all constitute leaving, but are radically different?
My point is that all these 'options' only came to prominence after the vote,whilst during campaigning both sides were too busy trying to discredit the others views/opinions.The referendum question was a simple leave or remain,which was answered.How the result got implemented was down to the government,which it has failed to do.The public are not to blame for answering the question (regardless of the result) that was asked of them.My personal view now is to leave asap then deal with the consequences,otherwise this is going to drag on and on for the foreseeable future with nothing resolved.
In these elections remain was the winner, not Farage. What mattered beyond the number of seats won was the sum of remain votes. Lib Dem, Green, Scottish National party, Plaid Cymru and Change UK outpolled Brexit and Ukip by 40.4% remain to 34.9% hard Brexit. Now add in Labour and Conservative votes, divided – as pollsters Britain Thinks and YouGov suggest – by allocating 80% of Tory votes to leave, and 60% of Labour votes to remain. That suggests a remain win in a referendum by 50% to 47%. Certain? Of course not – it’s close – but this three-point remain majority certainly makes it a democratic outrage to press ahead with any kind of Brexit without giving voters the final say. And what is not in doubt is that there’s a clear majority against a no-deal Brexit.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/brexit/remainers-won-these-elections-–-and-theyd-win-a-second-brexit-referendum/ar-AAC1lhq?ocid=spartandhp
Bolded bits in order.
Agree.
Ex-Remainers.
Abstainers.
1.Yes.
2.Agree.
3.Yes. They are now,when it's too late.
4.Yes/No. To leave the EU yes BUT all Brexit options were not discussed before the vote.I would think that quite a few % thought leaving would be a straight forward process and not as complicated as it has proven to be.
Ok so how many Brexit voters think they voted for each of the 4 options?
Should we say they are all equal, so of the 52% that voted to leave, 13% thought they were voting for each option?
Would you agree that these options are radically different?
For instance no deal is radically different from say Norway plus, which is hardly leaving. Therefore a person that voted to leave that was in favour of no deal, would feel outraged if we ended up with Norway plus?
So the four most popular 4 options all constitute leaving, but are radically different?
My point is that all these 'options' only came to prominence after the vote,whilst during campaigning both sides were too busy trying to discredit the others views/opinions.The referendum question was a simple leave or remain,which was answered.How the result got implemented was down to the government,which it has failed to do.The public are not to blame for answering the question (regardless of the result) that was asked of them.My personal view now is to leave asap then deal with the consequences,otherwise this is going to drag on and on for the foreseeable future with nothing resolved.
I have to disagree.
There were people debating the benefits, of the different options in the referendum campaign. Although far less than they are now.
The referendum was based on a simple question, that had a complex answer.
I assume you can see the point that I was trying to make.
We can only leave by choosing one option, and therefore, only a small percentage of leave voters can feel they got what they voted for.
Yet people still support the democracy, and will of the people argument.
If say 13% of the people get what they feel they voted for, how can it possibly be the will of the people?
I agree that you cant blame the public, they did what was asked of them.
No deal clearly doesn't exist.
Nobody seems to have a solution other than the extremes.
I am not a referendum fanatic, but I have been saying for a long time that it would provide a solution. One that we are probably closer to, than ever before.
I would be happy with a deal that kept us fairly close to the EU.
I think it will come down to a no deal, even though that doesn't really exist, revoking Article 50, or confirmatory vote.
Look at the 2015 election as an example.
UKIP polled 3,88,099 votes with a 12.6% share of votes,total MP's returned 1.
SNP polled 1,454,436 votes with a 4.7% share of votes,total MP's returned 56.
The winning Conservatives polled 36.8% meaning 63.2% didn't want them in power. Again,was there a demand for a re-run of the election,no the parties accepted the results and moved on.
If people are unhappy with results of an election/referendum the way to change it is to use your vote at the next opportunity to back a party which represents your views,that is democracy.
I genuinely believe that a significant no of leavers did vote in the belief that eg £350+m would be recovered for use in the National Health Service...just one example of misinformation that swayed people .
There were a number of examples of what we now know is misinformation which would have swayed people to vote BOTH ways
If We knew then what We know now....2nd vote would put the issue to bed for a vast no of the population...the extremes at either end of the argument would still scream foul...as a moderate remainer, I reluctantly accept the first democratic vote outcome.
If a 2nd vote was a leave vote, I would graciously accept the genuine will of the people
Let’s then get on with more important matters that have been sidelined by Brexit.. green paper for social care for 1!
My point is that the referendum question was simple, but the answer is complex.
We still don't know what the answer is.
We agreed there seem to be 4 possible solutions.
Only one of these solutions can be chosen.
Leave voters feel they voted for a particular solution.
Farage claims that every leave voter was in favour of no deal.
This is obviously completely untrue.
Farage would be outraged by a Norway deal, even though he was in favour of this during the referendum campaign.
It is foolish to think that all leave voters were of the same mind.
As only one option can be chosen, it means that only a small percentage of the electorate, will be able to feel that they got what they voted for.
Yet despite the small percentage, it is still billed as the will of the people.
How can it be?
Theresa May had a no confidence vote brought by her own party, then had another one brought by the Labour Party, there would have been a third brought by her own party, after a tiny number of them agreed a rule change, in order to facilitate this third vote, had she not resigned.
The Withdrawal Agreement has been voted on 3 times so far.
Theresa May was elected Tory Leader without a proper vote.
We had a General Election in 2015, the next one was supposed to be in 2020. Yet Theresa May decided to have one in 2017. So the next one is due in 2022, but we might have another one this year. We get no say on any of this.
Our next Prime Minister will be chosen by a very small number of the Tory Party.
They will decide our future Brexit strategy.
People go on and on about compromise, even though this seems incredibly unlikely.
Many MPs that voted for the Withdrawal Bill on the third occasion that it came before Parliament, vowed that they would not vote for it again.
This moved us further away from a compromised solution, rather than closer to.
People talk about a customs union compromise, despite the fact that this wouldn't help the Withdrawal Bill. Together with the fact that this compromise would alienate as many Tories, as the number of Labour MPs it would attract, and actually gain nothing.
The truth is this compromise has been talked about for months, but has never looked remotely likely.
There is a saying about the madness of getting up every day, doing the same things and expecting a different result.
I have said before that I am not a referendum fanatic, and would be happy if we left with a fairly close relationship with the EU. Which in my view would cause the least damage. However this would require the compromise that doesn't seem likely.
So my solution in the absence of any compromise is a confirmatory vote.
People everywhere knock this solution, but without a realistic alternative.
People everywhere blame our politicians, but haven't a clue about a solution.
People suggest compromise, but when could this happen.
Politicians are suggesting more negotiations. This is despite the fact that the EU have stated numerous time that this is not going to happen.
Another stumbling block is that by the time the new Tory leader is elected, there will be nobody in the EU to negotiate with until November, and we are due to leave in October.
Boris and a few others are prepared to leave in October with no deal.
I wont go into the reasons why no deal is not a real option.
So we could well be faced with a choice in October of leaving with no deal, or revoking Article 50. Neither of which could be considered democratic, or the will of the people. Compared to either of these solutions a confirmatory vote would be the most democratic option.
So I will say it again, I am not a second referendum fanatic, but I think it would provide a realistic solution.
Continual preaching about democracy, the will of the people, and compromise solves nothing.
According to the bookies we get Boris Johnson as our new PM.
He wont be elected until late July.
Parliament then goes on holiday until 5th September.
They go off again for the conferences from 14th September, until 9th October.
That is 3 weeks before we leave.
There is nobody in the EU to negotiate with until November.
Based upon the time left and all the other factors, a very narrow choice will be available.
The different factions don't seem able to compromise.
Therefore the choice could well be between no deal and revoking.
Parliament has a majority in favour of stopping no deal.
Therefore they revoke.
In these circumstances, which seem very likely, supporters of democracy, and the will of the people, would surely have preferred a confirmatory vote.
For me a confirmatory vote puts it to bed.
The question would have to be no deal, remain, or a deal.
Even though Parliament has voted against no deal a number of times, it does have some support, so if you left it off the ballot, no deal supporters will moan forever.
In the original referendum there was a small majority in favour of leaving, but not how we left.
If the original ballot included the 3 choices, remain would have won hands down.
Surely anyone that was planning the referendum with the knowledge that we have today would have had at least these 3 choices, and maybe even the 4 that I referred to in the previous post.
With the knowledge that we have today, only a moron, would have just included leave and remain on the ballot.
I think that it will surely come down to a choice of no deal or revoke, and Parliament will choose revoke.
Whichever choice they make under these circumstances will make large numbers of the electorate very unhappy.
A good Prime Minister would have kept us informed, every step of the way.
I think that the public would have been more accepting of a confirmatory vote, if they had been able to understand the difficulties during the course of negotiating Brexit.
Even though Parliament has voted against no deal a number of times, it does have some support, so if you left it off the ballot, no deal supporters will moan forever.
In the original referendum there was a small majority in favour of leaving, but not how we left.
If the original ballot included the 3 choices, remain would have won hands down.
Surely anyone that was planning the referendum with the knowledge that we have today would have had at least these 3 choices, and maybe even the 4 that I referred to in the previous post.
With the knowledge that we have today, only a moron, would have just included leave and remain on the ballot.
I think that it will surely come down to a choice of no deal or revoke, and Parliament will choose revoke.
Whichever choice they make under these circumstances will make large numbers of the electorate very unhappy.
A good Prime Minister would have kept us informed, every step of the way.
I think that the public would have been more accepting of a confirmatory vote, if they had been able to understand the difficulties during the course of negotiating Brexit.
...............................................................................
Democracy is a far more difficult concept than just one man, one vote. What when and how you ask questions is central to this. It is very easy to load the dice to ensure "your side" wins in a democracy.
I will give 2 examples in relation to this. Firstly, let us look at the @Haysie statement above. It is true that if we had given more than 2 options, the result would have been different. But that does not make the vote we DID have any less relevant. It is not true to say "only a moron" would just give the 2 options of "leave" and "remain". No. It is a perfectly valid question. It provides a very accurate answer. A small majority voted to leave. Which is why we should leave. However, it does not say how or when we should leave, or on what terms.
The 2nd example shows the same side of the same coin. When you just have "leave" or "remain", it is in the Leave camp's best interest to promise all things to all people. To avoid the difficult questions. To make it sound less dramatic. Look at the campaign to Leave in 2016. It was full of people saying it would be simple, the EU would be desperate to deal, we'd stay in the Customs Union, etc. Purely as a tactic to win. But that is no longer the case.
Now, after we have voted to leave, the self same people who sold us on a soft Brexit are claiming that, were we to do so, we would be "betraying" the people who voted to leave. By holding true to the things THEY promised in 2016.
Many Remainers seem to refuse to believe that 2016 happened. But so do many Brexiteers. Because they are demanding a totally different result than what they were saying in 2016.
I do not doubt that many people genuinely believe that we should leave with no deal. But they are following people who said nothing of the sort in 2016.
Democracy is a far more difficult concept than just one man, one vote. What when and how you ask questions is central to this. It is very easy to load the dice to ensure "your side" wins in a democracy.
I will give 2 examples in relation to this. Firstly, let us look at the @Haysie statement above. It is true that if we had given more than 2 options, the result would have been different. But that does not make the vote we DID have any less relevant. It is not true to say "only a moron" would just give the 2 options of "leave" and "remain". No. It is a perfectly valid question. It provides a very accurate answer. A small majority voted to leave. Which is why we should leave. However, it does not say how or when we should leave, or on what terms.
The 2nd example shows the same side of the same coin. When you just have "leave" or "remain", it is in the Leave camp's best interest to promise all things to all people. To avoid the difficult questions. To make it sound less dramatic. Look at the campaign to Leave in 2016. It was full of people saying it would be simple, the EU would be desperate to deal, we'd stay in the Customs Union, etc. Purely as a tactic to win. But that is no longer the case.
Now, after we have voted to leave, the self same people who sold us on a soft Brexit are claiming that, were we to do so, we would be "betraying" the people who voted to leave. By holding true to the things THEY promised in 2016.
Many Remainers seem to refuse to believe that 2016 happened. But so do many Brexiteers. Because they are demanding a totally different result than what they were saying in 2016.
I do not doubt that many people genuinely believe that we should leave with no deal. But they are following people who said nothing of the sort in 2016.
I didn't want the referendum to be purposely biased in a particular direction.
I think that the stupidity of the question in 2016, is the main cause of where we are now.
How can you possibly argue. If the country had voted for either of the real options, we couldn't have an impasse, and the applicable option would have been implemented.
We would have left in March.
Had it been thought out properly, and there have been say the 4 options that I have referred to many times, then it would have forced our politicians to explain each option thoroughly during the campaign, and a more informed choice would have been made.
The fact that there were only 2 choices, allowed them all to lie in the way they did.
Many people probably thought that there were only two choices.
David Davies said we would get the same benefits after leaving. Boris Johnson said he liked the single market.
The leave campaign said we wouldn't leave until a deal was agreed.
A huge majority of remain voters would be happy to leave if we could stay in the single market and customs union.
Many leave voters were probably happy to vote that way, thinking we would get the same benefits, whilst still being able to leave.
If you accept there are four real choices, no deal, Canada, Norway, or remain, as Theresa Mays deal was not thought of at the time. Then what we did was group together no deal, Norway, and Canada, as Leave. If anything that biased the vote.
I have said before that someone that likes Norway, hates no deal. However the referendum grouped them together which was stupid, and biased.
Whats democratic about Boris going to court for lying, and the leave campaign breaking electoral rules, and being criminally investigated.
If any Government could get elected by breaking all the rules, with no real consequences, they surely would in every election.
Anyway all that is just reliving the past.
What are we going to do?
In an earlier discourse I proposed with dobies draws I suggested that there would be a swing to remain of approx 60/40...let's hope we all get the opportunity to test out the theory @Essexphil will you run the book? Nearest % split wins the pot??
Or "No deal" and "Ignore 2016" would not be gaining votes.
60-40? Possibly, though prob less. But chaos would ensue.
I didn't want the referendum to be purposely biased in a particular direction.
I think that the stupidity of the question in 2016, is the main cause of where we are now.
How can you possibly argue. If the country had voted for either of the real options, we couldn't have an impasse, and the applicable option would have been implemented.
We would have left in March.
Had it been thought out properly, and there have been say the 4 options that I have referred to many times, then it would have forced our politicians to explain each option thoroughly during the campaign, and a more informed choice would have been made.
The fact that there were only 2 choices, allowed them all to lie in the way they did.
Many people probably thought that there were only two choices.
David Davies said we would get the same benefits after leaving. Boris Johnson said he liked the single market.
The leave campaign said we wouldn't leave until a deal was agreed.
A huge majority of remain voters would be happy to leave if we could stay in the single market and customs union.
Many leave voters were probably happy to vote that way, thinking we would get the same benefits, whilst still being able to leave.
If you accept there are four real choices, no deal, Canada, Norway, or remain, as Theresa Mays deal was not thought of at the time. Then what we did was group together no deal, Norway, and Canada, as Leave. If anything that biased the vote.
I have said before that someone that likes Norway, hates no deal. However the referendum grouped them together which was stupid, and biased.
Whats democratic about Boris going to court for lying, and the leave campaign breaking electoral rules, and being criminally investigated.
If any Government could get elected by breaking all the rules, with no real consequences, they surely would in every election.
Anyway all that is just reliving the past.
What are we going to do?
Be prepared for yet another extension.
We are not going to be ready in time.
But us leaving without a deal is becoming a lot more likely.
But us leaving without a deal is becoming a lot more likely.
It would appear that Mr Bercow will do his best to avoid no deal, and the likes of Dominic Grieve, and Philip Hammond will do whatever it takes to avoid it including supporting a no confidence motion in the Government, if necessary.
If it comes down to no deal or revoke, I think Parliament will narrowly choose to revoke
Still...if we do leave, at least we've got 350zillion pounds a week to pump into the NHS, eh Boris and the face you would have most like to punch until JRMogg came along, Gove!