[Politics] Brexit

[melias shoes]

There is nothing in your response that makes sense, grammatically or factually. You should work on that.

I sense you're an angry man. Time for a tea break.

 

[Soulman]

I expect nothing else from you.


Tatty bye.

Au revoir Nibble, sort yourself out.

 

[The Clamp]

Appreciate your points. However no matter how hard you try to gloss over it ,it would have been business as usual.

Translation "you are of course correct, we all know that but I'm not going to admit that so I'll just repeat what I said".

 

[The Clamp]

I sense you're an angry man. Time for a tea break.

You and the word "sense" are not natural bedfellows.

 

[melias shoes]

You and the word "sense" are not natural bedfellows.

Still angry?

 

[The Clamp]

Still angry?

One of the standard responses from certain types of poster when they have nothing of any substance to say is "you're angry". It's up there with "I'm a bigger fan than you" as far as comebacks go. It's basically an indicator that the poster hasn't got the wherewithal to come up with a decent argument. When it gets to that point, you're better off just stopping.

To address your concern though, no. I'm not angry. I hope that puts your mind at rest.

 

[GT49er]

It is of limited value to speculate what would have happened if it had been 48-52 the other way but I would have hoped that it would have been a massive wake-up call to remainers like me and should have prompted some major questions to be asked about why so many millions voted to leave. This process would probably have been traumatic given my liberal-leftie cosmopolitan leanings but it would have been the only responsible course of action. I suspect that Cameron in his laziness and arrogance would have carried on as usual and Corbyn will have reached for his 1983-era cliché book but pretending that it was business as usual would have been extremely irresponsible and disrespectful to a large proportion of the population.

But that's exactly what would have happened - it's how the EU works. It was bad luck for remain that 17 and a half million voters realised it too.

The one thing that all on the remain side must have realised would be that there would be substantial opposition to any further integration and that, although the remain side won, there is no evidence that a massive majority of remainers would want closer ties with Europe.

Would they though? I seriously doubt if the EU mandarins (and the remainers in Parliament and Government here) would have taken a vote to remain - no matter how small the margin - as anything other than a ringing endorsement of everything they wanted to do, and ploughed on regardless, but at an even greater speed.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

That's exactly what would have happened but because the withdrawal of the EU is such a long drawn out process the remainers are finding it so hard to accept. Still clinging to hope that perhaps just perhaps they can have the decision overturned. We have to stay in this part we have to stay in that part they .whine. No we don't leavers want out and you cannot ignore the will of the MAJORITY of the people.

Like you said JC if the result had been a win for remain we wouldn't even be having this debate. It would have been business as usual. The EU steam rolling ahead with it's agenda. Don't for one minute think that they wouldn't have punished us for even daring to have a referendum.

Another thing on the day of the referendum it was being widely reported and predicted that we would be staying in the EU. I seem to remember myself and others although disappointed accepting this fact. Then we awoke the next day and BOOM we had voted OUT. So began the collective meltdown. Unable to accept the result the insults started to fly. We all know what they were. Idiots etc,racists etc. Blah blah blah. Time to move on and accept the result.

Absolutely. It is possible to have reasonable debates with people who have fully accepted the result and the inevitable consequences, leaving the internal/single market etc. Which a significant number who voted remain already have. They are worthwhile as common ground can probably be found helping to bring the country back together. Less so with people seeking to undermine or reverse the referendum result!

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Utterly unconvincing. Slippery.

You really should give up this hilarious, delusional facade that you are only intersted in reasonable debate. You are as partisan and one eyed as any of the most strident Brexiteers on this thread but unlike you I expect many of them would have moved on from the referendum and accepted the democratic will of the majority if the result had been reversed.

I am certainly partisan but I like to hear other people's well-based arguments and I'm certainly not one-eyed. The truly one-eyed tend to rely on flimflam semantics, silly word play, pompous declaiming and tired name-calling.

And it was clear before the referendum (which I said on here you'd win) that Leave campaigners would fight on if they lost. I agree with you though that many of the 'strident Brexiteers' on this thread would have drifted off more quickly that some of us Remainers have.

 

[melias shoes]

One of the standard responses from certain types of poster when they have nothing of any substance to say is "you're angry". It's up there with "I'm a bigger fan than you" as far as comebacks go. It's basically an indicator that the poster hasn't got the wherewithal to come up with a decent argument. When it gets to that point, you're better off just stopping.

To address your concern though, no. I'm not angry. I hope that puts your mind at rest.

It does. Thanks.

 

[Soulman]

I agree with you though that many of the 'strident Brexiteers' on this thread would have drifted off more quickly that some of us Remainers have.

Considering most of the Leave voters thought that with the biased campaign, through the media etc, that Remain would win.....so i think most would have acepted the result and moved on, not bleating and whining nearly 8 months later.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

It is of limited value to speculate what would have happened if it had been 48-52 the other way but I would have hoped that it would have been a massive wake-up call to remainers like me and should have prompted some major questions to be asked about why so many millions voted to leave. This process would probably have been traumatic given my liberal-leftie cosmopolitan leanings but it would have been the only responsible course of action. I suspect that Cameron in his laziness and arrogance would have carried on as usual and Corbyn will have reached for his 1983-era cliché book but pretending that it was business as usual would have been extremely irresponsible and disrespectful to a large proportion of the population. The one thing that all on the remain side must have realised would be that there would be substantial opposition to any further integration and that, although the remain side won, there is no evidence that a massive majority of remainers would want closer ties with Europe.

In this scenario I would have expected UKIP and other Eurosceptics to be emboldened by the result and see it as a step in the direction of an eventual departure. With every new political development within the EU, security issue etc. they would have said that the conditions had changed and used these as grounds for a further vote. Had a bill been presented that furthered or re-inforced integration I would never expect Carswell or seasoned Tory Eurosceptics to support it. This overall approach would be totally reasonable and consistent with the views of these people and, rather than undermining democracy, would be a healthy exercise of it. I would hope that the response to these continuing leave campaigners would have been to challenge their arguments and not just the ‘sit down, shut up’ which we see so much of now.

Interesting points. Others have already covered the likely (inevitable) response from the UK/EU establishment. I would only add our government would have probably made some vague eurosceptic noises about fighting our corner pushing for reform to placate the losing side. In reality, Camerons meagre pre-referendum deal would most likely be the high water mark for trying to halt the inevitable. Agree there is probably a significant majority against ever closer union but this has been the case for some time. Why would they be more likely to change after we had just endorsed our current direction of travel? I suppose at best we might have ended up with 2nd tier membership leading a minority of more trade-focused nations while the central majority core Eurozone countries with a guaranteed majority voting block ploughed on, sidelining us wherever possible.

There is one major difference in your scenario. The wishes of the democratic majority in a remain vote would be automatically respected as our membership is retained. Many of those arguing vociferously in a UKIP esque style for diluting or reversing the referendum result are obviously seeking to thwart the democratic majorities wishes before they can be enacted. Inherently undemocratic and extraordinarily dangerous in my book.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

I am certainly partisan but I like to hear other people's well-based arguments and I'm certainly not one-eyed. The truly one-eyed tend to rely on flimflam semantics, silly word play, pompous declaiming and tired name-calling.

And it was clear before the referendum (which I said on here you'd win) that Leave campaigners would fight on if they lost. I agree with you though that many of the 'strident Brexiteers' on this thread would have drifted off more quickly that some of us Remainers have.

To give you credit you were one of the very few people who said you thought Leave would win.

 

[cheshunt seagull]

But that's exactly what would have happened - it's how the EU works. It was bad luck for remain that 17 and a half million voters realised it too.


Would they though? I seriously doubt if the EU mandarins (and the remainers in Parliament and Government here) would have taken a vote to remain - no matter how small the margin - as anything other than a ringing endorsement of everything they wanted to do, and ploughed on regardless, but at an even greater speed.

I think history means that scepticism about the responses from the EU and UK establishment is understandable but I am not convinced that there would have been no fallout from such a close contest. There are many remainers like me that were aware of a need to reform the EU and were not in favour of further integration and would have argued the increased urgency of this reform. There are also elected officials in the UK and European Parliaments that will have been frightened by a very large Leave vote. I spend some time on EU-funded projects and have to visit the leavers “Heart of Darkness’ that is the EC in Brussels and there isn’t quite the uniformity of views about the future direction of the EU from the supposed apparachiks and mandarins that I meet there that some might expect. Another point that has been made clear from spending lots of time with colleagues from other EU countries is that the way that they view the EU overall is not that different to us but most would want to bring about change by staying in and governments in these countries could not ignore a close result in the UK. So, I think there would have been some momentum for change. Maybe we will get some indication of this in relation to EU institutions if there are some interesting election results in Europe in 2017.

 

[GT49er]

I think history means that scepticism about the responses from the EU and UK establishment is understandable but I am not convinced that there would have been no fallout from such a close contest. There are many remainers like me that were aware of a need to reform the EU and were not in favour of further integration and would have argued the increased urgency of this reform. There are also elected officials in the UK and European Parliaments that will have been frightened by a very large Leave vote. I spend some time on EU-funded projects and have to visit the leavers “Heart of Darkness’ that is the EC in Brussels and there isn’t quite the uniformity of views about the future direction of the EU from the supposed apparachiks and mandarins that I meet there that some might expect. Another point that has been made clear from spending lots of time with colleagues from other EU countries is that the way that they view the EU overall is not that different to us but most would want to bring about change by staying in and governments in these countries could not ignore a close result in the UK. So, I think there would have been some momentum for change. Maybe we will get some indication of this in relation to EU institutions if there are some interesting election results in Europe in 2017.

Fair enough - but I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I still regard the EU as a juggernaut that we couldn't stop or control, so getting off was the only course to take. The UK leaving may shake up the mandarins a bit, but if we'd voted to remain, no chance! IMHO, of course.

 

[Two Professors]

You are absolutely bonkers. The stuff you make up in your own head

Oh dear,oh dear,I hope your teacher didn't see that or you might get detention for stupidity.Or perhaps too much 'one love' has made you a bit blind.I should cut back on it a bit,and try doing your homework

 

[cheshunt seagull]

Interesting points. Others have already covered the likely (inevitable) response from the UK/EU establishment. I would only add our government would have probably made some vague eurosceptic noises about fighting our corner pushing for reform to placate the losing side. In reality, Camerons meagre pre-referendum deal would most likely be the high water mark for trying to halt the inevitable. Agree there is probably a significant majority against ever closer union but this has been the case for some time. Why would they be more likely to change after we had just endorsed our current direction of travel? I suppose at best we might have ended up with 2nd tier membership leading a minority of more trade-focused nations while the central majority core Eurozone countries with a guaranteed majority voting block ploughed on, sidelining us wherever possible.

There is one major difference in your scenario. The wishes of the democratic majority in a remain vote would be automatically respected as our membership is retained. Many of those arguing vociferously in a UKIP esque style for diluting or reversing the referendum result are obviously seeking to thwart the democratic majorities wishes before they can be enacted. Inherently undemocratic and extraordinarily dangerous in my book.

This is a valid distinction between the 2 scenarios. However there is a difference between trying to reverse the decision with a 2nd referendum (best of three?), which I think is undemocratic, and discussing what form Brexit will take which is a valid area for debate and scrutiny as the referendum result provides no specific guidance. Another factor that makes the implications of the outcomes different is that in one case the question can be returned to in future whereas, in practice, the other outcome cannot be reversed. Many of us that believed in one vision of the future have seen that taken away forever and it takes some time to adapt to that level of finality.

 

[One Love]

Oh dear,oh dear,I hope your teacher didn't see that or you might get detention for stupidity.Or perhaps too much 'one love' has made you a bit blind.I should cut back on it a bit,and try doing your homework

In your own head I imagine you are the king of repartee.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

This is a valid distinction between the 2 scenarios. However there is a difference between trying to reverse the decision with a 2nd referendum (best of three?), which I think is undemocratic, and discussing what form Brexit will take which is a valid area for debate and scrutiny as the referendum result provides no specific guidance. Another factor that makes the implications of the outcomes different is that in one case the question can be returned to in future whereas, in practice, the other outcome cannot be reversed. Many of us that believed in one vision of the future have seen that taken away forever and it takes some time to adapt to that level of finality.

Yes, there is a difference although some people do seem to be using the guise of discussion/scrutiny as another avenue to thwart the result. I also don't buy this conveniently attempted separation of reasons why people voted with their vote. Of course, it is impossible to know why everyone voted but there were broad themes on both sides 'taking back control' of sovereignty - laws/democracy/immigration versus mainly economic arguments. It seems slightly perverse to think the main reasoning and concerns of the minority could still be put before the majority reasons/concerns. Sort of a second prize. Retaining membership of the internal market = retaining free movement, continued primacy of EU law. Not only perverse but politically suicidal for any government wishing to go down that path. Yes, the minority view should be accommodated as much as possible, which the government seem prepared to do ie getting best possible access to the internal/single market without compromising some fundamental goals which are more in line with the majority view.

In theory, both decisions could be reversed sometime in the future but I agree In practice either decision would have seem terribly final to the losing side. Also, the chances of the UK political establishment ever delegating real power to the people again after such a close call would be slim to non-existant.

 

[Seagull58]

FTSE 250 hits new record high

and the European Commission revises its estimate for Britain's economic growth in 2017 up from 1% to 1.5%.

Armageddon postponed again?