[Politics] Brexit

[Lever]

If it's so simple why can peoiple who voted and campaigned for Leave not agree on what it was they were campaigning for? Was it Norway or was it No Deal? And if one leave supporter says one thing, why does their vote count more than another who says differently?

I agree and the fight to seize the spurious moral high ground has been weaponised so that people say 'do exactly whatever Johnston as PM decrees or you are undemocratic' To use the PM's characteristic term.... 'piffle'!

 

[dingodan]

Still missing the point.
What Leave kind of Leave did Leave voters vote for? What represents a compromise that all Leave voters (including ERG and Brexit Party voters) and 48% who don't want it to happen at all can endorse. After all, 48% is lot of the population and their views cannot simply be binned. The rest of your comment becomes pointless if you don't address that fundamental matter.

Well, I kind of think it's you missing the point. There are not "kinds of leave". There is only leaving, or remaining. The opposition to, for example, May's deal was argued to be because it didn't represent really leaving, since we would still be tied in to EU rules, which is what the vote was against. The opposition from some on the remain side, to every deal and to no deal, seems to be simply an opposition to leaving, period.

Again, leave voters voted to leave. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing different or qualified. Just leaving.

In that sense, so far, no deal has been the only thing which has represented that, although it looks like the PM's new deal will probably carry support from the leave side, and it also represents a compromise. I would argue that it is at this point that the remain side, who are adamant that they don't want us to leave without a deal, should come on board, since this would be leaving, with a deal. I think some on the remain side will vote for it, precisely because they want to get this done, in a way which doesn't involve no deal and represents a compromise.

We still have the opposition of remain MP's who just want to block everything until remain is the only thing left, and with the EU it's hard to tell whether they really accept that we are leaving, they seem to be hedging their bets and working with the remain MP's to see if they can stop the whole thing under the table.

You are right in a way. There is a question here. How are we going to leave when there are some, including perhaps the EU, who are trying to block off every avenue for us. Well in the end we are left with two choices. No deal or remain.

The answer there isn't pleasant but it's also pretty simple. No deal would represent leaving the EU, which people voted for. Remaining wouldn't. So there is your answer. Very few people actively want a No Deal situation. But we are almost at a point where we have no choices left, and I'm sorry but remaining isn't an option if you care about respecting the vote and preserving the idea of democracy.

We should all hope that the EU move towards us now that we have moved towards them, and that everyone can come together and get this deal done so that we leave with a deal in place and move forward. If we do that, it won't be long before we have a great relationship with the EU, and any bumps in the road are overcome. Then we can start mending the fractures in this country which have got pretty bad over the last couple of years.

 

[GrizzlingGammon]

Saying that most people who voted Leave did so because of writing on the side of a bus, is no different, in inference, to saying that most people who voted Remain did so because they want the comfort blanket of globalism or have been brainwashed by the Establishment or are simply unpatriotic ( e.g I'm not British, I'm European etc ) Its generalism that is disrespectful to many millions, who felt strongly about one side of the argument or other. The NHS may be an emotive subject but no more emotive than immigration, diminished lifestyle, education and local services. The most emotive subject out there at the time of the referendum was the EU itself. By its nature, its aims and its practices, it is totally divisive. Its marmite. You love it or hate it. The turnout suggested that a lot more people were bothered about this issue than the political establishment bargained for. The assumption was that there was enough apathy out there to make the result a foregone conclusion. The political class didn't understand what had been festering and simmering in this country for a few years and were totally unprepared for a protest vote on this scale. They let things drift, the damage was done and the rift will never be repaired.

The most emotive topics were immigration, NHS, and take back control/sovereignty.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Establishment really doubling down to discredit BJ now. They must gave really fallen for that Dominic Cummings slogan 'We WILL be leaving the EU on October 31' BS.

Whenever I hear the words 'legitimate businesswoman' I just hear Fat Tony in The Simpsons being called 'legitimate businessman' by Mayor Quimby

 

[A1X]

Well, I kind of think it's you missing the point. There are not "kinds of leave". There is only leaving, or remaining.

This is, quite palpably, not true. To suggest that the UK being in EFTA is the same as the UK in a No Deal scenario is quite obviously ludicrous.

 

[Lever]

Well, I kind of think it's you missing the point. There are not "kinds of leave". There is only leaving, or remaining. The opposition to, for example, May's deal was argued to be because it didn't represent really leaving, since we would still be tied in to EU rules, which is what the vote was against. The opposition from some on the remain side, to every deal and to no deal, seems to be simply an opposition to leaving, period.

Again, leave voters voted to leave. Nothing more, nothing less, nothing different or qualified. Just leaving.

In that sense, so far, no deal has been the only thing which has represented that, although it looks like the PM's new deal will probably carry support from the leave side, and it also represents a compromise. I would argue that it is at this point that the remain side, who are adamant that they don't want us to leave without a deal, should come on board, since this would be leaving, with a deal. I think some on the remain side will vote for it, precisely because they want to get this done, in a way which doesn't involve no deal and represents a compromise.

We still have the opposition of remain MP's who just want to block everything until remain is the only thing left, and with the EU it's hard to tell whether they really accept that we are leaving, they seem to be hedging their bets and working with the remain MP's to see if they can stop the whole thing under the table.

You are right in a way. There is a question here. How are we going to leave when there are some, including perhaps the EU, who are trying to block off every avenue for us. Well in the end we are left with two choices. No deal or remain.

The answer there isn't pleasant but it's also pretty simple. No deal would represent leaving the EU, which people voted for. Remaining wouldn't. So there is your answer. Very few people actively want a No Deal situation. But we are almost at a point where we have no choices left, and I'm sorry but remaining isn't an option if you care about respecting the vote and preserving the idea of democracy.

We should all hope that the EU move towards us now that we have moved towards them, and that everyone can come together and get this deal done so that we leave with a deal in place and move forward. If we do that, it won't be long before we have a great relationship with the EU, and any bumps in the road are overcome. Then we can start mending the fractures in this country which have got pretty bad over the last couple of years.

Your points (which are fundamentally flawed in my opinion) are expressed in a reasonable and vitriol free manner and so I am sure we can allow the arguments to clash and not the posters.....

There are indeed 'types of Leave' although you (and the ERG) choose to chop semantics and retrospectively claim that the May deal wasn't really leaving. The nonsense about 'we just voted to leave' therefore doesn't entirely make practical sense. The slide towards blaming everyone else but the Leave lobby itself is more of the same poor practice. The EU for instance has negotiated a deal with the British Government and it was presented by May. By sticking by that deal it has somehow morphed in your mind into intransigence.

This whole debate is about people's values and what we believe is our future as a Nation. Your attempts to seize a moral high ground suggests to me that subliminally that you think your values are somehow more superior. If a Leave Deal that protects the jobs, health and aspirations of all people of this country is possible, then that would represent a compromise although I still believe that our future is in Europe for a range of reasons; no such Deal has been devised, let alone approved.

You continue with your 'respecting the vote' stuff; I believe that is pretty meaningless for the reasons above; however I don't expect you to change your values and you cannot expect me to change mine.

Finally, I think your breezy comment that by Leaving we'll 'move forward' and soon have a good relationship with the EU is ill-thought out if not fatuous. When the UK leaves we become a third country, a competitor.... and not a partner and we cannot expect any favours. Likewise, unless a compromise of some kind 'respects the will' (to use your jargon) of the Remain voters, rather than demonising them for holding to their values, then a dissolute, discredited government (like the one we currently have) is unlikely to begin 'mending the fractures'.

 

[nicko31]

This is, quite palpably, not true. To suggest that the UK being in EFTA is the same as the UK in a No Deal scenario is quite obviously ludicrous.

No one of course was talking about No Deal but they were talking about lots of other things...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xGt3QmRSZY

 

[Lever]

No one of course was talking about No Deal but they were talking about lots of other things...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xGt3QmRSZY

That's exactly what I mean by the morphing of Leave Vote Influencers. They then have the temerity to call a firm, enduring alternative view 'intransigence' and inflexibility... and some posters on here neither acknowledge or accept that the ground has been shifted. According to their simplistic perception, there are no 'types of Leave' just 'Leave' or 'Remain'!

 

[Lever]

This is, quite palpably, not true. To suggest that the UK being in EFTA is the same as the UK in a No Deal scenario is quite obviously ludicrous.

I really do not understand why Dingodan will not accept this truth.

 

[nicko31]

That's exactly what I mean by the morphing of Leave Vote Influencers. They then have the temerity to call a firm, enduring alternative view 'intransigence' and inflexibility... and some posters on here neither acknowledge or accept that the ground has been shifted. According to their simplistic perception, there are no 'types of Leave' just 'Leave' or 'Remain'!

There's only one type of remain though, its called Germany +++

No Single Currency, No Banking Union, No Schengen, Nice Rebate, Restrictions on EU Labour (if we want) etc.

 

[nicko31]

I really do not understand why Dingodan will not accept this truth.

Its where feelings and beliefs take over from facts and evidence

I had a fascinating conversation with a relative yesterday at a family gathering. I knew he had voted Leave, but we'd never discussed politics ever before, let alone Brexit.

He started going on about trade after Brexit and we touched on a trade deal with the US. He was absolutely convinced the Brexit would put us in the a stronger position with the US than we are now, and this was in the event of no deal. Despite being reminded we currently had a large trade surplus he was convinced that we would be in a great negotiating position as the junior partner and our surplus would actually increase

Anyway we agreed to disagree and we then discussed the Albion's demolition of Spurs..

 

[rippleman]

If you don't like the current PM, that's fine. But your dislike of him is not a legitimate proxy for dismissing the voting majority of people, whose only crime was to take part in a democratic vote. Trying to effect change through the ballot box. That's why it's so important that this vote is respected, because we want people to know and have faith in the fact that the way to effect change is through democracy. If we go against that idea, if we call into question the right of people to make decisions that way, then what are we left with?

. But you have to put democratic values and the rights of people at the ballot box ahead of your own personal views. I know it's not what you want to hear but your role now is to make sure that we have a good relationship with the EU (assuming that you believe that would be in our interest) and that we do our best at succeeding going forward - but having left the EU. So far the attitude has been to try to undo what has been done, and that isn't fair or right when it comes to all of the people who took part in the vote. Even people who voted remain I'm sure would like to believe that voting does actually matter.

We didn't vote for leaving as long as X, Y or Z is true. We didn't vote for leaving by an amount proportional to the vote share. We voted by a majority to leave and people who are unhappy about that have every right to feel that way. But they don't have the right to change the rules or make up new ones just because they are unhappy. Use your positivity towards remaining in the EU to argue for a good relationship going forward (which is as much in the hands of the EU as it is in ours). But accept the result, because it was the result, and that matters.

Excellent summary with which I entirely concur.

In the "voting system" referendum I voted for PR as I believe that distributing seats in Parliament based on the votes each Party received was far more democratic than the FPTP system. Unfortunately the type of PR offered was far more complex than it needed to be. The majority of those that voted in that referendum voted to continue using the FPTP system. Whilst I was disappointed, the people had spoken in a democratic vote and so far as I was concerned, that was that.

Now I could have throw a hissy fit and demanded another referendum because "people didn't understand what they were voting for" (based on the complexities of the chosen version of PR). But I didn't because that would have been undemocratic.

When I look at the state of our two main parties, a "two party system" that FPTP perpetuates, many who voted for FPTP may now have changed their minds and decided that PR might be a better option. So should we vote again on PR because some people might have changed their minds since that referendum? If you favour that course, how often do we re-hold referendums in case some people have changed their minds?

Too much of this continuing debate is based on the personal emotions of the remain vote who are unable to accept that they lost. Whilst our parliamentary democratic system is imperfect, there is nothing better. Whilst communism is a brilliant theory you only ever end up with a dictator. (Mao, Stalin, Putin, Pol Pot, Xi etc). What about America's style of democracy where one person can veto any law and where judges are political appointments made for life so the judiciary is political. Just another kind of dictatorship.

IMO we have no option other than to continue to support and uphold our style of democracy. To do that means accepting that you won't win every time. I vote Labour....in Worthing. Every election I have to accept that the majority of the electorate in my area vote to keep Bottomley and the former "Childish Minister" in their cosy safe seats. Nothing I could or should do about it. THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN.

Hopefully some of the entrenched remainers spouting their "you're too thick to understand" or "you're a racist and / or fascist", "groomed by the right wing press""* rhetoric will take a moment to reflect on these points and realise that trying to undermine a democratic process, just because you didn't get the answer you personally wanted, is maybe not, when you consider the options, the safest course of action.

*ETA because I just read #102299!

 

[nicko31]

Excellent summary with which I entirely concur.

In the "voting system" referendum I voted for PR as I believe that distributing seats in Parliament based on the votes each Party received was far more democratic than the FPTP system. Unfortunately the type of PR offered was far more complex than it needed to be. The majority of those that voted in that referendum voted to continue using the FPTP system. Whilst I was disappointed, the people had spoken in a democratic vote and so far as I was concerned, that was that.
consider the options, the safest course of action.

*ETA because I just read #102299!

Hardly comparable with the complexity of Brexit, and this question of PR can still be asked again

What was it our old friend the Brexit bulldog DD said?

"If a democracy cannot change its mind, it ceases to be a democracy"

Should there a ratification of Brexit it will be 4 years since the vote, a lot has changed and all of us (yes all of us) now know a lot more.

That said one thing I always knew would be a problem was Ireland, we were warned but people weren't listening

 

[Lincoln Imp]

Excellent summary with which I entirely concur.

In the "voting system" referendum I voted for PR as I believe that distributing seats in Parliament based on the votes each Party received was far more democratic than the FPTP system. Unfortunately the type of PR offered was far more complex than it needed to be. The majority of those that voted in that referendum voted to continue using the FPTP system. Whilst I was disappointed, the people had spoken in a democratic vote and so far as I was concerned, that was that.

Now I could have throw a hissy fit and demanded another referendum because "people didn't understand what they were voting for" (based on the complexities of the chosen version of PR). But I didn't because that would have been undemocratic.

When I look at the state of our two main parties, a "two party system" that FPTP perpetuates, many who voted for FPTP may now have changed their minds and decided that PR might be a better option. So should we vote again on PR because some people might have changed their minds since that referendum? If you favour that course, how often do we re-hold referendums in case some people have changed their minds?

Too much of this continuing debate is based on the personal emotions of the remain vote who are unable to accept that they lost. Whilst our parliamentary democratic system is imperfect, there is nothing better. Whilst communism is a brilliant theory you only ever end up with a dictator. (Mao, Stalin, Putin, Pol Pot, Xi etc). What about America's style of democracy where one person can veto any law and where judges are political appointments made for life so the judiciary is political. Just another kind of dictatorship.

IMO we have no option other than to continue to support and uphold our style of democracy. To do that means accepting that you won't win every time. I vote Labour....in Worthing. Every election I have to accept that the majority of the electorate in my area vote to keep Bottomley and the former "Childish Minister" in their cosy safe seats. Nothing I could or should do about it. THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN.

Hopefully some of the entrenched remainers spouting their "you're too thick to understand" or "you're a racist and / or fascist", "groomed by the right wing press""* rhetoric will take a moment to reflect on these points and realise that trying to undermine a democratic process, just because you didn't get the answer you personally wanted, is maybe not, when you consider the options, the safest course of action.

*ETA because I just read #102299!

Like you, I voted to end the FPTP system and, like you, I am not complaining about the way the vote went. It was clear what the options were. People knew what they were voting for and that's what they got. I see little in common with the EU referendum though. In 2016 people were promised something that couldn't exist - a best-of-all-worlds Brexit where we would stay in the Single Market (see post above yours), stop paying contributions to the EU, be free to strike unencumbered trade deals around the world... This went beyond mere exaggeration. If it can be compared with anything it can be compared with that story in the papers a couple of weeks ago about the couple who paid £10,000 for an airbnb property that simply wasn't there.

At what point would a Brexiter consider it reasonable to check with people if, in view of emerging realities, they still want to go ahead? When ordinary citizens become poorer? When they feel cheated? Now? Never? (If you're in favour of the last one, you are not alone. A Brexiter on here once said that if a referendum about rearmament had been held in the 30s and the people had voted against it then it would have had to be respected, even years later - better we be invaded than the 'will of the people' be ignored. I do hope you disagree with him.)

 

[WATFORD zero]

There's only one type of remain though, its called Germany +++

No Single Currency, No Banking Union, No Schengen, Nice Rebate, Restrictions on EU Labour (if we want) etc.

You don't think you have accidentally stumbled across the 'good deal' that the Leave campaign and some of our good friends on here have been looking for the last 3.5 years ? It certainly seems to have far more detail and far more benefits for British businesses and the British economy than any 'good deal' that any of them have managed to put forward (or even outline). I wonder if we could get the EU to agree to it

 

[Lever]

Excellent summary with which I entirely concur.

In the "voting system" referendum I voted for PR as I believe that distributing seats in Parliament based on the votes each Party received was far more democratic than the FPTP system. Unfortunately the type of PR offered was far more complex than it needed to be. The majority of those that voted in that referendum voted to continue using the FPTP system. Whilst I was disappointed, the people had spoken in a democratic vote and so far as I was concerned, that was that.

Now I could have throw a hissy fit and demanded another referendum because "people didn't understand what they were voting for" (based on the complexities of the chosen version of PR). But I didn't because that would have been undemocratic.

When I look at the state of our two main parties, a "two party system" that FPTP perpetuates, many who voted for FPTP may now have changed their minds and decided that PR might be a better option. So should we vote again on PR because some people might have changed their minds since that referendum? If you favour that course, how often do we re-hold referendums in case some people have changed their minds?

Too much of this continuing debate is based on the personal emotions of the remain vote who are unable to accept that they lost. Whilst our parliamentary democratic system is imperfect, there is nothing better. Whilst communism is a brilliant theory you only ever end up with a dictator. (Mao, Stalin, Putin, Pol Pot, Xi etc). What about America's style of democracy where one person can veto any law and where judges are political appointments made for life so the judiciary is political. Just another kind of dictatorship.

IMO we have no option other than to continue to support and uphold our style of democracy. To do that means accepting that you won't win every time. I vote Labour....in Worthing. Every election I have to accept that the majority of the electorate in my area vote to keep Bottomley and the former "Childish Minister" in their cosy safe seats. Nothing I could or should do about it. THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN.

Hopefully some of the entrenched remainers spouting their "you're too thick to understand" or "you're a racist and / or fascist", "groomed by the right wing press""* rhetoric will take a moment to reflect on these points and realise that trying to undermine a democratic process, just because you didn't get the answer you personally wanted, is maybe not, when you consider the options, the safest course of action.

*ETA because I just read #102299!

Sorry but this is simply Leave propaganda.
'Losing' and 'winning' are not terms appropriate to such a subject as this. No one 'lost' their beliefs and values - and no one won them. Also, your emotive language suggests that you are emotionally attached to your position. Nothing wrong with that, but just don't decry other people for the same thing.... and perhaps you too could benefit from reflection before suggesting that this referendum - (which is really very different from your admittedly frustrating experience at a Worthing Labour voter) requires Remain voters to accept any kind of Brexit that this disreputable PM serves up.

 

[WATFORD zero]

Excellent summary with which I entirely concur.

In the "voting system" referendum I voted for PR as I believe that distributing seats in Parliament based on the votes each Party received was far more democratic than the FPTP system. Unfortunately the type of PR offered was far more complex than it needed to be. The majority of those that voted in that referendum voted to continue using the FPTP system. Whilst I was disappointed, the people had spoken in a democratic vote and so far as I was concerned, that was that.

Now I could have throw a hissy fit and demanded another referendum because "people didn't understand what they were voting for" (based on the complexities of the chosen version of PR). But I didn't because that would have been undemocratic.

When I look at the state of our two main parties, a "two party system" that FPTP perpetuates, many who voted for FPTP may now have changed their minds and decided that PR might be a better option. So should we vote again on PR because some people might have changed their minds since that referendum? If you favour that course, how often do we re-hold referendums in case some people have changed their minds?

Too much of this continuing debate is based on the personal emotions of the remain vote who are unable to accept that they lost. Whilst our parliamentary democratic system is imperfect, there is nothing better. Whilst communism is a brilliant theory you only ever end up with a dictator. (Mao, Stalin, Putin, Pol Pot, Xi etc). What about America's style of democracy where one person can veto any law and where judges are political appointments made for life so the judiciary is political. Just another kind of dictatorship.

IMO we have no option other than to continue to support and uphold our style of democracy. To do that means accepting that you won't win every time. I vote Labour....in Worthing. Every election I have to accept that the majority of the electorate in my area vote to keep Bottomley and the former "Childish Minister" in their cosy safe seats. Nothing I could or should do about it. THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN.

Hopefully some of the entrenched remainers spouting their "you're too thick to understand" or "you're a racist and / or fascist", "groomed by the right wing press""* rhetoric will take a moment to reflect on these points and realise that trying to undermine a democratic process, just because you didn't get the answer you personally wanted, is maybe not, when you consider the options, the safest course of action.

*ETA because I just read #102299!

To save me typing it again, and as I never got an answer last time

This democratic vote that has to be 'respected'.

We tried leaving with a deal, and it appears there was no majority for that.

We even tried leaving with no deal (which was specifically ruled out as part of the Leave campaign), and it appears there was no majority for that.

So what should we do now to 'respect' this vote

Well ?

 

[birthofanorange]

The answer there isn't pleasant but it's also pretty simple. No deal would represent leaving the EU, which people voted for. Remaining wouldn't. So there is your answer. Very few people actively want a No Deal situation. But we are almost at a point where we have no choices left, and I'm sorry but remaining isn't an option if you care about respecting the vote and preserving the idea of democracy.

See, that really is a demonstration of the well-worn phrase, 'turkeys voting for Christmas'. I get where you're coming from, but stubbornly ploughing ahead with something that won't just stuff the turkeys, but the whole damn farm is in no way democratic.
Yes, Leave 'won' back in 2016, but its nearly four years on and you would rather we all suffered, just to enact a (rather dodgy) referendum?
That shows signs of madness, imho.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Excellent summary with which I entirely concur.

In the "voting system" referendum I voted for PR as I believe that distributing seats in Parliament based on the votes each Party received was far more democratic than the FPTP system. Unfortunately the type of PR offered was far more complex than it needed to be. The majority of those that voted in that referendum voted to continue using the FPTP system. Whilst I was disappointed, the people had spoken in a democratic vote and so far as I was concerned, that was that.

Now I could have throw a hissy fit and demanded another referendum because "people didn't understand what they were voting for" (based on the complexities of the chosen version of PR). But I didn't because that would have been undemocratic.

When I look at the state of our two main parties, a "two party system" that FPTP perpetuates, many who voted for FPTP may now have changed their minds and decided that PR might be a better option. So should we vote again on PR because some people might have changed their minds since that referendum? If you favour that course, how often do we re-hold referendums in case some people have changed their minds?

Too much of this continuing debate is based on the personal emotions of the remain vote who are unable to accept that they lost. Whilst our parliamentary democratic system is imperfect, there is nothing better. Whilst communism is a brilliant theory you only ever end up with a dictator. (Mao, Stalin, Putin, Pol Pot, Xi etc). What about America's style of democracy where one person can veto any law and where judges are political appointments made for life so the judiciary is political. Just another kind of dictatorship.

IMO we have no option other than to continue to support and uphold our style of democracy. To do that means accepting that you won't win every time. I vote Labour....in Worthing. Every election I have to accept that the majority of the electorate in my area vote to keep Bottomley and the former "Childish Minister" in their cosy safe seats. Nothing I could or should do about it. THE PEOPLE HAVE SPOKEN.

Hopefully some of the entrenched remainers spouting their "you're too thick to understand" or "you're a racist and / or fascist", "groomed by the right wing press""* rhetoric will take a moment to reflect on these points and realise that trying to undermine a democratic process, just because you didn't get the answer you personally wanted, is maybe not, when you consider the options, the safest course of action.

*ETA because I just read #102299!

Wise words, always good to remind ourselves that the entrenched remainers on this thread are the extreme shouty fringe of the remain vote. Also worth remembering there are many moderate, patriotic, democratic, principled remainers who fully concur with your arguments. #letsgetbrexitdone

 

[birthofanorange]

#letsgetbrexitdone

#letssackoffbrexit