OT. The futures Bright, the Futures Brexit!!!

[ramAnag]

Of course it's a 'bigger percentage than 35%' and it has to be listened to...but it's hardly equates to 'the people have spoken' does it?

In any case 'the people' (37% of them) voted for 'Brexit' and since then we've been repeatedly told that 'Brexit means Brexit', but seeing as no one can agree on what 'Brexit' ever meant...end immigration, stop links with Europe, close the Channel Tunnel, leave the 'Single Market', leave the EU but remain in the 'Single Market'...whatever, that all tends to be a tad meaningless doesn't it?

[AdiSalisbury]

It means leave the EU... it was written on the ballot paper. It's only remainders who seem confused.

[roger_ramjet]

Before we head back down the "its only 37% of the electorate" route, it is worth noting that I believe no government has ever been voted in with more than 37% of the popular vote in support of it. Hence the Brexit vote, as inconclusive as you may think it is Mangara, is a bigger mandate from the people than that received by any "elected government" ever.

[ramAnag]

It means leave the EU... it was written on the ballot paper. It's only remainders who seem confused.

So that'll be why an estimated 4% (Daily Telegraph) - quite crucial in the circumstances - of Brexiteers have since become 'Regrexiteers' then Adi.
Does leave the EU, as you suggest it means, also mean leaving the Single Market, or isn't it the case that the vast majority of people actually hadn't even heard of the Single Market before the countless debates that have ensued since June 23rd?

Sorry Rog, done this one to death. You simply cannot compare a two horse race (In/Out Referendum) with a four - eight horse race (General Election).

[Gaspode]

Of course it's a 'bigger percentage than 35%' and it has to be listened to...but it's hardly equates to 'the people have spoken' does it?.....

Sorry, but the remainers keep using the 37% as a justification to say that the majority didn't vote to leave - that is of course technically correct, however the majority of those that actually voted (which is how the referendum was set out and how the decision was reached) did vote to leave.

If 'the people' didn't want that result, then more should have gone out to vote and more should have voted remain - I struggle to see why this concept is so difficult for folk to grasp...

The decision has been made - all that remains is a requirement for the government to negotiate the best deal for the country - which won't be helped by having to spell out what their negotiating stance is in public before they're allowed to trigger Article 50 and start the real negotiations.....

[Gaspode]

....Does leave the EU, as you suggest it means, also mean leaving the Single Market, or isn't it the case that the vast majority of people actually hadn't even heard of the Single Market before the countless debates that have ensued since June 23rd?....

I don't often praise the BBC for their political coverage, but they've put together a nice little set of clips from before the referendum to address this 'leaving the Single Market' point- if I remember correctly, there was Boris, Gove, Fox, Osborne & Cameron ALL stating that a vote to leave would mean leaving the Single Market - that's both sides of the debate stating what it would mean - now the remain camp are seemingly suffering from mass amnesia and claiming that no-one told anyone the implications and that some of the leave voters would have voted the other way if they'd realised - well that may be the case for some (those that thought they were voting for the winner of the X factor), but as we're told by the EU that the jurisdiction of the ECHR and Free Movement are integral to membership of the Single Market, it's not a great leap to work out we can't remain members if we're also taking back control of our laws & borders (unless the EU agree to amend their rules which is unlikely....)

[ramAnag]

Sorry, but the remainers keep using the 37% as a justification to say that the majority didn't vote to leave - that is of course technically correct, however the majority of those that actually voted (which is how the referendum was set out and how the decision was reached) did vote to leave.

If 'the people' didn't want that result, then more should have gone out to vote and more should have voted remain - I struggle to see why this concept is so difficult for folk to grasp...

The decision has been made - all that remains is a requirement for the government to negotiate the best deal for the country - which won't be helped by having to spell out what their negotiating stance is in public before they're allowed to trigger Article 50 and start the real negotiations.....

Take what you say on board Gaspode, but I struggle to see how when 63% of the electorate don't actively support something and when 35% are actively opposed to it we still continue to push forward legislation of this magnitude claiming it to be 'the will of the people'.

It patently isn't and while it might be too late to suggest that the conditions for what constitutes a democratic majority (equivalent to 51% of the electorate or more) should have been spelled out better, it isn't too late, despite IDS's ill advised rant, to remind everyone that the outcome of this Referendum was never anything more than advisory.

[roger_ramjet]

So that'll be why an estimated 4% (Daily Telegraph) - quite crucial in the circumstances - of Brexiteers have since become 'Regrexiteers' then Adi.
Does leave the EU, as you suggest it means, also mean leaving the Single Market, or isn't it the case that the vast majority of people actually hadn't even heard of the Single Market before the countless debates that have ensued since June 23rd?

Sorry Rog, done this one to death. You simply cannot compare a two horse race (In/Out Referendum) with a four - eight horse race (General Election).

So you are perfectly content to accept a minority decision so long as it is not in a 2 horse race? As long as you throw in a couple of lame duck pointless extra candidates, then the minority elected winner is acceptable to you? As long as I can remember, our parliamentary elections have in effect been 2 horse races between Lab and Con: in practice most seats are in fact 1 horse races where the winner can be predicted with 99.5% confidence before a single vote is cast.

Sure there are a few seats that have gone to the regional parties, but, except the Scotch Nationalists of late, these tended to be aligned with Con or Lab. That leaves us with a few Libs who know that they are onto a hiding to nothing as the protest vote party, a Green or 2 or a UKIP. But you feel that having these spurious also rans somehow validates the minority election of a government?

Dont come the raw prawn with me.

The system is the system, the rules are the rules, they were predefined. Everyone knew those rules, or if they did not, then that was their own fault for not being arsed to find out. You cannot spoon feed everyone, they have to take some personal responsibility for their actions.

So I guess, as is possible, that if Hilary Clinton wins the presidency of the USA over Trump, with less than 50% of the electorate supporting her (or even with Trump getting more people voting for him), you will be leaping to poor Donald's defence and demanding that he get put into the White House instead. That's a 2 horse race. Its pretty certain that either will win with less than 50% of the electorate behind them. If its like when Bush got elected, the winner may even have more electoral college representatives than numbers of voters and thus be elevated to presidency as a minority candidate. Will you be screaming unconstitutional then?

[swaledale]

So you are perfectly content to accept a minority decision so long as it is not in a 2 horse race? As long as you throw in a couple of lame duck pointless extra candidates, then the minority elected winner is acceptable to you? As long as I can remember, our parliamentary elections have in effect been 2 horse races between Lab and Con: in practice most seats are in fact 1 horse races where the winner can be predicted with 99.5% confidence before a single vote is cast.

Sure there are a few seats that have gone to the regional parties, but, except the Scotch Nationalists of late, these tended to be aligned with Con or Lab. That leaves us with a few Libs who know that they are onto a hiding to nothing as the protest vote party, a Green or 2 or a UKIP. But you feel that having these spurious also rans somehow validates the minority election of a government?

Dont come the raw prawn with me.

The system is the system, the rules are the rules, they were predefined. Everyone knew those rules, or if they did not, then that was their own fault for not being arsed to find out. You cannot spoon feed everyone, they have to take some personal responsibility for their actions.

So I guess, as is possible, that if Hilary Clinton wins the presidency of the USA over Trump, with less than 50% of the electorate supporting her (or even with Trump getting more people voting for him), you will be leaping to poor Donald's defence and demanding that he get put into the White House instead. That's a 2 horse race. Its pretty certain that either will win with less than 50% of the electorate behind them. If its like when Bush got elected, the winner may even have more electoral college representatives than numbers of voters and thus be elevated to presidency as a minority candidate. Will you be screaming unconstitutional then?

A general election is completely different from a referendum and anyway my point wasn't about a majority of those votig it was a challenge to the assertion that the people of Britain had spoken when actually they haven't, a 52% majority is not "the people of Britain" by any measurement.

As for the american electoral system, firstly it not a two horse race, though I agree the other horses hardly count, but its not simply a percentage of the vote either, its an electoral college system and whilst its not a system i'd favour they aren't voting on a single issue they are lecting a president who is thne kept in check by a separtely elected congress!

My issue is that by all the evdience I've seen most of the 37% who voted haven't a ****ing clue what they voted for and what will happen - as an illustration I've just had a conversation down the paper shop, where the owner, not someone I'd call a dumb person, tells me "The european court have ruled Brexit illegal"! WTF? Its not even close to the truth about whats happened and that is really scary!

[swaledale]

I don't often praise the BBC for their political coverage, but they've put together a nice little set of clips from before the referendum to address this 'leaving the Single Market' point- if I remember correctly, there was Boris, Gove, Fox, Osborne & Cameron ALL stating that a vote to leave would mean leaving the Single Market - that's both sides of the debate stating what it would mean - now the remain camp are seemingly suffering from mass amnesia and claiming that no-one told anyone the implications and that some of the leave voters would have voted the other way if they'd realised - well that may be the case for some (those that thought they were voting for the winner of the X factor), but as we're told by the EU that the jurisdiction of the ECHR and Free Movement are integral to membership of the Single Market, it's not a great leap to work out we can't remain members if we're also taking back control of our laws & borders (unless the EU agree to amend their rules which is unlikely....)

Ah Take back control what a phrase! What does it mean in practice? And what have the government told Nissan about what Brexit will mean to persuade them to reinvest in the UK?

I think you will find that all those assumptions amde by the Brexit side will prove to be rather hollow.

Also the government does not seem to know and neither does anyone else what the deal will be and what the actual economic consequences would be of a hard Brexit and I'm pretty damn sure that we won't find out because we won't go down that route, it would be economic suicide!

Not that May will admit it yet, she has to keep the myth going for a while!!