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

[MadAmster]

I’m not sure about the bar bill analogy...you’re surely not suggesting that Malta should be paying the same as the Germans who contribute almost 20% of EU income?

No, I am not planning on bankrupting Malta. There are far more Germans than Maltese so Germany should pay more. Yes, gross NL payments to the EU are, indeed, around 4% when they have just over 3% of the population. The NL is one of the EU members who get less back than they pay in. Their net contribution per capita is the highest in the EU (Euro per capita paid in minus Euro per capita received back). Unfortunately, this isn't reflected in "the amount of say" the NL gets in deciding how that money is used........ They are outvoted by all the bigger nations.

Germany is the largest net contributor in Euros, paying roughly 2.5 times the NL net contribution. Thee population of Germany is 5 times that of the Netherlands.

The French net contribution is 20% higher than the Dutch yet they have 4 time the population.

The UK net contribution is 20% lower than the Dutch yet they have 4 time the population.

The Italian net contribution is 35% lower than the Dutch yet they have 3.5 time the population.

Only the French and the Germans pay more in net monetary terms than the Dutch but, per capita, they pay less.

Must admit rA I went off on a tangent on the pensions thing..... it happens occasionally.

[MadAmster]

I'm not going out for a meal with you MA, you will probably have a more expensive starter than me and extra dessert. Why should I pay for that? So should I have the most expensive main course on the menu (even if I don't like it) just so I can get value for money? And don't get me started about the wine...

In the main, go out for a meal with Cloggies and they will each pay their exact share of the bill, right down to the last cent. In my various circles of friends in various places, we always just split the bill equally. One day you pay more than you "used", next day less.... swings and roundabouts. A method I always try to push on the Clogs when eating out with them. It happens my preferred way 75% of the time as well. Not a bad success rate.

Before I left the UK one lad stopped wanting to go out for a beer with us as he was on the dole and couldn't afford to. We would take him out anyway and explained that, if we were short, he'd bung us a beer so we were merely doing what he would do if the boot was on the other foot. This laissez faire attitude may well be why none of us are rich, monetarily. On the other hand, if I walked into my old local, destitute, there is no doubt in my mind that I would be given a reasonable amount of ale, simply on the back of what we always did for each other.

There, another tangent from me, must learn to stick on topic................. just no idea when

[ramAnag]

37%? Are you serious? Is that the amount of people who voted for Brexit. Well bugger me, I never realised that. So 63% of the electorate voted remain, yet Mayhem is still leading us into the unknown? I wonder how many other people have not realised that the nation is being rooked. Its just not democratic that a minority are bulldozing their views through, despite a clear majority wanting remain.

Sorry, oh, less than 37% voted to remain, So what's everyone bitching about, or are they just reacting like spoiled kids and throwing their toys out of the pram? Ah but of course those ones who voted remain are the intelligensia, the thinking people, not the bigots who are ignorant and know nothing and who voted to leave.

Its all the fault of the way the referendum was set up. it should have been done on a single transferrable vote basis! That way when no clear overall decision was made, the second choice of those who voted should have been taken into account, and then if a tie resulted, of course those who voted to remain, being so much more informed than those that didn't, should get an extra vote. or they could keep making up new rules and new referenda until they get the result they want

but 37%, wow, they kept that one out of the news

You’re right GP...we’ve heard the 37% argument ad nauseum for the last twenty eight months and I’m sick to the back teeth of it...but unfortunately that shouldn’t devalue it’s validity.
Had there been three or more choices in the Referendum then 37% would have been a valid majority, but in a two horse race...it clearly isn’t.
More to the point...what price democracy when the truth wasn’t told and electoral law was broken by the ‘winning’ side?

Forty years or more ago many regularly argued that Apartheid was wrong and Nelson Mandela should be freed...others had the attitude of...’oh God not that again, it’s at the other end of the World, nothing to do with us’...but eventually common sense and decency prevailed.
History is littered with such examples, so until I hear a better argument that convinces me that it’s alright for a minority of the electorate to lead our nation down a dangerous and damaging path on the evidence of lies put about by rule breakers I’ll happily accept - and repeat - the argument. It has never been answered!

[MadAmster]

67%...... (winks)

In all honesty, most way you look at it, Leave won the vote.

50% +1 of the votes cast..... as we all understood it to be
% that didn't vote to remain


The only one that says remain is the 63% (aka 37%) take on things.

Even then, Leave wins by 2 - 1.

Also, I am still not yet convinced it will happen.

[Geoff Parkstone]

You’re right GP...we’ve heard the 37% argument ad nauseum for the last twenty eight months and I’m sick to the back teeth of it...but unfortunately that shouldn’t devalue it’s validity.
Had there been three or more choices in the Referendum then 37% would have been a valid majority, but in a two horse race...it clearly isn’t.
More to the point...what price democracy when the truth wasn’t told and electoral law was broken by the ‘winning’ side?

Forty years or more ago many regularly argued that Apartheid was wrong and Nelson Mandela should be freed...others had the attitude of...’oh God not that again, it’s at the other end of the World, nothing to do with us’...but eventually common sense and decency prevailed.
History is littered with such examples, so until I hear a better argument that convinces me that it’s alright for a minority of the electorate to lead our nation down a dangerous and damaging path on the evidence of lies put about by rule breakers I’ll happily accept - and repeat - the argument. It has never been answered!

Whereas being lead down a dangerous and damaging path by even less than 37%, as you advocate, is perfectly acceptable, because in your view those lovely honest remainers didn't handle the truth loosely, whereas those naughty leavers did? Argue as much as you like about who lied the most, (but no-one came to justice with clean hands) but you cannot claim that "your side's" even smaller proportion of the public vote justifies their way forward being accepted.

[ramAnag]

Whereas being lead down a dangerous and damaging path by even less than 37%, as you advocate, is perfectly acceptable, because in your view those lovely honest remainers didn't handle the truth loosely, whereas those naughty leavers did? Argue as much as you like about who lied the most, (but no-one came to justice with clean hands) but you cannot claim that "your side's" even smaller proportion of the public vote justifies their way forward being accepted.

Actually I could argue precisely that, via the argument that...in order to bring about such a drastic change of direction there needed to be a majority of at least 51% of the electorate.

That aside...I’m sure the Remainers exaggerated in the way campaigners do. There can be little doubt however that those running the Leave campaign - Johnson, Gove, Farage, Rees Mogg and their invisible backer, Aaron Banks - were responsible for the most spectacular and memorable lies.

We may also choose to remember what Farage said about in the event of there being a close vote and the fact that ‘my side’ as you describe it, was also your side back in June 2016.

Be honest GP...do you accept that the electorate is now more knowledgeable about the likely consequences of Brexit? I think it would be difficult to argue otherwise.
Do you believe that a second Referendum would be taken much more seriously than the original one where ultimately complacency and ‘protest’ won the day. Again I don’t think you can really argue otherwise...so what’s wrong with a second referendum now people know so much more?

[Geoff Parkstone]

Is the electorate more knowledgeable now? Obviously I can only speak for myself, and I don't think I am. I have heard a lot more rhetoric, a lot more halt arsed opinion but mt voting rationale has not been changed. I voted remain as you remind me, for specific reasons and I would do so again as those reasons have not changed. BUT, unlike you, I was close to the fence and do not find the actual outcome as repugnant as you do. I look forward to the regaining of some sovereignty and the defeat of the US of Europe (or at least the defeat of it with us in it) whilst acknowledging that there is a risk on the economic front. But sometimes things are more important than money. No friends of mine have had changes of heart as far as I know - and leafy comfortable well healed Reigate voted "leave": an outcome I never really got to grips with conceptually.

Certainly there has been a lot more discussion about Brexit in the last 16 months than there was in the lead up to the referendum, some of which may be accurate, some of it may be *******s and most of it is probably opinion slanted one way or the other. Does that make Joe Public any more knowledgeable? Hard to say, but I doubt it - most people are probably heartily sick of the subject and I wouldn't be at all surprised, if a second referendum were to be called, to see hardening and polarising of opinion rather than minds being changed. Also I would expect to see a lower turnout - which would probably be good for remain.

So a second vote? More apathy, more polarised views but I doubt a more knowledgeable outcome. But from your perspective it could result in (say) a 35% winning vote to stay. If so, would you say that was therefore a win, after all the harping on about 37% not being so.

There is an inferred content in your post that a majority, yet minority of the electorate, should be alright to remain, but not to leave. Does this mean that the status quo must remain unless there is a more than 50% vote of the plebiscite or extended plebiscite if you let 16 year olds in) to change? If so, you must appreciate that for example (a) we would never have joined EU in the first place in the 70s as there was no majority of the entire electorate to do so and (b) we would never have gone to war with Germany in WW2 .

So where does that leave your opinion? one rule when I agree, another when I dont?

[Andy_Faber]

.do you accept that the electorate is now more knowledgeable about the likely consequences of Brexit?

I certainly don’t think most people know any better. Most people DO know that there are more issues to address than they could have imagined, and most people would agree that the govt are making a Horlicks of things, but I haven’t heard of any unbiased summary that states ‘uk as a country, and its individuals, will be better/worse off in the short/medium/long term, and here are the incontrovertible reasons why’, have you? I still think the arguments of extremists from both sides are still pretty thin and a bit pathetic - on a somewhat related subject I have a friend in NZ where one of their TV stations attended the ‘Peoples March’ and asked the simple question ‘what are you marching for’ - most folk couldn’t offer a sensible response, he said some of the responses were side splittingly laughable. In the interest of balance I’m sure a ‘leave’ March would be the same

[ramAnag]

I certainly don’t think most people know any better. Most people DO know that there are more issues to address than they could have imagined, and most people would agree that the govt are making a Horlicks of things, but I haven’t heard of any unbiased summary that states ‘uk as a country, and its individuals, will be better/worse off in the short/medium/long term, and here are the incontrovertible reasons why’, have you? I still think the arguments of extremists from both sides are still pretty thin and a bit pathetic - on a somewhat related subject I have a friend in NZ where one of their TV stations attended the ‘Peoples March’ and asked the simple question ‘what are you marching for’ - most folk couldn’t offer a sensible response, he said some of the responses were side splittingly laughable. In the interest of balance I’m sure a ‘leave’ March would be the same

Well I’ve heard leading Leave campaigners admit that it’ll take half a century for the UK to reap the benefit of leaving and I’ve heard the vast majority of business leaders suggest that leaving the EU equates to economic suicide.
Most sensible and objective economic commentators appear to suggest that things are, at the very least, going to become enormously difficult not to mention the fact that the current (28 months of) uncertainty is causing turmoil as far as business and economic planning are concerned.
Other than that it seems a brilliant idea but like GP...not one you actually voted for.

[ramAnag]

Is the electorate more knowledgeable now? Obviously I can only speak for myself, and I don't think I am. I have heard a lot more rhetoric, a lot more halt arsed opinion but mt voting rationale has not been changed. I voted remain as you remind me, for specific reasons and I would do so again as those reasons have not changed. BUT, unlike you, I was close to the fence and do not find the actual outcome as repugnant as you do. I look forward to the regaining of some sovereignty and the defeat of the US of Europe (or at least the defeat of it with us in it) whilst acknowledging that there is a risk on the economic front. But sometimes things are more important than money. No friends of mine have had changes of heart as far as I know - and leafy comfortable well healed Reigate voted "leave": an outcome I never really got to grips with conceptually.

Certainly there has been a lot more discussion about Brexit in the last 16 months than there was in the lead up to the referendum, some of which may be accurate, some of it may be *******s and most of it is probably opinion slanted one way or the other. Does that make Joe Public any more knowledgeable? Hard to say, but I doubt it - most people are probably heartily sick of the subject and I wouldn't be at all surprised, if a second referendum were to be called, to see hardening and polarising of opinion rather than minds being changed. Also I would expect to see a lower turnout - which would probably be good for remain.

So a second vote? More apathy, more polarised views but I doubt a more knowledgeable outcome. But from your perspective it could result in (say) a 35% winning vote to stay. If so, would you say that was therefore a win, after all the harping on about 37% not being so.

There is an inferred content in your post that a majority, yet minority of the electorate, should be alright to remain, but not to leave. Does this mean that the status quo must remain unless there is a more than 50% vote of the plebiscite or extended plebiscite if you let 16 year olds in) to change? If so, you must appreciate that for example (a) we would never have joined EU in the first place in the 70s as there was no majority of the entire electorate to do so and (b) we would never have gone to war with Germany in WW2 .

So where does that leave your opinion? one rule when I agree, another when I dont?

You only have to look at this forum to see that there has been far more discussion in relation to the Referendum since it took place than before it happened. Of course some of that debate will have been uninformed and biased but at least people have thought about it and realise that it is an infinitely more complex issue than they originally thought.

I very much doubt there would be a lower turn out.

I’m not sure why you bring up WW2....when was there ever a vote about going to war?

It isn’t about ‘one rule when I agree and another when I doubt’. If a majority of the electorate support Brexit then so be it. Wouldn’t change my view but I’d accept the decision.
My view is that we live in a Parliamentary Democracy and it should always have been left to Parliament to decide on what is far too complex an issue for Joe Public.
It is also my view that the Referendum was advisory, that people weren’t told the truth and that electoral law was broken. I can’t for the life of me understand why Remainers should accept the situation given those circumstances.
Tedious and repetitive I know...but nevertheless true...and what I am most sick and tired of is this country’s future being held hostage by the Tory Party with it’s constant sniping and back stabbing as it uses Brexit to sort out its own sense of direction.