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

[Andy_Faber]

Brave man Andy... would you have had to move there if they had voted for independence? As a long standing member of the Association for the Rebuilding of Hadrian's Wall I can only imagine the horror that such a demand would have caused. Colonel Walter Kurtz would have had it good in comparison

Funnily enough I have been a longstanding advocate of rebuilding Hadrian's wall and cancelling Schengen on that border, even with 5% of England's land mass being collateral damage to that...my wife meanwhile would accept a penny on income tax if it went towards the redigging of Offa's Dyke! An example of a Scot being a Little Englander....

Seriously, the independence debate did cause 'discussion' amongst my Scottish acquaintances, all (and I mean all, and there are a few) a) would have voted 'No', b) couldn't because they were all non-domiciled and c) 'dislike' Salmond, and now of course Sturgeon, with a vengeance only the Scots can muster.

I'm more of a Kilgore fan than Kurtz

[roger_ramjet]

Funnily enough I have been a longstanding advocate of rebuilding Hadrian's wall and cancelling Schengen on that border, even with 5% of England's land mass being collateral damage to that...my wife meanwhile would accept a penny on income tax if it went towards the redigging of Offa's Dyke! An example of a Scot being a Little Englander....

Seriously, the independence debate did cause 'discussion' amongst my Scottish acquaintances, all (and I mean all, and there are a few) a) would have voted 'No', b) couldn't because they were all non-domiciled and c) 'dislike' Salmond, and now of course Sturgeon, with a vengeance only the Scots can muster.

I'm more of a Kilgore fan than Kurtz

Why are all the Scotch political leaders of late named after fish

Which brings us neatly back to Kilgore - are we talking Kilgore Trout here, somewhat of a reach from Kurtz via Vonnegut but lets speculate.

[Manofpride]

Why are all the Scotch political leaders of late named after fish

Because they are all loan Sharks!

[swaledale]

i agree that everyone is entitled to his / hers own opinion has anyone gone down the road of what happens if the judges rule against govt and parliment then vetos brexit are we all clear where and what happens then the protests in london which i must say fizzled out would be a mere nothing compared to the oncoming protests many mps would be deselected . obviously the woman who brought the legal case would take over running the country . and the happy slappers yuppies etc would then lead us into a fully integrated europe or civil war ?

History does not suggest that the UK population is much good at organised rebellion, so yes a few extremists may cause a bit of kerfuffle, but protests, nah doubt you'd get the million plus who protested about the Iraq war tbh, they are just not that motivated to be away from their take aways and sky TV! Do not underestimate the apathy of the average Brit!

There could well be a political backlash, in that many MP's in areas that voted heavily for leave would risk losing their seats, but seeing as the first priority of most MP's is to secure their seat in parliament, then parliament is not going to vote against Brexit and indeed that has been made clear by the major parties.

The debate as always is about the detail of the deal we get and Parliament should have a say on that and IMO there should be a second referendum on whether the deal is acceptable to people, given that the vote was about leaving the EU not the economic suicide of the UK!

[swaledale]

Funnily enough I have been a longstanding advocate of rebuilding Hadrian's wall and cancelling Schengen on that border, even with 5% of England's land mass being collateral damage to that...my wife meanwhile would accept a penny on income tax if it went towards the redigging of Offa's Dyke! An example of a Scot being a Little Englander....

Seriously, the independence debate did cause 'discussion' amongst my Scottish acquaintances, all (and I mean all, and there are a few) a) would have voted 'No', b) couldn't because they were all non-domiciled and c) 'dislike' Salmond, and now of course Sturgeon, with a vengeance only the Scots can muster.

I'm more of a Kilgore fan than Kurtz

I can echo that having Scottish ancestry and a relative who lives north of the border, though clearly 50% or thereabouts do seem to like the SNP. There are many contradictions, the Scottish fishermen who wanted independence but hate the EU due to fishery policy which is at odds with Sturgeon.

Its an irony though that four nations have existed as one the UK quite happily, living, working and moving freely between them (5 if you count the relationship with the republic) yet some of these same people dislike the concept as part of the EU?

Still I'm looking forward to all those leavers who voted for |Brexit queuing up to take the jobs that apparently they can't get due to immigrant labour, unemployment should fall dramatically as they flood the fields, hospitals, hotels and factories, the benefit bill will fall dramatically and we shall all be so happy.

[ramAnag]

Not entirely on topic and it may be just me but...every time I see Teresa May she seems to look increasingly like someone in need of a hip replacement who has dressed for a pantomime. As for Johnson and his slo-mo jog in those shorts this morning...what is going on?

[Andy_Faber]

Not entirely on topic and it may be just me but...every time I see Teresa May she seems to look increasingly like someone in need of a hip replacement who has dressed for a pantomime. As for Johnson and his slo-mo jog in those shorts this morning...what is going on?

she certainly looks less like Helen Mirren the more you observe her

Boris was running slow looking for a Japanese kid to nerf into the bushes

[roger_ramjet]

she certainly looks less like Helen Mirren the more you observe her

Boris was running slow looking for a Japanese kid to nerf into the bushes

May is another one that could be described as a bit of a trout

[southernram22]

i am also not politically correct as you may see to my replies to a certain reds supporter who turns up now and again . i agree we all have our own views and . unfortunately most of our mps have theirs and do not listen to the voters. on to another point i agree we all see things differently and perhaps through rose tinted spectacles at time but can can anyone tell me why do the media keep dragging same culprits out to comment on brexit
1. richard branson only interested in his buissness and his elite chums should go back to his own island and stay there.
2. david lammy mp for tottenham never known a more single minded person who was and is wrong in all his views
also why should local constitutancy parties not deselect mps who are not in touch with the local voters views i should think there are plenty of mps on fringes who have been shouting odds who should be looking over shoulders why should any politician get selected then do as he /she feels
and lets be honest in or out this whole debate rides on one thing do the remainers know what democracy is ?

[Ram59]

I can echo that having Scottish ancestry and a relative who lives north of the border, though clearly 50% or thereabouts do seem to like the SNP. There are many contradictions, the Scottish fishermen who wanted independence but hate the EU due to fishery policy which is at odds with Sturgeon.

Its an irony though that four nations have existed as one the UK quite happily, living, working and moving freely between them (5 if you count the relationship with the republic) yet some of these same people dislike the concept as part of the EU?

Still I'm looking forward to all those leavers who voted for |Brexit queuing up to take the jobs that apparently they can't get due to immigrant labour, unemployment should fall dramatically as they flood the fields, hospitals, hotels and factories, the benefit bill will fall dramatically and we shall all be so happy.

You do really miss the whole point of brexit, don't you. We value anybody who is prepared to come to this country and make a contribution to our society. As you rightly point out, we couldn't cope without immigrants in many jobs. However, we do want to be able to choose who to let in.

There are many Americans, Australians, etc, etc who work and live in this country. But do we let in convicted *** offenders from those countries?

So when we leave,i am waiting for you remainers to be marching outside parliament with banners promoting the rights of *** offenders from the eu!

Over the top and ridiculous, I know, but no more than what you're saying.

[ramAnag]

You do really miss the whole point of brexit, don't you. We value anybody who is prepared to come to this country and make a contribution to our society. As you rightly point out, we couldn't cope without immigrants in many jobs. However, we do want to be able to choose who to let in.

There are many Americans, Australians, etc, etc who work and live in this country. But do we let in convicted *** offenders from those countries?

So when we leave,i am waiting for you remainers to be marching outside parliament with banners promoting the rights of *** offenders from the eu!

Over the top and ridiculous, I know, but no more than what you're saying.

You were right the first time Ram59...'Over the top and ridiculous'...should have stopped there.

Southern...you question the Remainers knowledge of 'democracy' but - and I'm sorry to labour the point - two questions remain unanswered. When the electorate is faced with two choices how is it 'democratic' for us all to be led by the views of a minority (37%)? Secondly, I know the Brexiteers hate this but, the rules state that the Referendum was advisory. Why are you all now so keen to abandon the rules and for that matter, the sovereignty of Parliament?

[Andy_Faber]

You were right the first time Ram59...'Over the top and ridiculous'...should have stopped there.

Southern...you question the Remainers knowledge of 'democracy' but - and I'm sorry to labour the point - two questions remain unanswered. When the electorate is faced with two choices how is it 'democratic' for us all to be led by the views of a minority (37%)? Secondly, I know the Brexiteers hate this but, the rules state that the Referendum was advisory. Why are you all now so keen to abandon the rules and for that matter, the sovereignty of Parliament?

Its democratic for two reasons:

First; We live in a parliamentary democracy, where we the people 'subcontract' the decision making to a parliament. We exercised our democratic right in 2015 and subcontracted to the conservative party, KNOWING that if we did so, a) as the government they have a statutory right to call a referendum on anything at any time, and b) they had committed in their manifesto that they would subcontract back to we the people the decision about whether to stay in or leave the EU, by means of such a referendum. Such referendums (referenda?) in UK are, by law (I think) and by precedent (for definite), won by the side which gains the most votes of those who voted. And so it came to pass that the referendum was 'won' by the Leave side, which gained the majority of the votes of those who voted. Democracy in action.

Now, and massively ironically, many so called 'remoaners' are questioning the result because they claim that those who voted Leave didn't know what they were voting for. But any of those remoaners who voted conservative clearly didn't know what they were voting for either, as they were in effect voting to provide at least the means by which the anti-EU side would prevail......

Sorry, I forgot the second. Neil Peart wrote 'if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice', and that's good enough for me

[ramAnag]

Its democratic for two reasons:

First; We live in a parliamentary democracy, where we the people 'subcontract' the decision making to a parliament. We exercised our democratic right in 2015 and subcontracted to the conservative party, KNOWING that if we did so, a) as the government they have a statutory right to call a referendum on anything at any time, and b) they had committed in their manifesto that they would subcontract back to we the people the decision about whether to stay in or leave the EU, by means of such a referendum. Such referendums (referenda?) in UK are, by law (I think) and by precedent (for definite), won by the side which gains the most votes of those who voted. And so it came to pass that the referendum was 'won' by the Leave side, which gained the majority of the votes of those who voted. Democracy in action.

Now, and massively ironically, many so called 'remoaners' are questioning the result because they claim that those who voted Leave didn't know what they were voting for. But any of those remoaners who voted conservative clearly didn't know what they were voting for either, as they were in effect voting to provide at least the means by which the anti-EU side would prevail......

Sorry, I forgot the second. Neil Peart wrote 'if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice', and that's good enough for me

Ah, but this 'Parliamentary Democracy' is exactly what the judges stood up for, via Mrs. Miller, over a month ago which led to all the Brexiteers, and Farage in particular, having a major hissy fit. Anyway, in all honesty, how many people who voted Tory in the 2015 election had the prospect of a referendum at the top of their list of concerns? It was just Cameron's way of appeasing the malcontents in his own party and by definition completely undermines your first, quite correct, claim...that the people 'subcontract' the decision making to Parliament.
I'm not sure the claim is that just the 'Leave' supporters didn't know what they were voting for, although many certainly didn't imo. I think the point is that no one really knew exactly what they were voting for because it was described so dishonestly and has since been defined so poorly by a PM who makes meaningless statements like, 'Brexit means Brexit' and we want a 'Red, White and Blue Brexit'. I'm sure the French - and the Dutch - will be delighted to hear that, but I honestly cannot remember an occasion when so much has been said and written about something, the terms of which, we all remain so completely confused about. The fool Cameron has a lot to answer for and possibly, for creating this whole situation alone, will be judged as the worst PM in history.

[roger_ramjet]

Its democratic for two reasons:

First; We live in a parliamentary democracy, where we the people 'subcontract' the decision making to a parliament. We exercised our democratic right in 2015 and subcontracted to the conservative party, KNOWING that if we did so, a) as the government they have a statutory right to call a referendum on anything at any time, and b) they had committed in their manifesto that they would subcontract back to we the people the decision about whether to stay in or leave the EU, by means of such a referendum. Such referendums (referenda?) in UK are, by law (I think) and by precedent (for definite), won by the side which gains the most votes of those who voted. And so it came to pass that the referendum was 'won' by the Leave side, which gained the majority of the votes of those who voted. Democracy in action.

Now, and massively ironically, many so called 'remoaners' are questioning the result because they claim that those who voted Leave didn't know what they were voting for. But any of those remoaners who voted conservative clearly didn't know what they were voting for either, as they were in effect voting to provide at least the means by which the anti-EU side would prevail......

Sorry, I forgot the second. Neil Peart wrote 'if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice', and that's good enough for me

Sorry, I must have missed this. Are you telling me that only 37% of the voting public voted to leave? I dont think this is true at all

So let us examine the 37% that are supposedly leading us down the garden path to Eden, or Hell, depending on your viewpoint.

Its not really 37%: its 37% of the registered voters. About 5 million voting age people did not even bother to register to vote, so the 37% becomes a bit under 34%.

Further if we examine the total UK population, its around 65 million, so less than 27% of "the people". OK a chunk of those are kids, but it is their future we are talking about; and a few are no doubt in jail such that they lose their ability to vote, but who gives a **** about them.

So our fate - the will of the people, as it were, is barely more than 1/4 of the population.

Are you with me so far, Mangara....

BUT (there always has to be a but doesnt there) less than 1/4 voted to remain.

So which best represents the will of the people - just over a quarter or just under a quarter. I suppose the answer is neither, but to do nothing would be to "take sides" so one has to say which is more representative. Around half expressed no opinion whatsoever either through disenfranchisement, indolence or "couldnt be bothered).

So let us re examine the question that voters were asked. Is there any bias there inferring how the intentions of the non voters should be interpreted? Nope. It was a simple IN or OUT, so the intentions of those that did not vote, cannot be inferred in either direction. Neither IN or OUT. So their opinion has to be ignored.

However you look at it, one option (OUT) got more support than the other (STAY). OUT may not be an overwhelming will of the people, but it is more the will of the people than STAY. So what do we know about those that did not either register to vote or vote? We could assume that their views mirrored those of the voters, in which case the OUT decision is representative.

We could, politically incorrectly perhaps, assume that those who couldnt be bothered or chose not to vote were a collection of people such as the elderly, the JAMs the undereducateds etc (this is the conventional analysis of non voters in an election). How did these demographics vote when they did vote - overwhelmingly OUT. How about the 5 million that did not even bother to register to vote? Probably the same social groupings.

So the best we can say about the non voting eligible voters is that their characteristics are more likely to match the OUT voters, and so if voting were compulsory, the OUT vote majority would probably have been greater.

Sadly for the next generations, who had no vote, consensus is that they would have voted STAY. Plus ca change la meme chose

[ramAnag]

Sorry, I must have missed this. Are you telling me that only 37% of the voting public voted to leave? I dont think this is true at all

So let us examine the 37% that are supposedly leading us down the garden path to Eden, or Hell, depending on your viewpoint.

Its not really 37%: its 37% of the registered voters. About 5 million voting age people did not even bother to register to vote, so the 37% becomes a bit under 34%.

Further if we examine the total UK population, its around 65 million, so less than 27% of "the people". OK a chunk of those are kids, but it is their future we are talking about; and a few are no doubt in jail such that they lose their ability to vote, but who gives a **** about them.

So our fate - the will of the people, as it were, is barely more than 1/4 of the population.

Are you with me so far, Mangara....

BUT (there always has to be a but doesnt there) less than 1/4 voted to remain.

So which best represents the will of the people - just over a quarter or just under a quarter. I suppose the answer is neither, but to do nothing would be to "take sides" so one has to say which is more representative. Around half expressed no opinion whatsoever either through disenfranchisement, indolence or "couldnt be bothered).

So let us re examine the question that voters were asked. Is there any bias there inferring how the intentions of the non voters should be interpreted? Nope. It was a simple IN or OUT, so the intentions of those that did not vote, cannot be inferred in either direction. Neither IN or OUT. So their opinion has to be ignored.

However you look at it, one option (OUT) got more support than the other (STAY). OUT may not be an overwhelming will of the people, but it is more the will of the people than STAY. So what do we know about those that did not either register to vote or vote? We could assume that their views mirrored those of the voters, in which case the OUT decision is representative.

We could, politically incorrectly perhaps, assume that those who couldnt be bothered or chose not to vote were a collection of people such as the elderly, the JAMs the undereducateds etc (this is the conventional analysis of non voters in an election). How did these demographics vote when they did vote - overwhelmingly OUT. How about the 5 million that did not even bother to register to vote? Probably the same social groupings.

So the best we can say about the non voting eligible voters is that their characteristics are more likely to match the OUT voters, and so if voting were compulsory, the OUT vote majority would probably have been greater.

Sadly for the next generations, who had no vote, consensus is that they would have voted STAY. Plus ca change la meme chose

Not sure what you're suggesting you've 'missed' but I thought it was 37% of the actual (potential) electorate Roger, not the 'registered' electorate but I may be wrong.
Completely agree about the way in which the younger generation have been effectively disenfranchised in what is more a decision about their future than those with a decade or less left but that's always a tricky one...as for the rest, I think you've probably broken the record for the number of assumptions in one post.