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

[Trickytreesreds]

Mac...whichever way we look at it I believe the key phrase in this whole debate belongs to BaaLocks and is...'we shouldn't be imposing this level of change on any country without being clear exactly what we mean by it'. People weren't clear and, imo, the only people who will disagree with the sentiment of that phrase are those with something to fear.

If what you say about warped and misleading politicians is true, and I'm inclined to agree, does that mean we have to continue to put up with it? Surely we should take a stand and maybe now is the time to do it.

Very good point ramanag.
The same can be said of Macs point. My parents never voted for a European federation. They voted for a common market. That was what was sold to them- FAIR TRADE!!
There was never any mention of the ever closer union, because the likes of Heath knew that it would get flushed down the toilet.

just as it is now, it was then- the INNERS lied- loads.

In 1972 Edward Heath said that the EU was only a COMMON MARKET. “There are some in this country who fear that going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified. Thus he deceived the UK into joining the EU. He was lying and he knew perfectly well at the time he was lying.

[AngryRam]

I think the great British public have sent a message that they are not prepared to take it up the pooper anymore.
If it had not gone to a referendum then that would have equally as wrong.. Self serving MPs who have the gravy train mapped out after stepping down. If the decision would have stayed with Parliment it would have only gine one way.
How does the local MP vote.. The heat map of exit votes was pretty much most of the country. Those MPs might have been in the remain camp but their consituants want out.. Do they then vote in or out?
Also you can leave just yet. We need a review at 1000 posts, we can maybe release you after that.

[Ram59]

So we've voted for a step into the unknown, wouldn't a vote to stay in also be a step into the unknown?

In 1975 we voted to stay in the common market of about 9 countries. Who could foresee that a common currency, freedom of movement, etc, etc, between 28 countries would have followed. I wonder, how many would have voted to stay in, if they had known what was round the corner?

I think if we had voted the other way, we would have had to be less rebellious in the future, because our threat to leave would be spent.

[roger_ramjet]

To answer your points in turn Ram 59:

1. I could
2. I voted to leave
3. Maybe, but there is a new generation of dissidents out there too

[macstheman]

That is my whole point BaaLocks, in our democracy we appoint governments on false or manipulated information, promises and visions for the future, but that is the ay we do it. Then Joe public has to make it work. Recessions, inflation, deflation, crime explosions etc etc and sometimes improved living standards, lower crime, steady economic growth etc etc follow our 'choice' of government. If it goes wrong then we kick em out at the next opportunity even though we don't know whether the other option would have been or will be any better! We just get on with and sort the mess out ourselves. If we pontificate after the event every time we (the public) can't, guarantee that our pontification will improve matters so we just do what democracy requires us to do ....get on with it.
I don't see that as allowing **** to happen but rather it protects us from the most important thing THAT BIG BROTHER DOESNT USE IT AS AN EXCUSE TO **** ON US BY DEVALUING OUR ABILITY TO MAKE BAD DECISIONS. A re-run will give our manipulative politicians that opportunity!!

[Gaspode]

It's a very good point macstheman - claiming to those in charge that we were too stupid to make the decision and we should "have another go" opens up a whole can of worms - one which ends with democracy as the main loser. And how far do we take this new approach to voting? - general elections (best of three wins?); local elections; etc; etc.....I'm afraid the remainers calling for another vote really need to accept that approx 65% of the electorate didn't vote to remain...

[BaaLocks]

Also you can leave just yet. We need a review at 1000 posts, we can maybe release you after that.

Ah - so it's like Hotel California, you can check in but you can never leave?

All I was saying was that I've kind of said everything I can think to say on my point (even if Gaspode is still missing the point, seeming to think I am suggesting government by red buzzer :-)) but I can hang around to make the odd occasional banal comment or smarty pants wise crack (or least one that I think is smarty pants) if that helps get the numbers up.

[ramAnag]

Sorry but none of you are addressing the issue here. Without jumping on any bandwagon Angry, and I have been saying this since the outcome of the referendum though perhaps not as eloquently as BaaLocks, the key issue for me remains...'we shouldn't be imposing this level of change on any country without being clear exactly what we mean by it'.

There is little doubt that a) the people - on both sides - did not have a full understanding of all the complexities involved in the referendum. b) 37% does not represent the voice or will of the people. c) leaders on both sides of the campaign told lies and deliberately set out to mislead the electorate.

Not much to argue with there and with that in mind, the conduct and outcome of the referendum cannot, imo, be seen as anything other than seriously flawed and that, again imo, provides no sensible basis for making a decision of this magnitude.

Personally I don't want to see a second referendum. Referenda may be okay for some situations - player of the year or goal of the month etc - but not where the running of a country is concerned. Another fact is that this referendum was legally never anything other than advisory, so let's take on board the issues and feelings that were raised and pass back to Parliament - you remember them...the democratically elected body whose sovereignty we apparently hold so dear - to determine the way in which we now proceed without running yet more risks with our country's reputation and future.

[BaaLocks]

It's a very good point macstheman - claiming to those in charge that we were too stupid to make the decision and we should "have another go" opens up a whole can of worms - one which ends with democracy as the main loser. And how far do we take this new approach to voting? - general elections (best of three wins?); local elections; etc; etc.....I'm afraid the remainers calling for another vote really need to accept that approx 65% of the electorate didn't vote to remain...

- Not claiming we have another go, requesting we understand what we have voted for.

- No more referendums beyond this issue please, not a fan.

- Not challenging the decision, we the UK made it and we shouldn't ask for a recount / revote or other form of 'guess again' scenario. However, it is fair to ensure we are all clear on what it was that we voted for.

- Or, put another way, 62% of the population didn't vote for what we have ended up with. I get that this might happen in a general election but in a yes / no vote it must concern people that 3 in 5 are now getting something they actively didn't choose.

- As for 'showing them we won't take any more' I offer you this factoid from the Independent from the day after the vote. Hardly smells of revolt on the streets does it?

"7 in 10 Leave voters said they thought there wasn't much in yesterday's vote. Leave voters were three times as likely to say that as Remain voters, more than three-quarters of whom thought the wrong vote would have disastrous consequences."

[Trickytreesreds]

Sorry but none of you are addressing the issue here. Without jumping on any bandwagon Angry, and I have been saying this since the outcome of the referendum though perhaps not as eloquently as BaaLocks, the key issue for me remains...'we shouldn't be imposing this level of change on any country without being clear exactly what we mean by it'.

There is little doubt that a) the people - on both sides - did not have a full understanding of all the complexities involved in the referendum. b) 37% does not represent the voice or will of the people. c) leaders on both sides of the campaign told lies and deliberately set out to mislead the electorate.

Not much to argue with there and with that in mind, the conduct and outcome of the referendum cannot, imo, be seen as anything other than seriously flawed and that, again imo, provides no sensible basis for making a decision of this magnitude.

Personally I don't want to see a second referendum. Referenda may be okay for some situations - player of the year or goal of the month etc - but not where the running of a country is concerned. Another fact is that this referendum was legally never anything other than advisory, so let's take on board the issues and feelings that were raised and pass back to Parliament - you remember them...the democratically elected body whose sovereignty we apparently hold so dear - to determine the way in which we now proceed without running yet more risks with our country's reputation and future.

Ramanag- you mean well but folks are never going to see it the way you do. For me-
1. people on both sides don't have a full understanding and never will have. The politicians can't tell you, cos they don't know. No one can even say the out come of leaving until negotiations are concluded, so how can you debate that? Most folks looked at their own lives and what the EU means/does to them. I didn't like the way it's going politically and the surge in migrants locally effecting jobs/houses etc.
2.37% does not represent the people, but the 34% remain doesn't either? It's not our fault that those who didn't vote, didn't.
Every election has a cut off point. It was reached and that's that. Had the vote been the other way, would you be arguing the same fact?
3. All politicians tell lies. If you have a brain, you know that.
Personally, if I was you, have a look at project fear more than your usual victim of Grove and the NHS, or Farage's poster.
We have been lied to since day one. My own parents still fume to this day how Heath conned everyone.
We joined a common market, not a "political union" of unification. Back than it was 9, quite powerful countries, the idea was sound. Since then, only Darth Vader and the Emperor were missing, as the Empire stretched out it's hand.

[Gaspode]

Sorry but none of you are addressing the issue here.....

Actually, an awful lot of people on here are addressing the issue - just because their answer doesn't tally with the one you want to hear doesn't mean they're not addressing it.....

[BaaLocks]

No one can even say the out come of leaving until negotiations are concluded.

And my misery is complete, not only have I quoted Ed Milliband today but I have now ruined my weekend by realising I am in agreement with, well, one of them.

[ramAnag]

Tricky...don't you think your first sentence is just a tad patronising?

To take your other points in order.

1. Then what on earth was the point of the referendum. If all you say about the public and politicians is true what was the point?

2. I have never argued that 34% is more representative than 37%. It would be insane to do so, but the fact is that a massive level of change may be about to be imposed on our country without the approval of 63% of the electorate. How is that right?

3. I know politicians lie - as I think Roger suggested...I've seen their lips moving. Which bit of that means I have to continue to accept the situation?

4. It simply isn't fair to hark back to the seventies to suggest that, because of what it has become, that everyone was 'conned' about the Common Market. You say yourself, 'back then...the idea was sound', if that was the case then you can't have it both ways. I'm no more in favour of increased bureaucracy and federalisation than you are but, as I'm sick and tired of repeating...it is much easier to change something you are a part of than something you exclude yourself from.

[Ram59]

Kinda proves my point, most of the leavers realise that when things settle down, it'll be better without much disruption.

Whereas, the remainers have been intimidated into believing the world will come to an end should they vote to leave. 2 months on there should be more evidence of a total apocalypse, rather than the pound dropping against the dollar.

[ramAnag]

Actually, an awful lot of people on here are addressing the issue - just because their answer doesn't tally with the one you want to hear doesn't mean they're not addressing it.....

Not if the issue is...'we shouldn't be imposing this level of change on any country without being clear exactly what we mean by it'...they're not.