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

[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!!

[roger_ramjet]

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!

My response was directed at Mangara, not you, Swale! Thats what the little quote thing at the top is designed to infer......

[swaledale]

Lets stop hanging on to this 37% rubbish please....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36616028

If anything, this shows how our nation is truly split. Ironic how those in Scotland don't want to be ruled by London, and shows how the rest of England's & Wales' views differ from London's.

Elephant in the room is of course that London is largely populated by foreign persons or close dependants of.

44.9% white british, so yes non white british in a minority but hardly largely populated by foreign persons?

[swaledale]

My response was directed at Mangara, not you, Swale! Thats what the little quote thing at the top is designed to infer......

Pardon me for having an opinion, its a forum I can respond if i want!

[ramAnag]

Roger...for someone who voted 'Remain' you can't half adopt some strange stances.
At a General Election most seats will be fought by the usual suspects...Labour, Conservative, Liberal, UKIP and a couple of other, even more bonkers, parties, for the sake of argument, the 'I Don't Like Darkies Party' and the 'Wear Something Silly To Show Off Party'.
Then throw in the more significant parties representing Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales and is it any wonder that the eventual Government ends up being elected via the support of only around 30% of the electorate?
At a Referendum, or at least the last one, we were presented, ludicrously imo, with two choices...Remain or Leave. Even with just two choices we have a situation where, out of an electorate of around 47 million just 17.5 million voted to Leave and yet now we are meant to blindly accept that this is democracy at work.
Now okay, I accept that 17.5m is marginally greater than the 17m who actually voted 'Remain', of course I do, but you too must surely accept that the support of a mere 17.5/47m (37%) provides no sort of a mandate for the Government to impose such change on the rest of us.
You say, 'the system is the system, the rules are the rules, they were predefined'. Fair enough, but what was also pre-defined was that the result of this Referendum was advisory and not binding. Parliament must take account of the Referendum result...both Parliament and the Government must take account of the fact that a significant proportion of the population (over one third) are unhappy with the situation over immigration, have concerns over the development of a single European State, believe the EU to be too bureaucratic etc.
That, however, according to the 'rules' and the 'system' does not mean that we must follow the road to seeming ruin and accept that the votes of a 37% 'majority' are suddenly binding on the Government. They are not and never have been.

[claw84]

We will leave the EU and why not???? This country has stood on its own for nearly a thousand years, people who wish to remain in the failing EU should grow a pair and face the future with confidence and stand together. The doom mongers are wrong.

[Gaspode]

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.

But when you say 63% didn't support leave, you're assuming that the people who didn't vote were effectively saying they liked the status quo (so voting to remain by proxy (even though a remain vote was anything but a vote to carry on as we are)). That's not a leap you can take with any credibility as we have no idea what the missing 28% would have voted for if they had been forced to - they may have all voted leave - or they may have all voted remain - or they may have been split down the middle in the same proportion as those that did vote - we just don't know.
And to follow through your argument, it's just as easy to add those missing voters to the leave numbers and state that 65% didn't actively support remain and 37% are actively against remaining.
The terms of the referendum and how it would be measured (a majority of those that voted) were clearly defined before the vote took place. Complaining after the event that not enough people voted or that it should have been calculated another way because it didn't provide the 'correct' answer doesn't solve anything - we've voted leave and we need to make it happen - the court case and other pettiness from some MPs (Clegg!) and some in the Lords actually damages the country by delaying the triggering of Article 50 and continues the uncertainty that businesses hate so much. If the country is going to make a success of becoming independent it needs everyone on-board - the people worrying the most about the consequences are the ones that are actually increasing the risk of failure.......

[ramAnag]

Of course I'm not assuming that 63% were all in favour of the status quo and I accept your point about the 'missing' 28%. But neither can you assume that those 'missing' 28%, or even a significant majority of them, are in favour of 'Brexit'.
The situation is, imo, that we have gone through a very ill advised and poorly thought through Referendum process where cases were presented via a web of lies and deceit to an electorate that is insufficiently politically aware to be able to make an informed decision and we now have a situation where we are all meant to blindly follow a result agreed by just 37% of the electorate.
That makes no sense at all to me but yesterday's High Court decision thankfully means that Parliament - not just the Government/Cabinet - will at least have the opportunity to represent us as far as the implications and manifestation of the possible, or even probable, Brexit conditions are concerned and that, again imo, can only be a good thing.

[Gaspode]

I hear what you're saying, but you're repeating the argument that the result shouldn't be binding because just 37 % of the electorate voted for it - at the end of the day, pretty much everyone over the age of 18 had the right to vote - if they didn't take up that right (apathy, couldn't decide, whatever....) then they have made that choice and handed over responsibility to make a decision to those that did vote - and of that 72% that did vote, more wanted to leave than wanted to stay - the same rules would have applied if only 2% of the population had gone out to vote. That's why the terms were clearly set out and why the result stands.
I agree entirely about the quality of debate, but don't forget when putting your faith Parliament, that it was Parliament who agreed to run the referendum, the question that was asked and the terms of the referendum result....

[ramAnag]

I hear what you're saying, but you're repeating the argument that the result shouldn't be binding because just 37 % of the electorate voted for it - at the end of the day, pretty much everyone over the age of 18 had the right to vote - if they didn't take up that right (apathy, couldn't decide, whatever....) then they have made that choice and handed over responsibility to make a decision to those that did vote - and of that 72% that did vote, more wanted to leave than wanted to stay - the same rules would have applied if only 2% of the population had gone out to vote. That's why the terms were clearly set out and why the result stands.
I agree entirely about the quality of debate, but don't forget when putting your faith Parliament, that it was Parliament who agreed to run the referendum, the question that was asked and the terms of the referendum result....

Thanks for being so civilised about it but, just to be clear...actually what I am saying is, 'the result shouldn't/can't be binding' because the result of any referendum is only advisory unless stated otherwise. It wasn't stated otherwise and therefore isn't binding.
On the subject of the 37%, I'm saying that there are no circumstances at all where 17.5m out of almost 47m can be said to represent the 'voice or will of the people'.
Unfortunately at the end if the day though, I have to admit I entirely share your disillusionment with the vast majority of the politicians who make up Parliament.

[swaledale]

But when you say 63% didn't support leave, you're assuming that the people who didn't vote were effectively saying they liked the status quo (so voting to remain by proxy (even though a remain vote was anything but a vote to carry on as we are)). That's not a leap you can take with any credibility as we have no idea what the missing 28% would have voted for if they had been forced to - they may have all voted leave - or they may have all voted remain - or they may have been split down the middle in the same proportion as those that did vote - we just don't know.
And to follow through your argument, it's just as easy to add those missing voters to the leave numbers and state that 65% didn't actively support remain and 37% are actively against remaining.
The terms of the referendum and how it would be measured (a majority of those that voted) were clearly defined before the vote took place. Complaining after the event that not enough people voted or that it should have been calculated another way because it didn't provide the 'correct' answer doesn't solve anything - we've voted leave and we need to make it happen - the court case and other pettiness from some MPs (Clegg!) and some in the Lords actually damages the country by delaying the triggering of Article 50 and continues the uncertainty that businesses hate so much. If the country is going to make a success of becoming independent it needs everyone on-board - the people worrying the most about the consequences are the ones that are actually increasing the risk of failure.......

Its not doom mongering its an appraisal of the facts, there is all this hogwash about doing deals and trading with countries outside the EU, exactly what do we make these days that these countries are going to be wanting to buy? Where do we do the bulk of our trading? The Eu. Which is one of our biggest earners? Services, who do we deal with? The EU - the complex interelationship with the Eu is not going to be disentangled quickly nor would it be to our benefit if it was.

There seems to be this simple faith that we can rewind a few decades and be what we were a long time ago, which kind of misses the point about how a modern economy works!

Of course we can stand alone, just as long as your all happy to accept fewer jobs, a poorer economy and a lower standard of living!