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

[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.

[MadAmster]

It is also my view that the Referendum was advisory

Indeed it was. That was part of the Bill/Act that made the referendum possible.

It is my view that everybody knew that the viewpoint (in or out) gaining the most votes cast on the day would "win".

It is fact that Cameron said, many a time and oft, that he would honour the decision, whichever "side" "won".

When it turned out to be Leave, he "fell on his sword" as he didn't think he could effectively carry out something in which he didn't believe. That led to a leadership election which saw Mayhem become PM. She then, basically, crippled herself by losing an unnecessary General Election which she decided to call.

Too many politicians, IMO, are pushing the UK in a direction that will, first and foremost, benefit themselves and the 1%. That has to stop. How? I don't know but an MP should, eventually, leave Parliament proud of his/her legacy to the populace as a whole rather than proud of getting a leg up personally to a position of financial security for themselves.

[Geoff Parkstone]

Indeed an MP should, eventually, leave Parliament proud of his/her legacy to the populace as a whole rather than proud of getting a leg up personally to a position of financial security for themselves.

A nice theory, but rooted in the mid Victorian ideals of Disraeli and Gladstone when arguably there was so little knowledge available about what happened in parliament that they could get away with anything anyway.

I fear I have to come back to the "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" observation. I actually cannot think of a single MP in my lifetime who could be said to have acted selflessly across his or her career - from any political persuasion. Yje closest I can think of might be Tony Benn who gave up his hereditary title to serve and (largely because he was never trusted with any power) seems to have kept his snout mostly clean. Corbyn might have got away with a similar low key role, but now he has power he will doubtless get found out too. Tory sleeze, expenses abuse have been endemic - Jeremy Thorpe anyone? new labour - Blair lining his future in gold. Nope noone passes muster.

Part of this will be because the dogs of Grub Street keep digging until they find something, part because its simply human nature to feather your own nest: none of us are angels so why should we expect MP's to be any different? I challenge anyone out there to name a single MP that has acted selflessly without hidden agendae or personal aggrandisment.

Oh, I forgot Enoch Powell.....

[MadAmster]

I think it was David Hill of Labour, never an MP having lost 2 consecutive elections to the Tory Ivan Lawrence for the Burton constituency, who was the best ever politician for the constituents. Lawrence was regularly the worst attender of debates in the house but did hold regular but infrequent surgeries in the town.

Over a period of some 8 years, Hill held regular and very frequent surgeries and picked up all the issues that Lawrence didn't for individuals. The 2nd election I was convinced he would get in................... wrong. He jacked it in at that point and we haven't had anybody, be they the MP or a candidate, who has done so much for the people.

[ramAnag]

Indeed it was. That was part of the Bill/Act that made the referendum possible.

It is my view that everybody knew that the viewpoint (in or out) gaining the most votes cast on the day would "win".

It is fact that Cameron said, many a time and oft, that he would honour the decision, whichever "side" "won".

When it turned out to be Leave, he "fell on his sword" as he didn't think he could effectively carry out something in which he didn't believe. That led to a leadership election which saw Mayhem become PM. She then, basically, crippled herself by losing an unnecessary General Election which she decided to call.

Too many politicians, IMO, are pushing the UK in a direction that will, first and foremost, benefit themselves and the 1%. That has to stop. How? I don't know but an MP should, eventually, leave Parliament proud of his/her legacy to the populace as a whole rather than proud of getting a leg up personally to a position of financial security for themselves.

Cameron ‘fell on his sword’ because he took a risk with the future of the country in order to silence the ‘rebels’ in his own Party and totally failed.
He had no credibility after that but what credibility did Theresa May have? She was, at the time, the lesser of several evils but was also an avowed ‘Remainer’ hence the subsequent Tory Party infighting which has done nothing other than harm the country.
She also didn’t lose the election. She certainly didn’t do as well as expected and may well have lost had there been a stronger opposition, but she did win, hence why she is still, just about, PM, albeit propped up by the positively medieval DUP.

[MadAmster]

Cameron ‘fell on his sword’ because he took a risk with the future of the country in order to silence the ‘rebels’ in his own Party and totally failed.
He had no credibility after that but what credibility did Theresa May have? She was, at the time, the lesser of several evils but was also an avowed ‘Remainer’ hence the subsequent Tory Party infighting which has done nothing other than harm the country.
She also didn’t lose the election. She certainly didn’t do as well as expected and may well have lost had there been a stronger opposition, but she did win, hence why she is still, just about, PM, albeit propped up by the positively medieval DUP.

I always think a party has won a General Election when they have an overall majority rather than by bribing a handful of Irish people with a Billion quid.......

[ramAnag]

I always think a party has won a General Election when they have an overall majority rather than by bribing a handful of Irish people with a Billion quid.......

An oddly different concept of ‘winning’ to the one you appear to recommend in relation to the Referendum.

[mistaram]

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?

RA Johnson Gove Farage Rees Mogg etc were responsible for the most spectacular and memorable lies
Umm not sure about that this one takes some beating. 15th June 2016 Chancellor Osbourne addresses the nation to tell them if the vote to leave He will slash public spending and increase taxes in an emergency budget The Chancellor said this will include raising income tax and inheritance tax The cuts will include the NHS budget A leave vote will cost every family £3,600 a year He stated his first budget would include a 2p rise in the basic rate of tax and 3p rise in higher rate How ironic only yesterday the Chancellor does exactly the opposite Incidently I fully agree with you we should never have had a referendum parliament should have made the decision

[MadAmster]

An oddly different concept of ‘winning’ to the one you appear to recommend in relation to the Referendum.

Ah, yes, the General Election where, very often, 44% of the votes cast gives you 60% of the seats at Westsminster.

Our system is far from perfect and does really require change.

[ramAnag]

Ah, yes, the General Election where, very often, 44% of the votes cast gives you 60% of the seats at Westsminster.

Our system is far from perfect and does really require change.

Quite agree MA, but my point was that you implied that you only respected a GE victory which achieved a genuine working majority whereas, in the case of the ‘two horse’ Referendum, you appear to have a different set of standards where whatever that just over one third percentage is that so upsets Parky is allowed to win the day.

Tbf mista, Osborne couldn’t wait to run off into the sunset with Shady Dave so we’ll never know what his strategy as Chancellor might have been, plus...lest we forget...Brexit hasn’t actually happened yet so who knows what belt tightening the next Budget might bring us?

[MadAmster]

Quite agree MA, but my point was that you implied that you only respected a GE victory which achieved a genuine working majority whereas, in the case of the ‘two horse’ Referendum, you appear to have a different set of standards where whatever that just over one third percentage is that so upsets Parky is allowed to win the day.

Changing the system wouldn't have any effect on votes past.

For a GE we need a system whereby a party only gets more than half the seats in Parliament when they have more than half of the votes.

This might involve keeping the current constituency system but with a twist. A party will only "win" as many seats as their % of the votes nationwide. That could mean that party A gets the most votes in Sampletown but, because they didn't get enough votes nationwide, party B, who came second but the majority is only a small one, gets the Parliamentary seat. This keeps alive the system where an MP (supposedly) represents all of the people of a certain area. A better system, IMO, than PR and the seats going to #1 to number however many the party won, taken from a pre published party list.

Referenda? It was clear to almost everybody that the winner of the EU one would be the one that got 50% +1 or more of the votes cast. To avoid the "nastiness" that is currently happening in some places the criteria should have been 50% +1 or more of the electorate or 66% of the votes cast........ but that wasn't the case.

The divisiveness the vote has caused will remain, IMO, long after March 29th 2019. As usual, those in power just didn't realise........