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

[Geoff Parkstone]

Its interesting to see the differences emerging as D day draws near.

The Brexiteers are characterised as threatening, bullying and intimidatory, which would appear, in fairness, to be true of a small minority of that clan. It does not in my mind apply to the entire corps of brexit supporting individuals, most of whom have their own well thought out logical reasons for choosing separation from europe. Its just cheap point scoring.

One might say its typical of the mealy mouthed wimpish liberal supporting remainers to exaggerate the actions of this minority and to try to pin this characteristic on anyone disagreeing with their own (probably equally well rationalised in their mind) opinion. But this would be to act in the same manner as them, and to try to win points based on the characteristic of minority of their supporters.

Both sides think they are right, both sides are unlikely to change their minds, and both sides will be unhappy with any compromise. But FFS stop the point scoring and bickering and pull together to try to find a solution to the insoluble!

37% think one thing, 33% think another and 30% seemingly don't give a flying **** - its this 30% that have created all this turmoil, since, in effect, both sides are claiming the same 30% to their own. So the 37 and the 33 muckrake and throw the raked up mud at each other for what reason? Calling someone a bully or stubborn will not change their minds, it wont achieve anything. Thinking one side is worse than the other is pointless - you will always see the "side that you support" as being innocent and the other side as guilty of all the sins in the debate. Brexit has become as tribal as football. Its frankly pathetic polarised arguments which become ever more polarised with constant repetition.

The constant repetition of the "we won the majority of the (popular) vote" vs "more people didn't vote to leave than did" has been a massive distraction iin the whole issue. Polarised views here demonstrably will never change, and pointless arguments about cheating, lying and questioning the legality/validity/appropriateness of the outcome is simply childish. The playground is no place for this debate - although perversely its the future of those currently in the playground that will be most impacted.

I do not see how this can be resolved, but instead of BvR, lets look to the real villains of the piece - the 30% abstainers. By and large they have been responsible for creating wiggle room post referendum. They should be shot (in violent, naughy Brexiteer terms), or given a stern talking to and sent for counselling (in wimpy, liberal Remainer terms) but this is where responsibility lies for this almighty cock up. if we ever have a referendum again, for pity's sake make voting compulsory under pain of being lectured by rA !!

[Manofpride]

Well put, GP.
I remember George Galloway getting beaten up by thugs, made a story for a day and Soubry gets name called and we'll be hearing about it until we leave.

[ramAnag]

A tad unfair from GP and MoP one feels.
Context is everything as far as the Anna Soubry intimidation is concerned and it would be unwise to ignore the related incidents with regard to Jo Cox, Gina Miller and numerous migrants immediately after the Referendum.
It doesn’t, of course, apply to all Brexiteers as GP rightly points out and I, for one, have never suggested that to be the case. This aspect of the discussion was however introduced as a result of ‘Amster (I think) suggesting that disappointed and extreme Brexiteers, of precisely the type seen this week outside Parliament, would likely be rioting in the street if they did not get their way and we should not, imo, give in to such bullying and thuggery.
As for the percentage argument I think it is unfair to blame the 30% who didn’t vote, GP.
There could be numerous reasons for them not voting...illness, holidays, unavoidable commitments, apathy etc...but possibly another reason is that some were simply honest enough to admit they didn’t feel suitably equipped and knowledgeable to make the decision.
Tbh I actually doubt very much that as many as 20% of the electorate are sufficiently knowledgeable to reach an informed decision on Brexit. I include myself in that number and that, along with the fact that the Brexit campaign was dominated by lies, is why the whole concept of a Referendum was flawed to begin with.
Having said that...it would be almost impossible for members of the public not to be better informed now after the wall to wall televised coverage of infighting over the last thirty months. With that in mind, although I am thoroughly uncomfortable with the idea, given our politicians serial inability to come up with any sort of resolution I can see no alternative other than a second referendum which should be properly worded and lead to action, be that leave or remain, on the basis of one side or the other earning the support of at least 51% of the electorate.
That at least could actually be regarded as the ‘will of the people’ and to those who oppose such an idea and regard it as some sort of ‘affront to democracy’, I ask...what are you afraid of?

[MadAmster]

Not a suggestion rA, simply what I think will happen if the UK is still having freedom of movement and is in a customs union despite Mayhem saying many a time and oft that neither would apply after Brexit..........

[Manofpride]

A tad unfair from GP and MoP one feels.
I ask...what are you afraid of?

I'm afraid of staying in the EU. Another vote could see us staying put, how bad would that be.
We've had a vote which the Brexiteers won and now we get the losers on a strop trying to reverse it.
We had a vote and the outcome was leave. Lets get on with it and leave. All this arrogance from the remainers does my head in.
Like Mick Jagger said you can't always get what you want. Accept defeat!

[ramAnag]

I'm afraid of staying in the EU. Another vote could see us staying put, how bad would that be.
We've had a vote which the Brexiteers won and now we get the losers on a strop trying to reverse it.
We had a vote and the outcome was leave. Lets get on with it and leave. All this arrogance from the remainers does my head in.
Like Mick Jagger said you can't always get what you want. Accept defeat!

Well seeing as you ask...’how bad would that be?’ Not bad at all imo. Haven’t we done rather well out of it all...the fifth wealthiest nation in the World I believe...or we were...before you know what!

Struggling to understand the difference between a ‘suggestion’ and ‘what you think will happen’, MA.
I wasn’t implying you supported such action, but you did suggest that a consequence of not leaving at all or going along with May’s plan might well lead to behaviour similar to that seen in France before Christmas i.e.rioting on the streets of the UK.

[Geoff Parkstone]

OK rA let's have your second referendum. Since the status quo presently is to leave, the question would be a simple "should UK change its mind and now remain in EU". 51% of electorate required to change decision. Without mandatory voting, what chance do you give your side?? I'd say 5% at best. Turnout probably down from first referendum, some hardening of views. You'd need something like a 50% swing in your favour....

[Geoff Parkstone]

ONS show about 46.5 million registered voters in UK

51% = say 23.3 million

Votes cast for "remain" last time = 16.1 million (leave 17.4 million, CBA 13.0 million)

So remain would need 7.2 million voters to either switch allegiance, or emerge from the CBA group, in order to prevail. This would then allow a "majority of electorate decision" in favour of remaining after all. 7.2 million is 55% of the uncommitted CBA group, inferring a massive swing within the uncommitted group - whose preferences at referendum 1 were unknown,but we can assume that no preference is 50/50 brexit/remain). And of course there would need to be a mechanism to "force" the CBA's to vote

The failure to achieve a 51% majority, the odds on favourite at any second referendum, given these numbers, would leave the status quo unchanged: ie still leave. Of course had these "result conditions" been imposed on the first vote, we would not be talking about leaving now. But they weren't, and we are.

Of course its equally unlikely that 51%+ would vote to maintain the leave status either (or is it to remain leaving, to complicate things further).

[ramAnag]

OK rA let's have your second referendum. Since the status quo presently is to leave, the question would be a simple "should UK change its mind and now remain in EU". 51% of electorate required to change decision. Without mandatory voting, what chance do you give your side?? I'd say 5% at best. Turnout probably down from first referendum, some hardening of views. You'd need something like a 50% swing in your favour....

a) It’s not ‘my second referendum’...it’s a possible way forward.
b) At the moment we’re members of the EU. That is the ‘status quo’ as you put it. The original Referendum is totally discredited on the basis of the lies told and the electoral rules said to have been broken. It was also only ever advisory. I’m proposing that a ‘winning’ vote to either leave or remain must attract support equivalent to at least 51% of the electorate.
c) Not quite sure why you appear to want to make this thread so personal. It’s not about ‘me’ and I am ‘lecturing’ no one. I didn’t start the thread and neither did I ‘resurrect’ it earlier this week. I do, all too obviously, feel very strongly about an issue which will have a huge impact on all of us and so I respond. If you don’t like my responses then give us all the benefit of your wisdom and at least come up with an alternative.

[Geoff Parkstone]

I'm not making it personal other than to the extent that you are a lone voice for remain and thus I've attributed ownership of the cause to you!!

But I disagree with your assessment of the status quo aspect. IMHO the decision of ref #1 has been accepted by Parliament ( in some cases not entirely with good grace) evidenced by the triggering of the leave clauses and the commencement of negotiations. Thus if you want a 51% of electorate margin to change something, it has to be to overturn the current leave position. Leave is not only where we are now but is also the default position if nothing happens by 29-03.

I can understand why you would want to believe the default position would be remain because the outcome of any referendum is highly unlikely to produce a clear result ( unless you force voting) and so remain gets two shots at it - win outright or win by absence of outright leave.

However I fear that option was lost by the events of the last two years. Certainly at referendum 1 you would have been right and remain would hold the "hung vote", but I don't think that's the case now. Shame for you that the question wording wasn't different, or the voting rules different. The integrity of referendum one is irrelevant. So was the integrity of Gerhard Schulenburg against Juventus: it didn't change the result.

Your best hope is another simple majority of voters hope. But then, what is your yes/no question assuming the May deal is thrown out by Parliament? I suppose ask, on a majority of voters basis, "remain or leave with no deal" . I'd say remain would win that - and I'd vote remain in that choice.

The underlying problem is the 30%, as I said before. With such a big group of a abstainers you will almost never get a 51% of electorate support unless perhaps 2/3rds of voters support it. In which case you wouldn't have needed the referendum in the first place as public opinion would be clear for all to see already.

[ramAnag]

I'm not making it personal other than to the extent that you are a lone voice for remain and thus I've attributed ownership of the cause to you!!

But I disagree with your assessment of the status quo aspect. IMHO the decision of ref #1 has been accepted by Parliament ( in some cases not entirely with good grace) evidenced by the triggering of the leave clauses and the commencement of negotiations. Thus if you want a 51% of electorate margin to change something, it has to be to overturn the current leave position. Leave is not only where we are now but is also the default position if nothing happens by 29-03.

I can understand why you would want to believe the default position would be remain because the outcome of any referendum is highly unlikely to produce a clear result ( unless you force voting) and so remain gets two shots at it - win outright or win by absence of outright leave.

However I fear that option was lost by the events of the last two years. Certainly at referendum 1 you would have been right and remain would hold the "hung vote", but I don't think that's the case now. Shame for you that the question wording wasn't different, or the voting rules different. The integrity of referendum one is irrelevant. So was the integrity of Gerhard Schulenburg against Juventus: it didn't change the result.

Your best hope is another simple majority of voters hope. But then, what is your yes/no question assuming the May deal is thrown out by Parliament? I suppose ask, on a majority of voters basis, "remain or leave with no deal" . I'd say remain would win that - and I'd vote remain in that choice.

The underlying problem is the 30%, as I said before. With such a big group of a abstainers you will almost never get a 51% of electorate support unless perhaps 2/3rds of voters support it. In which case you wouldn't have needed the referendum in the first place as public opinion would be clear for all to see already.

Being a ‘lone voice’ worries me not one jot, GP. Anyway what does a ‘lone voice’ on this forum matter? It just happens to be somewhere I ‘inhabit’ to talk about Derby where the Brexit debate has also evolved.
I’m far from a ‘lone voice’ in the real world and the second referendum, which people on here said would never happen, has got a great deal closer.
People like you and Andy, who I usually have respect for, contradict yourselves at every turn anyway. You both voted Remain and would, as you have conceded tonight, do so again if the alternative was ‘No-deal’ and yet you seek to ridicule those of us who have remained consistently opposed to Brexit.
Anyway...there’s always Swale...

[Manofpride]

a) I didn’t start the thread and neither did I ‘resurrect’ it earlier this week. .

My ears are burning!!!

[Andy_Faber]

People like you and Andy, who I usually have respect for, contradict yourselves at every turn

Not I, RA (GP can speak for himself)

1. I voted Remain, that's fact

2. I've been consistent in saying that, once the result was in, everyone in their own way should fully devote themselves to making Brexit work.

3. I've been consistent in pointing the finger of failure at those who didn't devote themselves in that manner. That cohort includes just about every politician I could name, and, regretrably also you.

4. I've been consistent in stating that if (if iF) the question was asked again I'd vote Remain again

5. The way I square the apparent contradiction of 3. and 4. is that I live in the here and now, where 4. is just a pipedream of a mardy minority, whereas 3. is something I can actually contribute to

Its back to the pragmatist versus idealist thing again

On a related subject, did you see 'Brexit An Uncivil War'? If you didn't you should, it nailed the pre-referendum farce in 90 mins. Fantastically cast, especially Arran Banks, not sure if you'd admire the portrayal or explode with rage at the renewed memory of Banks' existence. And if you want to cut to the quick of the whole thing, go to 1 hour 12 minutes on C4 catchup and watch the next minute, maybe a dramatised event but it crystallises the whole reason Remain lost, a single white female saying it loud and proud for the folk Martin Fry called 'the silent majority, seen and never heard'. As usual I'll sign this off by reminding you I voted, and would vote again, Remain

[ramAnag]

Not I, RA (GP can speak for himself)

1. I voted Remain, that's fact

2. I've been consistent in saying that, once the result was in, everyone in their own way should fully devote themselves to making Brexit work.

3. I've been consistent in pointing the finger of failure at those who didn't devote themselves in that manner. That cohort includes just about every politician I could name, and, regretrably also you.

4. I've been consistent in stating that if (if iF) the question was asked again I'd vote Remain again

5. The way I square the apparent contradiction of 3. and 4. is that I live in the here and now, where 4. is just a pipedream of a mardy minority, whereas 3. is something I can actually contribute to

Its back to the pragmatist versus idealist thing again

On a related subject, did you see 'Brexit An Uncivil War'? If you didn't you should, it nailed the pre-referendum farce in 90 mins. Fantastically cast, especially Arran Banks, not sure if you'd admire the portrayal or explode with rage at the renewed memory of Banks' existence. And if you want to cut to the quick of the whole thing, go to 1 hour 12 minutes on C4 catchup and watch the next minute, maybe a dramatised event but it crystallises the whole reason Remain lost, a single white female saying it loud and proud for the folk Martin Fry called 'the silent majority, seen and never heard'. As usual I'll sign this off by reminding you I voted, and would vote again, Remain

It’s nothing whatsoever to do with the pragmatist v the idealist, Andy and nobody has been more ‘mardy’ or less pragmatic than those Brexiteers who fear having hollow victory snatched from their grasp by the hard nosed reality of the fact that no one voted to make the people of this country worse of.
You pointing the finger at those who didn’t/couldn’t bring themselves to ‘make Brexit work’ is something I believe you’ve come up with in recent months. The only problem is that Brexit is actually unworkable and the fact that you again suggest that given the chance you would again ‘vote Remain’ simply emphasises how unworkable it is.
You and GP heap scorn and ridicule on those of us who have consistently pointed out the error of the Brexit way and the ridiculous notion of following populist, reactionary and minority advice down the wrong ‘road’, but then both turn round and say ‘but yes...if we had the chance we’d both vote Remain next time’.
It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You either believe in Brexit or recognise it for the charade it is. Unlike you two, I’ve made my mind up.

I’ve recorded ‘Brexit an Uncivil War’ and will watch it soon. I’ll keep an eye out for the parts you refer to...especially to try and recognise who you regard as the ‘silent majority, seen and never heard’.

[Andy_Faber]

Well put, GP.
I remember George Galloway getting beaten up by thugs, made a story for a day and Soubry gets name called and we'll be hearing about it until we leave.

Likewise Farage being manhandled by a Remainer mob and smacked on the head with a placard. An example of the increasing ability of the media to suppress/magnify issues as they see fit