|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Apr 8, 2019 15:34:49 GMT
And no brexit is a perfectly valid outcome. 48 per cent of the country definitely voted for it and there has been no evidence that the Remain vote was influenced or manipulated and that electoral spending laws were violated to achieve that result, meaning that it is right now the only provable majority in the vote.
Whatever. On we go on the magical mystery tour.
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,819
|
Post by lidar2 on Apr 8, 2019 15:47:10 GMT
And no brexit is a perfectly valid outcome. 48 per cent of the country definitely voted for it and there has been no evidence that the Remain vote was influenced or manipulated and that electoral spending laws were violated to achieve that result, meaning that it is right now the only provable majority in the vote. Whatever. On we go on the magical mystery tour. Sir John Curtice, the chap who analyses opinion polls etc for the BBC seems to think there has been a slight movement towards Remain, mainly due to people who didn't vote in 2016.
One of the arguments against a 2nd referendum is that people voted Leave in 2016 who had never voted before and if their wish is not honoured they will be so disillusioned and let down that they may never vote again ... Hmmm ... if I'm brutally honest there's a small part of me that thinks that if they were daft enough to vote for brexit and believe all the nonsense promises of the brexiteers, then they'd be daft enough to vote for anything (fascist, communist, etc.) so if they never vote again that's probably not such a bad thing.
|
|
|
Post by mark687 on Apr 8, 2019 15:56:19 GMT
The two choices as they stand now for me are, No Deal or the Deal May has agreed with the EU. The one that parliament keep turning down. Even though they cant agree on what to do otherwise You realise of course that by now no deal = not leaving. Since Westminster voted down leaving without a deal. See that's how I understood it.
So now we've 2 maybe 3 options
1.May Deal as it is
2. May Deal with some sort of Labour difference
3. Stop the process altogether (which will probably trigger a snap General Election)
Regards
mark687
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Apr 8, 2019 16:11:25 GMT
And no brexit is a perfectly valid outcome. 48 per cent of the country definitely voted for it and there has been no evidence that the Remain vote was influenced or manipulated and that electoral spending laws were violated to achieve that result, meaning that it is right now the only provable majority in the vote. Whatever. On we go on the magical mystery tour. Sir John Curtice, the chap who analyses opinion polls etc for the BBC seems to think there has been a slight movement towards Remain, mainly due to people who didn't vote in 2016.
One of the arguments against a 2nd referendum is that people voted Leave in 2016 who had never voted before and if their wish is not honoured they will be so disillusioned and let down that they may never vote again ... Hmmm ... if I'm brutally honest there's a small part of me that thinks that if they were daft enough to vote for brexit and believe all the nonsense promises of the brexiteers, then they'd be daft enough to vote for anything (fascist, communist, etc.) so if they never vote again that's probably not such a bad thing.
We both know that's a nonsense. So if for instance you voted Conservative at the last election but Corbyn had cobbled together a coalition that kept them out then you wouldn't vote again? Because reasons? That sort or "reasoning" leads to "I bought a ticket in the lottery, of course I'll win the jackpot", it's just nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by doctorkernow on Apr 8, 2019 20:04:15 GMT
Hello again.
Still going round in circles are we?
I think most likely outcome is a long extension so we can sort this mess out without the cliff edge of no deal. I suspect it will be granted by the EU on condition of participation in EU elections.
That said, anything is possible.
|
|
|
Post by Digi on Apr 8, 2019 20:29:15 GMT
Hello again. Still going round in circles are we? I think most likely outcome is a long extension so we can sort this mess out without the cliff edge of no deal. I suspect it will be granted by the EU on condition of participation in EU elections. That said, anything is possible. Officials were given the go-ahead a week ago to prepare for the EU elections. neweuropeans.net/article/2691/uk-government-starts-prepare-european-elections
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Apr 8, 2019 21:49:22 GMT
And no brexit is a perfectly valid outcome. 48 per cent of the country definitely voted for it and there has been no evidence that the Remain vote was influenced or manipulated and that electoral spending laws were violated to achieve that result, meaning that it is right now the only provable majority in the vote. Whatever. On we go on the magical mystery tour. Umm... the government did send out a glossy booklet to every household in the UK explaining why the government position was to Remain, financed from taxes, just before the campaign spending limits came in... I voted Remain so I approved of good tactics, but if I was a Leaver I might have thought otherwise!
As we know, it's incredibly hard to shift how people vote one way or another in any campaign or even to get them to notice a message. People have busy lives and messages the media obsess over go straight past. It can be done but usually in the negative way: the Conservative manifesto in 2017 ruined their campaign, Labour's in 1983 did the same for them ('the longest suicide note in history' it was dubbed at the time!)
Personally I doubt anything in the campaign had much effect except some of the more eye-catching (or outrageous) Leave claims made on heavily televised posters and a certain bus which were on the TV news day after day after day; the bigger the row, the more the publicity and I still think that Remain walked straight into it - talking in outrage for days on end about £350m and Turkey, repeating their opponents' messages for free, over and over. Very many probably got the messages but not the details of the arguments.
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Apr 9, 2019 1:55:58 GMT
And no brexit is a perfectly valid outcome. 48 per cent of the country definitely voted for it and there has been no evidence that the Remain vote was influenced or manipulated and that electoral spending laws were violated to achieve that result, meaning that it is right now the only provable majority in the vote. Whatever. On we go on the magical mystery tour. Umm... the government did send out a glossy booklet to every household in the UK explaining why the government position was to Remain, financed from taxes, just before the campaign spending limits came in... I voted Remain so I approved of good tactics, but if I was a Leaver I might have thought otherwise!
As we know, it's incredibly hard to shift how people vote one way or another in any campaign or even to get them to notice a message. People have busy lives and messages the media obsess over go straight past. It can be done but usually in the negative way: the Conservative manifesto in 2017 ruined their campaign, Labour's in 1983 did the same for them ('the longest suicide note in history' it was dubbed at the time!)
Personally I doubt anything in the campaign had much effect except some of the more eye-catching (or outrageous) Leave claims made on heavily televised posters and a certain bus which were on the TV news day after day after day; the bigger the row, the more the publicity and I still think that Remain walked straight into it - talking in outrage for days on end about £350m and Turkey, repeating their opponents' messages for free, over and over. Very many probably got the messages but not the details of the arguments.
Which was the government's stance at the time, and they ran with it (very very badly). However it's the Leave vote that has been found guilty of violating spending limits and transparency and so on, and fined over it. There are claims that Remain did too, if they did then they've hidden it well because the Electoral Commission haven't found evidence of it. However, if they HAD, that too would void the result and another vote should happen, or do Brexiteers not care as long as their side win? It isn't the 100 metres, where the person who got silver cheated and it just means they're disqualified and everyone else now moves up one, bronze gets silver and fourth runner gets a medal, it violates the entire process. Ultimately I think Leave got exactly the max it was ever going to get in 2016, but Remain was complacent and plenty who supported that view didn't bother to vote because "how could they lose?" The Remain supporting government's own attitude reflected this complacency, and complacency doesn't need to rig votes LOL.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 9, 2019 6:53:30 GMT
How many politicians does it take to solve Brexit? About as many to change a lightbulb.
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,819
|
Post by lidar2 on Apr 9, 2019 8:10:12 GMT
Umm... the government did send out a glossy booklet to every household in the UK explaining why the government position was to Remain, financed from taxes, just before the campaign spending limits came in... I voted Remain so I approved of good tactics, but if I was a Leaver I might have thought otherwise!
As we know, it's incredibly hard to shift how people vote one way or another in any campaign or even to get them to notice a message. People have busy lives and messages the media obsess over go straight past. It can be done but usually in the negative way: the Conservative manifesto in 2017 ruined their campaign, Labour's in 1983 did the same for them ('the longest suicide note in history' it was dubbed at the time!)
Personally I doubt anything in the campaign had much effect except some of the more eye-catching (or outrageous) Leave claims made on heavily televised posters and a certain bus which were on the TV news day after day after day; the bigger the row, the more the publicity and I still think that Remain walked straight into it - talking in outrage for days on end about £350m and Turkey, repeating their opponents' messages for free, over and over. Very many probably got the messages but not the details of the arguments.
Which was the government's stance at the time, and they ran with it (very very badly). However it's the Leave vote that has been found guilty of violating spending limits and transparency and so on, and fined over it. There are claims that Remain did too, if they did then they've hidden it well because the Electoral Commission haven't found evidence of it. However, if they HAD, that too would void the result and another vote should happen, or do Brexiteers not care as long as their side win? It isn't the 100 metres, where the person who got silver cheated and it just means they're disqualified and everyone else now moves up one, bronze gets silver and fourth runner gets a medal, it violates the entire process. Ultimately I think Leave got exactly the max it was ever going to get in 2016, but Remain was complacent and plenty who supported that view didn't bother to vote because "how could they lose?" The Remain supporting government's own attitude reflected this complacency, and complacency doesn't need to rig votes LOL. If an elected MP was found guilty by the electoral commission of overspending and breaching campaign rules the way the Leave campaign did, their election would be deemed invalid and a by-election held. Unfortunately that law doesn't apply to referenda.
By the time the Leave campaign's fraudulent tactics came too light, the deadline for appealing the referendum result had passed and a court case asking the count to declare the result invalid was not heard because it was out of time and the court would not set aside the deadline, even though new evidence had come to light.
So it is simply not true to say the people voted for brexit in a free and fair referendum - the reality is they only voted very narrowly for brexit as a result of a fraudulent campaign that broke electoral law, which could not be overturned because of a technicality of the law.
|
|
|
Post by whiskeybrewer on Apr 9, 2019 11:34:20 GMT
I was asked my personal choice on the matter and i feel like ive just been told, But youre wrong constantly.
I may be wrong, but its how i see it
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Apr 9, 2019 12:03:16 GMT
I was asked my personal choice on the matter and i feel like ive just been told, But youre wrong constantly. I may be wrong, but its how i see it Did you vote to Leave? Fair enough. I'll lay hard cash you didn't vote for a single option currently on the table, because we both saw that piece of paper, and it was Remain in the EU or Leave the EU. You didn't vote for no deal Brexit, you didn't vote for a customs union, you didn't vote for Norway/Canada/the moon, and you didn't vote for a Swiss style option, or whatever else neo-Imperialist foaming the ERG with its comedy toff leader thinks will suit his bank balance, because he sure as hell won't be eating chlorinated chicken with the rest of us. I DID vote for Remain, and that was very simple. I knew exactly what I would get because I already had it and didn't want to lose it, and that was exactly what was on the ballot. Now, I think you were wrong to vote Leave, I'll own up to that. I also think the EU needs serious reforming, but that's another topic entirely. I also believe you shouldn't be bullied for your choice, but considering the gravity of this situation and the fact that it is affecting and will continue to affect our lives for the foreseeable future, then please tell us why you see it like you see it. Those of us who oppose Leave have (mostly) gone through our reasons for why we think it's a steaming pile of nonsense. Tell us why WE'RE wrong. That's all. I'm not going to ad hominem you. This is me assuming you voted Leave. If not then I have entirely misrepresented you!
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Apr 9, 2019 12:58:21 GMT
Which was the government's stance at the time, and they ran with it (very very badly). However it's the Leave vote that has been found guilty of violating spending limits and transparency and so on, and fined over it. There are claims that Remain did too, if they did then they've hidden it well because the Electoral Commission haven't found evidence of it. However, if they HAD, that too would void the result and another vote should happen, or do Brexiteers not care as long as their side win? It isn't the 100 metres, where the person who got silver cheated and it just means they're disqualified and everyone else now moves up one, bronze gets silver and fourth runner gets a medal, it violates the entire process. Ultimately I think Leave got exactly the max it was ever going to get in 2016, but Remain was complacent and plenty who supported that view didn't bother to vote because "how could they lose?" The Remain supporting government's own attitude reflected this complacency, and complacency doesn't need to rig votes LOL. If an elected MP was found guilty by the electoral commission of overspending and breaching campaign rules the way the Leave campaign did, their election would be deemed invalid and a by-election held. Unfortunately that law doesn't apply to referenda.
By the time the Leave campaign's fraudulent tactics came too light, the deadline for appealing the referendum result had passed and a court case asking the count to declare the result invalid was not heard because it was out of time and the court would not set aside the deadline, even though new evidence had come to light.
So it is simply not true to say the people voted for brexit in a free and fair referendum - the reality is they only voted very narrowly for brexit as a result of a fraudulent campaign that broke electoral law, which could not be overturned because of a technicality of the law.
Naturally, I don't disagree with you about either the law or the principle of fair votes.
However (and I want this to come out tactfully and non-personally so I hope it does ) I think the emphasis placed on how much (if at all) the result was affected is sometimes more a question of whether a particular Remain voter accepts the idea of leaving the EU.
I voted Remain, but I accept Leave and I don't regard the result as 'invalid' in practice. If I imagine just for a moment an alternate mirror-reality in which Remain had won by 52/48 and where only Remain had been found to be in breach of electoral law to the identical degree, in that alternate reality would I call the result invalid on the same principles, when my side had won? I would like to hope so...
|
|
|
Post by charlesuirdhein on Apr 9, 2019 13:13:08 GMT
If an elected MP was found guilty by the electoral commission of overspending and breaching campaign rules the way the Leave campaign did, their election would be deemed invalid and a by-election held. Unfortunately that law doesn't apply to referenda.
By the time the Leave campaign's fraudulent tactics came too light, the deadline for appealing the referendum result had passed and a court case asking the count to declare the result invalid was not heard because it was out of time and the court would not set aside the deadline, even though new evidence had come to light.
So it is simply not true to say the people voted for brexit in a free and fair referendum - the reality is they only voted very narrowly for brexit as a result of a fraudulent campaign that broke electoral law, which could not be overturned because of a technicality of the law.
Naturally, I don't disagree with you about either the law or the principle of fair votes.
However (and I want this to come out tactfully and non-personally so I hope it does ) I think the emphasis placed on how much (if at all) the result was affected is sometimes more a question of whether a particular Remain voter accepts the idea of leaving the EU.
I voted Remain, but I accept Leave and I don't regard the result as 'invalid' in practice. If I imagine just for a moment an alternate reality in which Remain had won by 52/48 and where Remain had been found to be in breach of electoral law, in that alternate reality. Would I call the result invalid on the same principles, when my side had won? I would like to hope so...
I'm hoping I'd do the same. We all hope we can rise to the occasion when called to. I don't want to win by cheating, but apparently a good chunk of those lying to the public about Leave do want that. I differentiate between the liars and those lied to in this regard.
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Apr 9, 2019 13:39:47 GMT
You realise of course that by now no deal = not leaving. Since Westminster voted down leaving without a deal. See that's how I understood it.
So now we've 2 maybe 3 options
1.May Deal as it is
2. May Deal with some sort of Labour difference
3. Stop the process altogether (which will probably trigger a snap General Election)
Regards
mark687
Think you're right Mark, it's 2 options really -
May's withdrawal deal (the only one the EU will accept) plus something about customs union/arrangement/partnership (which I think will be inevitable in the future trade negotiations anyway, and beneficial.) Something acceptable to moderate Tories and moderate Labour, because there will have to be a lot of votes to get all the legislation through after a withdrawal vote so it will need a good, stable majority.
Or, we don't leave. (In which case goodness knows what will happen politically but I doubt I will like it much.)
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,819
|
Post by lidar2 on Apr 9, 2019 13:45:31 GMT
If an elected MP was found guilty by the electoral commission of overspending and breaching campaign rules the way the Leave campaign did, their election would be deemed invalid and a by-election held. Unfortunately that law doesn't apply to referenda.
By the time the Leave campaign's fraudulent tactics came too light, the deadline for appealing the referendum result had passed and a court case asking the count to declare the result invalid was not heard because it was out of time and the court would not set aside the deadline, even though new evidence had come to light.
So it is simply not true to say the people voted for brexit in a free and fair referendum - the reality is they only voted very narrowly for brexit as a result of a fraudulent campaign that broke electoral law, which could not be overturned because of a technicality of the law.
Naturally, I don't disagree with you about either the law or the principle of fair votes.
However (and I want this to come out tactfully and non-personally so I hope it does ) I think the emphasis placed on how much (if at all) the result was affected is sometimes more a question of whether a particular Remain voter accepts the idea of leaving the EU.
I voted Remain, but I accept Leave and I don't regard the result as 'invalid' in practice. If I imagine just for a moment an alternate mirror-reality in which Remain had won by 52/48 and where only Remain had been found to be in breach of electoral law to the identical degree, in that alternate reality would I call the result invalid on the same principles, when my side had won? I would like to hope so...
My initial reaction was to accept the result and that we should unite as a country and make the best of it. But, let's be honest, "no deal" was never put forward in the referendum as a likely outcome of leaving nobody voted for an aocalyptic no deal scenario. it was going to be "the easiest trade deal in history" (Liam Fox) and on the day after voting to leave "we would hold all the cards" (Michael Gove) and no need to fear any loss of access to EU markets because the Gemans will still want to sell us cars and the Italians will still want to sell us prosecco. Plus the £350 million a week for the NHS.
As it has become apparent over the last 18 months that all of the above was either lies or delusion, whatever post-referendum goodwill I had towards brexit drained away and I am now an angry Remainer. I feel our democracy was stolen by liars, cheats and con men in 2016 and a 2nd referendum is the only way to get it back. We were told vote leave and the result will be X, Y and Z. I accepted the referendum result at the time, and was initially opposed to a 2nd referendum, but by the same token I expected the brexiteers to honour their side of the bargain and deliver the X, Y and Z they promised, or something reasonably approximating to X, Y and Z. However, the reality of brexit is nothing like what we were promised and we are not getting anything remotely like the rosy future that was promised outside the EU - as a result of which I now consider myself, as a democrat, under no obligation whatsoever to accept the result of a dishonest and fraudulent Leave campaign.
So, to answer your question about whether I would have accepted the result as invalid if it had been the other way around, I would have accepted the logic of the argument I made above that the result was invalid, but as I would have been content with the result of the invalid referendum I would probably not have been very exercised about it. However, it's not just the electoral fraud aspect of it that makes me want a 2nd referendum, it is the confidence trick aspect of the whole thing. If, as I said, the Vote Leave promises had been delivered then I would have continued in my initial acceptance of the result even though I wouldn't have liked it and would still have regretted the result.
|
|
lidar2
Castellan
You know, now that you mention it, I actually do rather like Attack of the Cybermen ...
Likes: 5,819
|
Post by lidar2 on Apr 9, 2019 13:47:23 GMT
Naturally, I don't disagree with you about either the law or the principle of fair votes.
However (and I want this to come out tactfully and non-personally so I hope it does ) I think the emphasis placed on how much (if at all) the result was affected is sometimes more a question of whether a particular Remain voter accepts the idea of leaving the EU.
I voted Remain, but I accept Leave and I don't regard the result as 'invalid' in practice. If I imagine just for a moment an alternate reality in which Remain had won by 52/48 and where Remain had been found to be in breach of electoral law, in that alternate reality. Would I call the result invalid on the same principles, when my side had won? I would like to hope so...
I'm hoping I'd do the same. We all hope we can rise to the occasion when called to. I don't want to win by cheating, but apparently a good chunk of those lying to the public about Leave do want that. I differentiate between the liars and those lied to in this regard. Agree 100% - there is an important distinction to be made between the liars and the lied to
|
|
|
Post by elkawho on Apr 9, 2019 14:09:45 GMT
Hey folks, just an American over here watching how this all plays out. I have no stake in this nonsense, but a hope that it all works out as best as possible. However, my friend (who is British and strong Remainer) posted this link on her Facebook page and I thought it was interesting.
|
|
|
Post by doctorkernow on Apr 9, 2019 22:03:30 GMT
Hello again.
Funny enough Elkawho, I've just read the article written by Peter Oborne. It is one of the most thoughtful articles I've read about Brexit.
We definitely need more time to properly examine what leaving the EU will actually mean for the future of all the citizens of the United Kingdom. We cannot rush into a deal just for the sake of it. The consequences could be grim.
I would urge anyone who has been fed up with all the arguing to read this. It is unusual for someone who had such entrenched views to admit they have changed their views and explain so eloquently their reasons.
|
|
|
Post by number13 on Apr 9, 2019 22:15:47 GMT
Brexit Decision! (Though sadly, not any national one.)
It's a sign of what a great bunch of people you all are on DU that we can have a thread where this most contentious of subjects is discussed intelligently and respectfully and I do enjoy it, so cheers! But I feel I could go round and round on this for ever, stating and restating the same positions without an end or a purpose. (Cor, I could be an MP.)
I'm going to treat DU as a personal Brexit-Free Zone and if I do ever mention the B-word on here again, it won't be me, it'll be my Zygon double or an evil twin who works for the Brigade-Leader in that other place. So call UNIT.
|
|