Brexit

by Duty281 Sat Dec 12, 2020 3:53 am

First topic message reminder :

"man that negotiated the Australia deal with the EU" - Who is this man? I only ask because Australia don't have a deal with the EU; they are, however, in the process of negotiating one.

by **Pr4wn** Fri Jan 22, 2021 10:17 pm

navyblueshorts wrote:
Luckless Pedestrian wrote:My maths isn't great, but looking at those figures, am I right in thinking that even if Wales's margin was 52.5% Remain, as opposed to 52.5% Leave, it wouldn't have been enough to prevent the overall UK result being a majority for Leave?
Yep. Would have changed overall % for remain from 48.1% to 48.4% (1 d.p.) by my reckoning.

Another **** up of Cameron's in calling this stupid vote was not writing into it that it required a 2/3 majority to overturn the status quo. What a moron.

Also not allowing UK citizens living in the EU to vote was a complete disgrace.

by Luckless Pedestrian Fri Jan 22, 2021 10:24 pm

navyblueshorts wrote:
Luckless Pedestrian wrote:My maths isn't great, but looking at those figures, am I right in thinking that even if Wales's margin was 52.5% Remain, as opposed to 52.5% Leave, it wouldn't have been enough to prevent the overall UK result being a majority for Leave?
Yep. Would have changed overall % for remain from 48.1% to 48.4% (1 d.p.) by my reckoning.

Well that tells its own tale, doesn't it? Wales can't possibly hope to influence the UK's direction of travel. We're passengers.

by lostinwales Fri Jan 22, 2021 10:31 pm

navyblueshorts wrote:
Luckless Pedestrian wrote:My maths isn't great, but looking at those figures, am I right in thinking that even if Wales's margin was 52.5% Remain, as opposed to 52.5% Leave, it wouldn't have been enough to prevent the overall UK result being a majority for Leave?
Yep. Would have changed overall % for remain from 48.1% to 48.4% (1 d.p.) by my reckoning.

Another **** up of Cameron's in calling this stupid vote was not writing into it that it required a 2/3 majority to overturn the status quo. What a moron.

'Advisory'....

The result should have triggered a commission looking into the reality and the if (and how) it could be made a success, with a potential confirmation referendum to follow. But no.

The end result is bad enough but the handling of it has been so bad it makes it very easy to believe the conspiracy theories around it,

by **navyblueshorts** Fri Jan 22, 2021 10:34 pm

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
Luckless Pedestrian wrote:I don't think it's controversial to say the Welsh left wing would want to rejoin the EU. Plaid have been consistently pro-EU, and Wales won't find itself independent without Plaid being at least in a coalition government.
I didn't say that was controversial. I'm just implying that, in 2016, the majority Welsh voters wanted out. Has that now changed? If not, how would Plaid square that circle? Would they simply ignore it?

'More Welsh voters would vote to rejoin the European Union than those who would vote against in a referendum, a poll for ITV Wales has found.

Despite the relief that the UK and EU reached a last minute deal on their future relationship, 44% said they would vote to rejoin the European Union, as opposed to 38% who said no.'

https://www.itv.com/news/wales/2021-01-20/poll-finds-that-wales-would-vote-to-rejoin-the-european-union

Cool, but we know how good polls have been in the recent past. Think they'd have to put it to a Wales-only referendum (w/ a simple majority required for parity) in some fashion and to force people to make their preference clear.

by Luckless Pedestrian Fri Jan 22, 2021 10:37 pm

The whole thing's a distant prospect anyway.

by **navyblueshorts** Fri Jan 22, 2021 10:42 pm

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
Luckless Pedestrian wrote:My maths isn't great, but looking at those figures, am I right in thinking that even if Wales's margin was 52.5% Remain, as opposed to 52.5% Leave, it wouldn't have been enough to prevent the overall UK result being a majority for Leave?
Yep. Would have changed overall % for remain from 48.1% to 48.4% (1 d.p.) by my reckoning.

Well that tells its own tale, doesn't it? Wales can't possibly hope to influence the UK's direction of travel. We're passengers.

But that feeling also suggests that you don't value, being a UK/British citizen. You prioritise being Welsh, which is fine, but perhaps suggests that we should nix the UK formally and a.s.a.p.
I think of myself (or, I did) as a citizen of the UK and EU. I like all (well, most) of the quirks that make up the UK and come from other historic parts. I don't cleave to my parochial English heritage any more than I value things of Welsh, Scottish or Irish heritage. IMO, this is all 'grass is greener' stuff and I think it's quite sad what's happening now. Still, we are where we are.

by **navyblueshorts** Fri Jan 22, 2021 10:44 pm

lostinwales wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
Luckless Pedestrian wrote:My maths isn't great, but looking at those figures, am I right in thinking that even if Wales's margin was 52.5% Remain, as opposed to 52.5% Leave, it wouldn't have been enough to prevent the overall UK result being a majority for Leave?
Yep. Would have changed overall % for remain from 48.1% to 48.4% (1 d.p.) by my reckoning.

Another **** up of Cameron's in calling this stupid vote was not writing into it that it required a 2/3 majority to overturn the status quo. What a moron.

'Advisory'....

The result should have triggered a commission looking into the reality and the if (and how) it could be made a success, with a potential confirmation referendum to follow. But no.

The end result is bad enough but the handling of it has been so bad it makes it very easy to believe the conspiracy theories around it,

Yeah. Forgot that! Another royal **** up. That should have been reiterated time, and time again, during the referendum campaigning. It wasn't though and once the result was final w/o that context, there was no way any politician was going to raise it.

by **navyblueshorts** Fri Jan 22, 2021 10:45 pm

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:The whole thing's a distant prospect anyway.

Don't bet on it. Depends on Scotland and/or NI.

by Luckless Pedestrian Fri Jan 22, 2021 10:56 pm

navyblueshorts wrote:
Luckless Pedestrian wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
Luckless Pedestrian wrote:My maths isn't great, but looking at those figures, am I right in thinking that even if Wales's margin was 52.5% Remain, as opposed to 52.5% Leave, it wouldn't have been enough to prevent the overall UK result being a majority for Leave?
Yep. Would have changed overall % for remain from 48.1% to 48.4% (1 d.p.) by my reckoning.

Well that tells its own tale, doesn't it? Wales can't possibly hope to influence the UK's direction of travel. We're passengers.
But that feeling also suggests that you don't value, being a UK/British citizen. You prioritise being Welsh, which is fine, but perhaps suggests that we should nix the UK formally and a.s.a.p.
I think of myself (or, I did) as a citizen of the UK and EU. I like all (well, most) of the quirks that make up the UK and come from other historic parts. I don't cleave to my parochial English heritage any more than I value things of Welsh, Scottish or Irish heritage. IMO, this is all 'grass is greener' stuff and I think it's quite sad what's happening now. Still, we are where we are.

I think this goes back to the thought experiment. If you'd grown up with a diet of Scottish news, TV programmes, and so on, and saw English representation only now and then, and saw the will of the English electorate effectively not making a blind bit of difference to what the Scot-centric UK did, then you might feel differently. As we've discussed, a federated UK would solve so much of this, but I don't see that ever happening.

by Duty281 Sat Jan 23, 2021 8:08 am

navyblueshorts wrote:
Luckless Pedestrian wrote:My maths isn't great, but looking at those figures, am I right in thinking that even if Wales's margin was 52.5% Remain, as opposed to 52.5% Leave, it wouldn't have been enough to prevent the overall UK result being a majority for Leave?
Yep. Would have changed overall % for remain from 48.1% to 48.4% (1 d.p.) by my reckoning.

Another **** up of Cameron's in calling this stupid vote was not writing into it that it required a 2/3 majority to overturn the status quo. What a moron.

We never had a vote on joining, why should it require a 2/3rd majority to leave? Would be a very odd democratic system, too, where if 65% supported leaving that it still wouldn't be enough to affect change - would likely move more voters away from the political mainstream and towards more extreme parties.

by Duty281 Sat Jan 23, 2021 8:12 am

Pr4wn wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
Luckless Pedestrian wrote:My maths isn't great, but looking at those figures, am I right in thinking that even if Wales's margin was 52.5% Remain, as opposed to 52.5% Leave, it wouldn't have been enough to prevent the overall UK result being a majority for Leave?
Yep. Would have changed overall % for remain from 48.1% to 48.4% (1 d.p.) by my reckoning.

Another **** up of Cameron's in calling this stupid vote was not writing into it that it required a 2/3 majority to overturn the status quo. What a moron.

Also not allowing UK citizens living in the EU to vote was a complete disgrace.

UK citizens living in the EU were allowed to vote in the referendum, provided that they had not lived overseas for more than 15 years.

by Duty281 Sat Jan 23, 2021 8:24 am

navyblueshorts wrote:
lostinwales wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
Luckless Pedestrian wrote:My maths isn't great, but looking at those figures, am I right in thinking that even if Wales's margin was 52.5% Remain, as opposed to 52.5% Leave, it wouldn't have been enough to prevent the overall UK result being a majority for Leave?
Yep. Would have changed overall % for remain from 48.1% to 48.4% (1 d.p.) by my reckoning.

Another **** up of Cameron's in calling this stupid vote was not writing into it that it required a 2/3 majority to overturn the status quo. What a moron.

'Advisory'....

The result should have triggered a commission looking into the reality and the if (and how) it could be made a success, with a potential confirmation referendum to follow. But no.

The end result is bad enough but the handling of it has been so bad it makes it very easy to believe the conspiracy theories around it,
Yeah. Forgot that! Another royal **** up. That should have been reiterated time, and time again, during the referendum campaigning. It wasn't though and once the result was final w/o that context, there was no way any politician was going to raise it.

Plenty of politicians trumpeted the 'advisory' line post-referendum, including virtually everyone of the Change UK lot (when they were MPs), but also others like David Lammy, Kenneth Clarke and Caroline Lucas.

It wasn't brought up, much, during the campaign because both sides thought they were going to win and didn't want to dilute their expected victory.

by **Pr4wn** Sat Jan 23, 2021 9:24 am

Duty281 wrote:
Pr4wn wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
Luckless Pedestrian wrote:My maths isn't great, but looking at those figures, am I right in thinking that even if Wales's margin was 52.5% Remain, as opposed to 52.5% Leave, it wouldn't have been enough to prevent the overall UK result being a majority for Leave?
Yep. Would have changed overall % for remain from 48.1% to 48.4% (1 d.p.) by my reckoning.

Another **** up of Cameron's in calling this stupid vote was not writing into it that it required a 2/3 majority to overturn the status quo. What a moron.

Also not allowing UK citizens living in the EU to vote was a complete disgrace.

UK citizens living in the EU were allowed to vote in the referendum, provided that they had not lived overseas for more than 15 years.

And why was it correct to exclude those that had?

by lostinwales Sat Jan 23, 2021 11:30 am

Pr4wn wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Pr4wn wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
Luckless Pedestrian wrote:My maths isn't great, but looking at those figures, am I right in thinking that even if Wales's margin was 52.5% Remain, as opposed to 52.5% Leave, it wouldn't have been enough to prevent the overall UK result being a majority for Leave?
Yep. Would have changed overall % for remain from 48.1% to 48.4% (1 d.p.) by my reckoning.

Another **** up of Cameron's in calling this stupid vote was not writing into it that it required a 2/3 majority to overturn the status quo. What a moron.

Also not allowing UK citizens living in the EU to vote was a complete disgrace.

UK citizens living in the EU were allowed to vote in the referendum, provided that they had not lived overseas for more than 15 years.

And why was it correct to exclude those that had?

Very easy to argue that many only went because they could (it was easy because etc...). Regardless of their long term plans I'd bet none went thinking that they'd lose UK rights after 15 years, or any amount of years. Also plenty of states do allow expats to vote. The USA even taxes their expats.

Similar for EU citizens paying tax in the UK. No say. I think that is more of a tragedy than the expats, but then that affected friends and people in my family.

I saw a great line - I think from the FT. It said something like Cameron was so sure of victory he effectively let leave stack the deck against him.

by Duty281 Sat Jan 23, 2021 11:44 am

Pr4wn wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
Pr4wn wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
Luckless Pedestrian wrote:My maths isn't great, but looking at those figures, am I right in thinking that even if Wales's margin was 52.5% Remain, as opposed to 52.5% Leave, it wouldn't have been enough to prevent the overall UK result being a majority for Leave?
Yep. Would have changed overall % for remain from 48.1% to 48.4% (1 d.p.) by my reckoning.

Another **** up of Cameron's in calling this stupid vote was not writing into it that it required a 2/3 majority to overturn the status quo. What a moron.

Also not allowing UK citizens living in the EU to vote was a complete disgrace.

UK citizens living in the EU were allowed to vote in the referendum, provided that they had not lived overseas for more than 15 years.

And why was it correct to exclude those that had?

It wasn't some law introduced specifically for the EU referendum, with the aim of excluding such people. It was originally implemented in 1985, and set the bar at 5 years, this was then raised to 20 years in the early 90s, before coming down to 15 years in (I think) in the early 2000s.

Currently then UK citizens living abroad are only entitled to vote in General Elections or referendums for up to 15 years after living overseas; and they're not at all permitted to vote in local elections or for the devolved parliaments.

This was challenged, a few months before the referendum, in the High Court, but said challenge was rejected.

The Tories are, apparently, aiming to bring in a 'votes for life' bill which will scrap the 15 year limit entirely.

by **navyblueshorts** Sun Jan 24, 2021 2:14 am

Duty281 wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
Luckless Pedestrian wrote:My maths isn't great, but looking at those figures, am I right in thinking that even if Wales's margin was 52.5% Remain, as opposed to 52.5% Leave, it wouldn't have been enough to prevent the overall UK result being a majority for Leave?
Yep. Would have changed overall % for remain from 48.1% to 48.4% (1 d.p.) by my reckoning.

Another **** up of Cameron's in calling this stupid vote was not writing into it that it required a 2/3 majority to overturn the status quo. What a moron.

We never had a vote on joining, why should it require a 2/3rd majority to leave? Would be a very odd democratic system, too, where if 65% supported leaving that it still wouldn't be enough to affect change - would likely move more voters away from the political mainstream and towards more extreme parties.

Because we were in? I don't give a 4X how we got 'in'. Why did we have a referendum at all, if we never had one to join? We did, though, didn't we.
If it had resulted in 65% for leave, so what? Not 66% and if that was the rules of the game, tough luck. If there'd only been 49% for leave in 2016, the same dubious logic would have been applied would it?

by **navyblueshorts** Sun Jan 24, 2021 2:16 am

Duty281 wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
lostinwales wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
Luckless Pedestrian wrote:My maths isn't great, but looking at those figures, am I right in thinking that even if Wales's margin was 52.5% Remain, as opposed to 52.5% Leave, it wouldn't have been enough to prevent the overall UK result being a majority for Leave?
Yep. Would have changed overall % for remain from 48.1% to 48.4% (1 d.p.) by my reckoning.

Another **** up of Cameron's in calling this stupid vote was not writing into it that it required a 2/3 majority to overturn the status quo. What a moron.

'Advisory'....

The result should have triggered a commission looking into the reality and the if (and how) it could be made a success, with a potential confirmation referendum to follow. But no.

The end result is bad enough but the handling of it has been so bad it makes it very easy to believe the conspiracy theories around it,
Yeah. Forgot that! Another royal **** up. That should have been reiterated time, and time again, during the referendum campaigning. It wasn't though and once the result was final w/o that context, there was no way any politician was going to raise it.

Plenty of politicians trumpeted the 'advisory' line post-referendum, including virtually everyone of the Change UK lot (when they were MPs), but also others like David Lammy, Kenneth Clarke and Caroline Lucas.

It wasn't brought up, much, during the campaign because both sides thought they were going to win and didn't want to dilute their expected victory.

No, they didn't. Lammy, Clarke etc weren't those within Cabinet etc, were they? No-one was listening to them. Cameron and the Cabinet should have made this clear - they didn't.

by CaledonianCraig Sun Jan 24, 2021 5:41 am

Well things will come to a head post-2021 Scottish Elections.

Two Bills passed through Scottish Parliament early last year and one with Royal Assent which enables Holyrood to hold its own referendums. The SNP will publish documents in the run up to the elections in May and categorically state their intentions to hold an independence referendum within the next year or two. Should the SNP and Scottish Greens amass more than 50% of the electorate (polls at present have them getting closer to 60%) then the new Scottish Government will ask the Tory Government to activate Section 30. The likelihood is that the Tories will refuse and if that is the case the Scottish Government will announce the referendum and given that the bills are in place for such referendums (passed by courts) then the ball will be in the Tories court. They will need to go to court to argue that Scottish voters voices should not be heard.

by Duty281 Sun Jan 24, 2021 9:24 am

navyblueshorts wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
Luckless Pedestrian wrote:My maths isn't great, but looking at those figures, am I right in thinking that even if Wales's margin was 52.5% Remain, as opposed to 52.5% Leave, it wouldn't have been enough to prevent the overall UK result being a majority for Leave?
Yep. Would have changed overall % for remain from 48.1% to 48.4% (1 d.p.) by my reckoning.

Another **** up of Cameron's in calling this stupid vote was not writing into it that it required a 2/3 majority to overturn the status quo. What a moron.

We never had a vote on joining, why should it require a 2/3rd majority to leave? Would be a very odd democratic system, too, where if 65% supported leaving that it still wouldn't be enough to affect change - would likely move more voters away from the political mainstream and towards more extreme parties.
Because we were in? I don't give a 4X how we got 'in'. Why did we have a referendum at all, if we never had one to join? We did, though, didn't we.
If it had resulted in 65% for leave, so what? Not 66% and if that was the rules of the game, tough luck. If there'd only been 49% for leave in 2016, the same dubious logic would have been applied would it?

We should have had a referendum to join, it was wrong that we didn't, and subsequently right that we were finally asked about the EU.

Needing 50.01% to win a two-choice referendum is not 'dubious logic'. It's the usual practice in this country - the choice that gets the most votes wins, whether it's electing a councillor or sending a MP to Parliament. Needing 66% is certainly dubious logic and seems rather bizarre.

by Duty281 Sun Jan 24, 2021 9:33 am

navyblueshorts wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
lostinwales wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
Luckless Pedestrian wrote:My maths isn't great, but looking at those figures, am I right in thinking that even if Wales's margin was 52.5% Remain, as opposed to 52.5% Leave, it wouldn't have been enough to prevent the overall UK result being a majority for Leave?
Yep. Would have changed overall % for remain from 48.1% to 48.4% (1 d.p.) by my reckoning.

Another **** up of Cameron's in calling this stupid vote was not writing into it that it required a 2/3 majority to overturn the status quo. What a moron.

'Advisory'....

The result should have triggered a commission looking into the reality and the if (and how) it could be made a success, with a potential confirmation referendum to follow. But no.

The end result is bad enough but the handling of it has been so bad it makes it very easy to believe the conspiracy theories around it,
Yeah. Forgot that! Another royal **** up. That should have been reiterated time, and time again, during the referendum campaigning. It wasn't though and once the result was final w/o that context, there was no way any politician was going to raise it.

Plenty of politicians trumpeted the 'advisory' line post-referendum, including virtually everyone of the Change UK lot (when they were MPs), but also others like David Lammy, Kenneth Clarke and Caroline Lucas.

It wasn't brought up, much, during the campaign because both sides thought they were going to win and didn't want to dilute their expected victory.
No, they didn't. Lammy, Clarke etc weren't those within Cabinet etc, were they? No-one was listening to them. Cameron and the Cabinet should have made this clear - they didn't.

Parliament delayed the implementation of the 2016 democratic exercise again and again when Theresa May was PM, all because the likes of Lammy and Clarke and the Change UK lot were being listened to by those in government. They may not have been in Cabinet but they were definitely being heard.

As stated, Cameron wouldn't make it clear that it was an 'advisory' referendum because that would have weakened his expected victory and, quite possibly, it would have lowered the turnout of Remain voters in June 2016.

by Samo Sun Jan 24, 2021 5:51 pm

Duty281 wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
lostinwales wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
Luckless Pedestrian wrote:My maths isn't great, but looking at those figures, am I right in thinking that even if Wales's margin was 52.5% Remain, as opposed to 52.5% Leave, it wouldn't have been enough to prevent the overall UK result being a majority for Leave?
Yep. Would have changed overall % for remain from 48.1% to 48.4% (1 d.p.) by my reckoning.

Another **** up of Cameron's in calling this stupid vote was not writing into it that it required a 2/3 majority to overturn the status quo. What a moron.

'Advisory'....

The result should have triggered a commission looking into the reality and the if (and how) it could be made a success, with a potential confirmation referendum to follow. But no.

The end result is bad enough but the handling of it has been so bad it makes it very easy to believe the conspiracy theories around it,
Yeah. Forgot that! Another royal **** up. That should have been reiterated time, and time again, during the referendum campaigning. It wasn't though and once the result was final w/o that context, there was no way any politician was going to raise it.

Plenty of politicians trumpeted the 'advisory' line post-referendum, including virtually everyone of the Change UK lot (when they were MPs), but also others like David Lammy, Kenneth Clarke and Caroline Lucas.

It wasn't brought up, much, during the campaign because both sides thought they were going to win and didn't want to dilute their expected victory.
No, they didn't. Lammy, Clarke etc weren't those within Cabinet etc, were they? No-one was listening to them. Cameron and the Cabinet should have made this clear - they didn't.

Parliament delayed the implementation of the 2016 democratic exercise again and again when Theresa May was PM, all because the likes of Lammy and Clarke and the Change UK lot were being listened to by those in government. They may not have been in Cabinet but they were definitely being heard.

God forbid the biggest change in British politics post-WWII get proper scrutiny in parliament.

by Samo Sun Jan 24, 2021 9:49 pm

I must say Im a big fan of seeing government trade advisors telling small businesses to set up in the EU to get around the red tape of Johnsons deal.

Must bring a tear to the eye of those who championed Brexit seeing us flourish as a importing/exporting giant just now.

by lostinwales Mon Jan 25, 2021 3:49 am

Duty281 wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
lostinwales wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
Luckless Pedestrian wrote:My maths isn't great, but looking at those figures, am I right in thinking that even if Wales's margin was 52.5% Remain, as opposed to 52.5% Leave, it wouldn't have been enough to prevent the overall UK result being a majority for Leave?
Yep. Would have changed overall % for remain from 48.1% to 48.4% (1 d.p.) by my reckoning.

Another **** up of Cameron's in calling this stupid vote was not writing into it that it required a 2/3 majority to overturn the status quo. What a moron.

'Advisory'....

The result should have triggered a commission looking into the reality and the if (and how) it could be made a success, with a potential confirmation referendum to follow. But no.

The end result is bad enough but the handling of it has been so bad it makes it very easy to believe the conspiracy theories around it,
Yeah. Forgot that! Another royal **** up. That should have been reiterated time, and time again, during the referendum campaigning. It wasn't though and once the result was final w/o that context, there was no way any politician was going to raise it.

Plenty of politicians trumpeted the 'advisory' line post-referendum, including virtually everyone of the Change UK lot (when they were MPs), but also others like David Lammy, Kenneth Clarke and Caroline Lucas.

It wasn't brought up, much, during the campaign because both sides thought they were going to win and didn't want to dilute their expected victory.
No, they didn't. Lammy, Clarke etc weren't those within Cabinet etc, were they? No-one was listening to them. Cameron and the Cabinet should have made this clear - they didn't.

Parliament delayed the implementation of the 2016 democratic exercise again and again when Theresa May was PM, all because the likes of Lammy and Clarke and the Change UK lot were being listened to by those in government. They may not have been in Cabinet but they were definitely being heard.

As stated, Cameron wouldn't make it clear that it was an 'advisory' referendum because that would have weakened his expected victory and, quite possibly, it would have lowered the turnout of Remain voters in June 2016.

Supermajority makes a great deal of logic, as has been made all too clear by the referendum in this case.

Standard elections can be reversed at regular intervals. Brexit can't.

You want to make sure that a majority of the population are truly behind the change, whatever it might be, not just basing their opinion on some BS about Turks joining the EU and taking all their jobs, or taking the opportunity of giving the government a kicking.

You want to make an allowance for changes in demographics between vote and implementation. A lot of kids who could not vote 4 years ago are young adults who can now, and there is a good case to be made that the vast majority would vote to stay. At the same time an older age group who mainly voted Brexit won't be voting again.

You want to take the majority of the population with you when the consequences hit home. There has been far too little attempt to bring the population together, with the inevitable consequence of massive divisions in the country.

by **navyblueshorts** Mon Jan 25, 2021 8:02 am

Duty281 wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
lostinwales wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
Luckless Pedestrian wrote:My maths isn't great, but looking at those figures, am I right in thinking that even if Wales's margin was 52.5% Remain, as opposed to 52.5% Leave, it wouldn't have been enough to prevent the overall UK result being a majority for Leave?
Yep. Would have changed overall % for remain from 48.1% to 48.4% (1 d.p.) by my reckoning.

Another **** up of Cameron's in calling this stupid vote was not writing into it that it required a 2/3 majority to overturn the status quo. What a moron.

'Advisory'....

The result should have triggered a commission looking into the reality and the if (and how) it could be made a success, with a potential confirmation referendum to follow. But no.

The end result is bad enough but the handling of it has been so bad it makes it very easy to believe the conspiracy theories around it,
Yeah. Forgot that! Another royal **** up. That should have been reiterated time, and time again, during the referendum campaigning. It wasn't though and once the result was final w/o that context, there was no way any politician was going to raise it.

Plenty of politicians trumpeted the 'advisory' line post-referendum, including virtually everyone of the Change UK lot (when they were MPs), but also others like David Lammy, Kenneth Clarke and Caroline Lucas.

It wasn't brought up, much, during the campaign because both sides thought they were going to win and didn't want to dilute their expected victory.
No, they didn't. Lammy, Clarke etc weren't those within Cabinet etc, were they? No-one was listening to them. Cameron and the Cabinet should have made this clear - they didn't.

Parliament delayed the implementation of the 2016 democratic exercise again and again when Theresa May was PM, all because the likes of Lammy and Clarke and the Change UK lot were being listened to by those in government. They may not have been in Cabinet but they were definitely being heard.

As stated, Cameron wouldn't make it clear that it was an 'advisory' referendum because that would have weakened his expected victory and, quite possibly, it would have lowered the turnout of Remain voters in June 2016.

we're talking about politicians informing the public about this, not internal naval gazing between politicians.

Your second point is an interesting one, which I think probably has some truth to it. Cameron truly was awful - ****s it all up and then simply walks off to his own money the absurd fortune of his wife. Doesn't and never did give s**t about the hoi polloi.

by Duty281 Mon Jan 25, 2021 8:49 am

lostinwales wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
lostinwales wrote:
navyblueshorts wrote:
Luckless Pedestrian wrote:My maths isn't great, but looking at those figures, am I right in thinking that even if Wales's margin was 52.5% Remain, as opposed to 52.5% Leave, it wouldn't have been enough to prevent the overall UK result being a majority for Leave?
Yep. Would have changed overall % for remain from 48.1% to 48.4% (1 d.p.) by my reckoning.

Another **** up of Cameron's in calling this stupid vote was not writing into it that it required a 2/3 majority to overturn the status quo. What a moron.

'Advisory'....

The result should have triggered a commission looking into the reality and the if (and how) it could be made a success, with a potential confirmation referendum to follow. But no.

The end result is bad enough but the handling of it has been so bad it makes it very easy to believe the conspiracy theories around it,
Yeah. Forgot that! Another royal **** up. That should have been reiterated time, and time again, during the referendum campaigning. It wasn't though and once the result was final w/o that context, there was no way any politician was going to raise it.

Plenty of politicians trumpeted the 'advisory' line post-referendum, including virtually everyone of the Change UK lot (when they were MPs), but also others like David Lammy, Kenneth Clarke and Caroline Lucas.

It wasn't brought up, much, during the campaign because both sides thought they were going to win and didn't want to dilute their expected victory.
No, they didn't. Lammy, Clarke etc weren't those within Cabinet etc, were they? No-one was listening to them. Cameron and the Cabinet should have made this clear - they didn't.

Parliament delayed the implementation of the 2016 democratic exercise again and again when Theresa May was PM, all because the likes of Lammy and Clarke and the Change UK lot were being listened to by those in government. They may not have been in Cabinet but they were definitely being heard.

As stated, Cameron wouldn't make it clear that it was an 'advisory' referendum because that would have weakened his expected victory and, quite possibly, it would have lowered the turnout of Remain voters in June 2016.

Supermajority makes a great deal of logic, as has been made all too clear by the referendum in this case.

Standard elections can be reversed at regular intervals. Brexit can't.

You want to make sure that a majority of the population are truly behind the change, whatever it might be, not just basing their opinion on some BS about Turks joining the EU and taking all their jobs, or taking the opportunity of giving the government a kicking.

You want to make an allowance for changes in demographics between vote and implementation. A lot of kids who could not vote 4 years ago are young adults who can now, and there is a good case to be made that the vast majority would vote to stay. At the same time an older age group who mainly voted Brexit won't be voting again.

You want to take the majority of the population with you when the consequences hit home. There has been far too little attempt to bring the population together, with the inevitable consequence of massive divisions in the country.

If we apply such logic then we would never have joined the European project in the first place, because we never had a vote to join, let alone a vote requiring a 'supermajority'.

Standard elections are not 'reversed' at regular intervals. The outcome of General Elections - or local or ones for the devolved parliaments - are implemented, policies are instituted and changes are made. We may alter our choice of government or elected representative when their contract effectively expires after 4/5 years, but we still have to live with the consequences of policy-making that previous governments have made. We can/will get a vote on re-joining the EU if there is significant support for doing so, a similar instance is currently set to happen in Scotland, where they're likely to get another vote on leaving the UK in the not too distant future.

We've also had three follow-up votes since the 2016 referendum. The 2017 General Election (85% of votes going to parties that pledged to implement the referendum result), the 2019 European Elections (won by the Brexit Party), and the 2019 General Election (clear majority won by the party that pledged to 'Get Brexit Done'). There were choices there for voters who didn't respect the democratic outcome in 2016, but these choices did not fare well electorally, with particular reference to the Lib Dems and Change UK, for the simple reason that cancelling Brexit is not a popular option.

Massive divisions in the country already existed on the European issue (before the referendum), it's just that it was not plainly obvious because the topic was buried for so long. It's difficult to pacify everyone in a political debate and bring the population together because not everyone is going to be happy at the outcome - in this instance we're seeing a minority of those who voted Remain in 2016 are upset and annoyed because we've now left the EU. There can be so satisfying such people, alas.

by Luckless Pedestrian Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:11 pm

Duty281 wrote:A minority of those who voted Remain in 2016 are upset and annoyed because we've now left the EU. There can be so satisfying such people, alas.

The state of this. Doesn't it bother you at all that pretty much all the tangible consequences of leaving the EU so far have been negative?

by BamBam Mon Jan 25, 2021 10:39 pm

I assume that he is one of the sovereignty types so probably not

by **Pr4wn** Mon Jan 25, 2021 11:03 pm

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:
Duty281 wrote:A minority of those who voted Remain in 2016 are upset and annoyed because we've now left the EU. There can be so satisfying such people, alas.

The state of this. Doesn't it bother you at all that pretty much all the tangible consequences of leaving the EU so far have been negative?

It's pathetic, really. I'm still waiting to see any tangible benefit to Brexit.

by Luckless Pedestrian Mon Jan 25, 2021 11:15 pm

The idea that it's sour grapes from a handful of Europhiles. Tell that to the Leave-voting fishermen, exporters, hauliers, who were promised the exact same access to the single market back in 2016. I've never laid the blame on Leave voters, but rather on those who knowingly misled them in order to sway their vote.

by **navyblueshorts** Mon Jan 25, 2021 11:23 pm

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:The idea that it's sour grapes from a handful of Europhiles. Tell that to the Leave-voting fishermen, exporters, hauliers, who were promised the exact same access to the single market back in 2016. I've never laid the blame on Leave voters, but rather on those who knowingly misled them in order to sway their vote.

by BamBam Mon Jan 25, 2021 11:49 pm

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:The idea that it's sour grapes from a handful of Europhiles. Tell that to the Leave-voting fishermen, exporters, hauliers, who were promised the exact same access to the single market back in 2016. I've never laid the blame on Leave voters, but rather on those who knowingly misled them in order to sway their vote.

Being one of these sad Remoaner Europhiles I spend a fair amount of time listening to James O'Brien on LBC - he's been quite vocal about condemning the conmen and having compassion for the conned. I do agree with the principle of it, and do have some sympathy for those who genuinely bought the £350m on a bus lie. The issue I have is that so many of those people were happy to see other industries or other people substantially worse off after Brexit, but still voted for it.

The fishing industry in particular was very loud about how great Brexit would be, and if the government screwed over their posterchild industry imagine what has happened to so many others.

This is obviously not even factoring in the number of people who voted the way they did purely because of immigration - for those I hope to see the worst possible consequences and I'll watch with a smile on my face.

by lostinwales Tue Jan 26, 2021 12:32 am

Duty281 wrote:
lostinwales wrote:

Supermajority makes a great deal of logic, as has been made all too clear by the referendum in this case.

Standard elections can be reversed at regular intervals. Brexit can't.

You want to make sure that a majority of the population are truly behind the change, whatever it might be, not just basing their opinion on some BS about Turks joining the EU and taking all their jobs, or taking the opportunity of giving the government a kicking.

You want to make an allowance for changes in demographics between vote and implementation. A lot of kids who could not vote 4 years ago are young adults who can now, and there is a good case to be made that the vast majority would vote to stay. At the same time an older age group who mainly voted Brexit won't be voting again.

You want to take the majority of the population with you when the consequences hit home. There has been far too little attempt to bring the population together, with the inevitable consequence of massive divisions in the country.

If we apply such logic then we would never have joined the European project in the first place, because we never had a vote to join, let alone a vote requiring a 'supermajority'.

Standard elections are not 'reversed' at regular intervals. The outcome of General Elections - or local or ones for the devolved parliaments - are implemented, policies are instituted and changes are made. We may alter our choice of government or elected representative when their contract effectively expires after 4/5 years, but we still have to live with the consequences of policy-making that previous governments have made. We can/will get a vote on re-joining the EU if there is significant support for doing so, a similar instance is currently set to happen in Scotland, where they're likely to get another vote on leaving the UK in the not too distant future.

We've also had three follow-up votes since the 2016 referendum. The 2017 General Election (85% of votes going to parties that pledged to implement the referendum result), the 2019 European Elections (won by the Brexit Party), and the 2019 General Election (clear majority won by the party that pledged to 'Get Brexit Done'). There were choices there for voters who didn't respect the democratic outcome in 2016, but these choices did not fare well electorally, with particular reference to the Lib Dems and Change UK, for the simple reason that cancelling Brexit is not a popular option.

Massive divisions in the country already existed on the European issue (before the referendum), it's just that it was not plainly obvious because the topic was buried for so long. It's difficult to pacify everyone in a political debate and bring the population together because not everyone is going to be happy at the outcome - in this instance we're seeing a minority of those who voted Remain in 2016 are upset and annoyed because we've now left the EU. There can be so satisfying such people, alas.

None of the subsequent votes were on single issues no matter how they are spun. Even if they were you could then claim a majority of people were not voting for the Conservative 'dream' at the 2019 GE, given that significantly more votes overall went to other parties. The closest to a single issue were the European elections and those too were problematic (and can be spun the same way as the 2019 GE).

The point about supermajority is that you are trying to shift the vote beyond trends, fashions and blind party loyalties. You have taken a snapshot of the mood of the population and on that basis have declared that that is that forever.

My belief is that that vote was too close and too problematic. It should have been the start of a more detailed conversation, not the end. The fact that our government has avoided any scrutiny of Brexit and the associated trade deal where possible is a serious warning sign. Another is the failure to publicise, or even carry out, any kind of study on the consequences of Brexit for UK businesses. Yet a third is the practical response from our government to problems in the fishing industry post Brexit. Amazing how fast we have gone from 'save our fishing' to 'f*** fishing' now that it has outlived its usefulness. Not like any of this was a remote surprise to anyone with with a brain who had been paying attention.

I know we have been over this ground a great deal. The eurosceptics have got the result they wanted and will brook no argument. Meanwhile our country is immeasurably weaker and in serious danger of breaking up into its constituent parts.

by Samo Tue Jan 26, 2021 1:21 am

Pr4wn wrote:
Luckless Pedestrian wrote:
Duty281 wrote:A minority of those who voted Remain in 2016 are upset and annoyed because we've now left the EU. There can be so satisfying such people, alas.

The state of this. Doesn't it bother you at all that pretty much all the tangible consequences of leaving the EU so far have been negative?

It's pathetic, really. I'm still waiting to see any tangible benefit to Brexit.

Mastercard have raised charges on UK purchases from the EU from 0.3% to 1.5%.

Wait, thats the opposite of a tangible benefit. Hmm. I’ll keep having a look, theres got to be something.

by BamBam Tue Jan 26, 2021 1:42 am

Only the metropolitan elite use MasterCard

by MonkeyMan Tue Jan 26, 2021 2:39 am

I was meant to go back to Spain (this time just travelling not living) and other places in Europe last year but Covid and my own health problems put stop to it. At this rate it'll be 2022 before I get back over there

By then I am sure the awesome tangible benefit of extortionate roaming charges will have come into play. Fantastic. Brexit is the gift that keeps on giving

by Duty281 Tue Jan 26, 2021 3:54 pm

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:
Duty281 wrote:A minority of those who voted Remain in 2016 are upset and annoyed because we've now left the EU. There can be so satisfying such people, alas.

The state of this. Doesn't it bother you at all that pretty much all the tangible consequences of leaving the EU so far have been negative?

No, because they haven't been.

by Duty281 Tue Jan 26, 2021 4:00 pm

Luckless Pedestrian wrote:The idea that it's sour grapes from a handful of Europhiles. Tell that to the Leave-voting fishermen, exporters, hauliers, who were promised the exact same access to the single market back in 2016. I've never laid the blame on Leave voters, but rather on those who knowingly misled them in order to sway their vote.

This 'exact same' part simply isn't true. Leave campaigners stated quite clearly that should we vote to Leave we would end our membership of the Single Market (correct), but would continue to have access to the Single Market like other non-EU countries (correct) as part of a new trading relationship (correct).

by Duty281 Tue Jan 26, 2021 4:21 pm

lostinwales wrote:
Duty281 wrote:
lostinwales wrote:

Supermajority makes a great deal of logic, as has been made all too clear by the referendum in this case.

Standard elections can be reversed at regular intervals. Brexit can't.

You want to make sure that a majority of the population are truly behind the change, whatever it might be, not just basing their opinion on some BS about Turks joining the EU and taking all their jobs, or taking the opportunity of giving the government a kicking.

You want to make an allowance for changes in demographics between vote and implementation. A lot of kids who could not vote 4 years ago are young adults who can now, and there is a good case to be made that the vast majority would vote to stay. At the same time an older age group who mainly voted Brexit won't be voting again.

You want to take the majority of the population with you when the consequences hit home. There has been far too little attempt to bring the population together, with the inevitable consequence of massive divisions in the country.

If we apply such logic then we would never have joined the European project in the first place, because we never had a vote to join, let alone a vote requiring a 'supermajority'.

Standard elections are not 'reversed' at regular intervals. The outcome of General Elections - or local or ones for the devolved parliaments - are implemented, policies are instituted and changes are made. We may alter our choice of government or elected representative when their contract effectively expires after 4/5 years, but we still have to live with the consequences of policy-making that previous governments have made. We can/will get a vote on re-joining the EU if there is significant support for doing so, a similar instance is currently set to happen in Scotland, where they're likely to get another vote on leaving the UK in the not too distant future.

We've also had three follow-up votes since the 2016 referendum. The 2017 General Election (85% of votes going to parties that pledged to implement the referendum result), the 2019 European Elections (won by the Brexit Party), and the 2019 General Election (clear majority won by the party that pledged to 'Get Brexit Done'). There were choices there for voters who didn't respect the democratic outcome in 2016, but these choices did not fare well electorally, with particular reference to the Lib Dems and Change UK, for the simple reason that cancelling Brexit is not a popular option.

Massive divisions in the country already existed on the European issue (before the referendum), it's just that it was not plainly obvious because the topic was buried for so long. It's difficult to pacify everyone in a political debate and bring the population together because not everyone is going to be happy at the outcome - in this instance we're seeing a minority of those who voted Remain in 2016 are upset and annoyed because we've now left the EU. There can be so satisfying such people, alas.

None of the subsequent votes were on single issues no matter how they are spun. Even if they were you could then claim a majority of people were not voting for the Conservative 'dream' at the 2019 GE, given that significantly more votes overall went to other parties. The closest to a single issue were the European elections and those too were problematic (and can be spun the same way as the 2019 GE).

The point about supermajority is that you are trying to shift the vote beyond trends, fashions and blind party loyalties. You have taken a snapshot of the mood of the population and on that basis have declared that that is that forever.

My belief is that that vote was too close and too problematic. It should have been the start of a more detailed conversation, not the end. The fact that our government has avoided any scrutiny of Brexit and the associated trade deal where possible is a serious warning sign. Another is the failure to publicise, or even carry out, any kind of study on the consequences of Brexit for UK businesses. Yet a third is the practical response from our government to problems in the fishing industry post Brexit. Amazing how fast we have gone from 'save our fishing' to 'f*** fishing' now that it has outlived its usefulness. Not like any of this was a remote surprise to anyone with with a brain who had been paying attention.

I know we have been over this ground a great deal. The eurosceptics have got the result they wanted and will brook no argument. Meanwhile our country is immeasurably weaker and in serious danger of breaking up into its constituent parts.

More votes went to parties pledging to honour the result than those not pledging to honour it, in 2017 and 2019. Parties that wanted to cancel Brexit fared poorly. The 2019 European Elections were certainly a single-issue vote, and the Brexit Party comfortably beat the Lib Dems. The overall point was that there's clearly no appetite to cancel Brexit or to have held a second referendum.

I understand your point about supermajorities, but I disagree wholeheartedly for reasons previously stated, and go back to how we never voted to join in the first place, let alone by a supermajority. It isn't over 'forever' either, anymore than it was over 'forever' in 1975.

Furthermore, the trade deal was scrutinised, as was Brexit (for three and a half years). Dozens of studies on the consequences of Brexit for UK businesses have been carried out and publicised (not sure how you've missed those) in recent years. I agree that the fishing aspect of the deal was by far the worst outcome of said deal, though you'd be incorrect to say the government hasn't responded properly, because they have instituted compensation to fishing firms effected as well as investing more in said industry. Any problems with fishing post-Brexit are lessened compared to the issues whilst we were in the EU.

The UK has also always been in 'serious danger' of breaking up into its constituent parts, ever since the devolved parliaments came into being.

by **Pr4wn** Tue Jan 26, 2021 6:12 pm

Duty281 wrote:
Luckless Pedestrian wrote:
Duty281 wrote:A minority of those who voted Remain in 2016 are upset and annoyed because we've now left the EU. There can be so satisfying such people, alas.

The state of this. Doesn't it bother you at all that pretty much all the tangible consequences of leaving the EU so far have been negative?

No, because they haven't been.

Please tell us what's been so good.

by Samo Tue Jan 26, 2021 7:33 pm

Duty281 wrote:
Luckless Pedestrian wrote:The idea that it's sour grapes from a handful of Europhiles. Tell that to the Leave-voting fishermen, exporters, hauliers, who were promised the exact same access to the single market back in 2016. I've never laid the blame on Leave voters, but rather on those who knowingly misled them in order to sway their vote.

This 'exact same' part simply isn't true. Leave campaigners stated quite clearly that should we vote to Leave we would end our membership of the Single Market (correct), but would continue to have access to the Single Market like other non-EU countries (correct) as part of a new trading relationship (correct).

Thats just not true.

by Luckless Pedestrian Tue Jan 26, 2021 9:37 pm

Leave didn't campaign on erecting barriers to free trade. On the contrary, they stressed that leaving the EU wouldn't hamper our access to the single market. Why should any of us, regardless of how we voted, just shrug our shoulders at all this red tape and non-tariff barriers and say, 'ah well, it's just one of those things'?

by lostinwales Tue Jan 26, 2021 9:38 pm

Duty281 wrote:...
Furthermore, the trade deal was scrutinised, as was Brexit (for three and a half years). Dozens of studies on the consequences of Brexit for UK businesses have been carried out and publicised (not sure how you've missed those) in recent years. I agree that the fishing aspect of the deal was by far the worst outcome of said deal, though you'd be incorrect to say the government hasn't responded properly, because they have instituted compensation to fishing firms effected as well as investing more in said industry. Any problems with fishing post-Brexit are lessened compared to the issues whilst we were in the EU.

The UK has also always been in 'serious danger' of breaking up into its constituent parts, ever since the devolved parliaments came into being.

The impact analysis of brexit has been woefully inadequate. I am aware that some studies have taken place but they have been either obscured or ignored. If you have seen the recent FT article on the road to the deal you will have seen the comments about how the government appeared desperate to not perform more studies.

The trade deal was not effectively scrutinised. Parliament had a week or so over Christmas to read it through (all, what , 1200 -2000 pages? never quite sure) then a few hours to debate it. The committee formed to scrutinise it has been shut down before it had a chance to explore it in more detail.

There is a big question about how much time should be needed to scrutinise the deal, but the simple fact that the consequences of that deal are taking time to make themselves apparent would appear that there was not enough time.

The compensation to the fishing industry is a panic response, and any investment will be wasted unless there is a market for their produce.

We are where we are. I bitterly regret leaving but that decision has been made. What I do really care about is how things are done going forward. The point of proper scrutiny is not to delay or postpone action but to reduce the chances of making bad decisions.

by **JuliusHMarx** Fri Feb 12, 2021 3:20 am

Good news for Leavers - they're getting what they voted for.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56017419

by Samo Fri Feb 12, 2021 3:47 am

JuliusHMarx wrote:Good news for Leavers - they're getting what they voted for.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56017419

Is this a tangible benefit?

by lostinwales Fri Feb 12, 2021 3:55 am

Samo wrote:
JuliusHMarx wrote:Good news for Leavers - they're getting what they voted for.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-56017419

Is this a tangible benefit?

For Amsterdam, yes.

by Samo Sun Mar 14, 2021 2:18 am

Exports to the EU down 40%. Is this what taking back control looks like?

by Soul Requiem Sun Mar 14, 2021 4:32 am

It highlights how the EU treat anyone outside of their clique and is in no way a glowing example of their behaviour.

by lostinwales Sun Mar 14, 2021 9:41 am

Soul Requiem wrote:It highlights how the EU treat anyone outside of their clique and is in no way a glowing example of their behaviour.

The EU didn't kick us out and impose this Poopie on us. We did that. We agreed to a trade deal which was crap, just better than nothing. When we were in the EU we were a driving force behind some of the legisation that is now being used against us. You can project all you like but the blame for all of this crap lies a little closer to home.

by **Pr4wn** Sun Mar 14, 2021 10:18 am

Soul Requiem wrote:It highlights how the EU treat anyone outside of their clique and is in no way a glowing example of their behaviour.

How predictable.

by Soul Requiem Sun Mar 14, 2021 10:23 am

lostinwales wrote:
Soul Requiem wrote:It highlights how the EU treat anyone outside of their clique and is in no way a glowing example of their behaviour.

The EU didn't kick us out and impose this Poopie on us. We did that. We agreed to a trade deal which was crap, just better than nothing. When we were in the EU we were a driving force behind some of the legisation that is now being used against us. You can project all you like but the blame for all of this crap lies a little closer to home.

How conceivable

by Sponsored content