Agree in part that the rosy underestimates are partly to blame , some might call that stupidity on the part of the politicians and the people for believing them. However how do you explain away the treatment of Poles and other migrants since the vote? What non-racist , non xenophobic explanation or excuse are we going to be asked to believe for that. Public cynicısm is a convenient label to hide behind to avoid an admission that Pandora's Box has been opened and that something nasty about our country has been revealed.
The political classes on all sides, plus the liberal elite have ignored people's fears about immigration for yearsand hhave turned off the debate whenever it was raised by screaming "racism". They are completely to blame for where we find ourselves today. The mass immigration, multicultural experiment has left this country divided and in disarray. Also, all these youngsters blaming the older generation for the leave result need look no further than themselves. Apparently under 40% of 18-24 year olds who could vote actually did. 80% of older people voted. The young only have themselves to blame.
Our population is 65m. What proportion are carrying out these revolting slurs on the Polish community? It's miniscule. When you have uncontrolled immigration, eventually concern will grow in affected communities together with a desire to address it. Then, a tiny number of idiots may use it as an excuse for racist purposes. That's what we're seeing now, and these faceless racists need to be identified and feel the full force of the law
Now we've left - the country's population should start to drop as the country goes down the pan and growth stalls. Not the intended cause but people won't mind the effect. Probably even drop below 60m when the Scots leave - which will oddly make the population density even greater in the rest of the country.
Just heard Farage in the European Parliament, literally abusing all the other MEPs, then saying 'let's be grown up about it'. Pathetic, horrible, embarrassing. At the same time I'm getting messages from many of my EU colleagues, especially the French, essentially saying we are all still friends and the U.K. is a good neighbour. Well, I'm afraid we won't be if this toad and his ilk have anything to do with it. I'd be stuffing the fish bones down Farage's throat, not just forgetting the heimlich manoeuvre.
This was for consumption back here at home, not there, as I suspect you already believe. He has no executive power, but continues to gain much influence in some quarters who have just the same voting power as the rest of us. Expect the "Good old Nige" brigade to lap up his deliberate rudeness and lack of statesmanship this morning. Expect UKIP to decide it still has a purpose - sticking up "for the common man" and still being around for a long time. Why not? They've already achieved their original goal, but, like all organisations, they'll find a new objective to justify their continued existence rather than disband. That's their prerogative, of course. We can support them or oppose them but we can't deny them their existence. One consequence of this might be for the Conservatives to be a bit more like UKIP - just to try and maintain their own support from people who might otherwise find UKIP to be their natural home.
One of the problems with the referendum was that the only question was "leave or remain". Of those that voted leave the northern working class only care about immigration, the southern middle class probably more about governance - some might care about the single market, others won't. There's no consensus on what Leave means other than "take back control" and "£350 million to the NHS" soundbites. Who decides that the "leave" vote has been followed through? We will probably end up with the Norway model of full single market access, free movement of people and paying subsidies - just not a full member with no representation. i.e. a compromise that will mean neither leave or remain voters are happy.
Don't think Nige is going anywhere mate. He needs to be there to ensure there is no "sell-out", I think he's more likely to pick up labour voters than tory ones tbh.
Agreed, he'll be around for some time yet. Not my cup of tea at all, but he exists and he is other peoples drink of choice... He'll do well personally, because he will never (not for a few years, anyway) be in the position of having to actually run anything or deliver anything to the country. That gives him the freedom to be whoever he needs to be. He's the back seat driving nightmare for anyone actually in power with responsibilities - always able to do their job better than them but never having to do so. I agree with you regarding picking up Labour voters. The Conservatives will become close enough to UKIP in key policy areas that their own voters who might be tempted will be happy to stay where they are.
Farage's speech today wasn't 'statesman like' and agree he gloated. However we need to look deeper into why he did this. Since the referendum, many people are not happy. I am staying off facebook for a bit because every other post is about ways we can either: Have another referendum/Scotland and London being in Europe/A petition/ The referendum wasn't legally binding/ people wanting another election hoping it will mean another referendum. Any excuse to overturn a democratic vote. Nigel wants us out now by triggering article 50 so there are no other options and no chance of people like Lammy getting his way. All those heroic speeches from Scotland and the crap in the press and social media are just causing more uncertainty in our markets. Scotland (sturgeon in particular) is trying to cause as much mayhem as possible so expect more crap from that poison dwarf. WE need to trigger article 50 and al move on asap so we all know where we stand.
They might mind the effect if we end up like the Germans with a shrinking aging population that won't be able to sustain itself in 20-30 years so had to resort to the insanity of offering a free for all to young working age refugees to plug the holes expected in their labour market!
We will now start to learn what not having a written constitution means. For all those revelling in us having 'taken back control', control sits with the Queen, Sovereign in Parliament. In a representative Parliament the members are meant to act in the citizens' best interests, and by extension the best interests of the country as a whole. This is not the same as doing what the majority of the citizens say they want, without exercising judgement. That would be a direct democracy, not what we have and highly undesirable in my view. And it always gets messy when you mix the two versions of democracy up. So members of Parliament would be well within their constitutional and sovereign rights to decide that leaving the EU is not in the country's best interests, despite what the referendum said. Indeed, it would be a clear demonstration of the sovereignty of parliament, exactly what some leave voters said they were voting for. It would also be an honourable, honest and courageous act on behalf of the individual MPs. There would probably have to be a General Election as a result of such a decision, but as we are going to have one anyway, so what? Either way, the constitutional process means Parliament has to repeal the European Communities Act 1972 as the starting gun in the withdrawal from the EU marathon hurdles. We can't start Article 50 until Parliament has spoken. So Jacob Rees Mogg can stuff that in his crack pipe and smoke it. I'd like this to happen, as then the Tories and Labour would both have to split into Remain and Leave factions in the general election. You would know exactly what the person you were voting for stood for, regarding the EU at least. And of course it would be a shining example of British independence, sovereignty and 'control' at work. I know it doesn't sound democratic, but it's the version of democracy we have. The people en masse are not to be trusted with decision making, they can elect the people who make the decisions. If you want that to change we need a revolution.
if the government try or do a u-turn on the referendum there would be a civil war and it would lead to mass hate crimes and endless trouble/riots. We had a vote and we all need to respect the result. I was on the border of remain/leave and would have respected the result whatever. it's called a democracy and we need to stick by it or we might as well be North Korea. Now quite a few TV reporters are saying that all the stalling is a plan to stay. interesting times a head.
That's not the kind of democracy we have Ellers. MPs are elected to represent the interests of all of their constituents, including the ones who didn't vote for them, not just repeat the views of the majority. It is their job to exercise judgement. Even if many of them seem supremely unqualified for the task. For what it's worth I reckon they won't have the bottle to do anything but proceed with Brexit.
Me neither. Usually we just end up living with the consequences of their failure to do their jobs in our best interest. This time we get to take the blame as well!
I have had a look at many of the debates across the various boards and, to be honest, this is one of the best. However, one point has stuck with me, because it is repeated over and over again - and that is, do the remainers have sour grapes ? and Why can't they just accept defeat and move on ? Well, I can remember Farage saying in May (when he thought he would lose) that a result of 52-48% for remain would be an inconclusive result and that he could imagine there being a second referendum under those circumstances - and I do not think that other Brexiters would have clapped their hands, said 'well played sir' and moved on. Why should it be different the other way round ? Also, many people are saying 'we are out'. We are most definitely not out - Article 50 may or may not be invoked in a few months time (it may be even longer - Gove has suggested it could be as late as 2018), it's clear that nobody other than Farage really wants to do it. Once invoked we are still subject to EU. law for a minimum of 2 years - and the decision for Brexit can be reversed at any time during that period. Those aged 16 now could be 19 by the time Brexit actually happens and some of the oldies will have popped off by then. Can anyone say that Brexit would happen then,possibly against the will of the electorate, against the will of parliament, against the will of the most of British industry, against the will of all the World's leaders apart from Putin, simply because of one referendum taken 2-3 years earlier ? Parliament would be perfectly entitled to ignore the result as only 'advisory', or call a second referendum - though I actually think that the safer course is to wait. Because over the course of those 2 years every single act of European law would have to be voted on by the British parliament (which has 450 remainers to 150 Brexiters) and they could just as easily block it act by act.
Agree but i would always be careful with allowing politicians to have too much of a say. Take the Iraq war? would the majority of the population have agreed with the government? Whatever way we choose it will always be hard to please all. I think Tooting touched on something in an earlier post that some are worried about immigration and others on sovereignty. I still believe though that we will get some sort of deal which hopefully will benefit us all.
I think it was Churchill who described democracy as the 'least worst' system of government. I can't remember anyone in a public position talking about the constitutional aspects of a leave vote during the campaign. Perhaps they would not have been listened to in the heat of that discussion, but it would have been interesting to hear.
