Off Topic Politics Thread

[breconsaint]

The problem is that the nutters in charge of the government have taken it upon themselves to decide that the referendum was a clear mandate to leave the single market, burn all our bridges with Europe and set up trade deals with the world's despots (Trump and Erdogan, for god's sake). It wasn't anything of the sort.

The gang of four even spent millions of pounds of taxpayers' money to try to avoid any kind of debate. So as far as I'm concerned, sudden claims from a government forced into a debate shouting that democracy is suddenly all that matters rank as sheer unadulterated hypocrisy.

I sincerely hope there's a referendum before we leave to confirm that the people want what's on offer. Then if moderation wins and we stay in the single market, I look forward to the Mail and Express telling us that democracy only counts for votes held on June 23rd 2016.

Vin

I'm sure everyone would like to stay in the single market. It's just on what terms. The EU seem determined that it will be on their terms(which are diametrically opposed to the main aims of the referendum). Many seem keen to punish us for leaving a "voluntary" club, to which we have been one of the main contributors.

"set up trade deals with the world's despots"- yeah, because we've never done that before, have we?

As for burning bridges, it is sad that all trade with Europe will cease, or am I misreading something?

 

[ChilcoSaint]

It's all conjecture, and as such not a valid excuse for remainers to immediately try and overturn a mandate.

But what did those 17 million actually vote for? I would bet quite a lot of money that there was a whole range of expectations, from just making a protest, through "soft" Brexit where we remain in the single market, all the way to the hard Brexit actually being proposed by our unelected Prime Minister. If you're telling me that all 17 million voters voted for what it actually looks like is going to happen then you are completely wrong.

 

[Onionman]

I'm sure everyone would like to stay in the single market. It's just on what terms. The EU seem determined that it will be on their terms(which are diametrically opposed to the main aims of the referendum). Many seem keen to punish us for leaving a "voluntary" club, to which we have been one of the main contributors.

"set up trade deals with the world's despots"- yeah, because we've never done that before, have we?

As for burning bridges, it is sad that all trade with Europe will cease, or am I misreading something?

Yes, YOUR view of the main aims.

The question was: "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"

Where did that say anything about the main aims?

Vin

 

[Onionman]

We don't know; it didn't happen. Farage, although influential, was not the key mover in this vote. I suspect that the majority of the leavers would have accepted the decision, grumbled, moaned a bit and got on with their lives. Some hardliners may well have campaigned in local and European elections and asked for another referendum if the situation changed dramatically in future. (Let's face it, they did wait 40 odd years last time).

It's all conjecture, and as such not a valid excuse for remainers to immediately try and overturn a mandate.

Absolutely no chance whatsoever. None. Nil. Nope.

Claiming we'll never know is evading the answer but you do know. As do I. As does everyone else.

"Farage was not the key mover"? You're fooling yourself.

Vin

 

[Puck]

It's not a conspiracy. Nor is it incompetence. If it was incompetence or a conspiracy that they could cloak under the guise of incompetence, someone would have said "Ooops. That was an oversight. Sorry. We'll get this fixed."

But they're not trying to cover their tracks. It's like "Yeah, that's right. We did it because you cannot trust 5 year olds."
It's very obvious what they are doing. People just don't want to believe it because it's like "No way. These guys can't possibly be that evil and get in power. Not in America." But, it happened.

Firstly the chances of Donald Trump of all people hiding behind incompetence are close to zero. This is a man with an ego the size of a planet who's been criticised a lot on the basis that he lacks experience. He's not going to say "Oops, that was a mistake." in his first couple of weeks in office.

Secondly, I never mentioned the age thing. It was clearly their intention to stop people of all ages from those countries. The things I mentioned (Green Card holders, UK citizens with dual nationality) they have now said it wasn't their intention to stop. They have also issued another Executive Order that has been criticised as unclear by a Harvard law professor. They don't fully understand how to specify what they want to do.

 

[Puck]

Technically the single market wasn't asked about but the leaders of both campaigns were quite clear on it:

You must log in or register to see media

 

[Whiteley Saint]

Regatta De Blanc? Probably was more important tbf.

I only mentioned lowering the voting age to 16 because it has already been done once, in Scotland. Not sure whether it's a good idea or not, really. The few 16 year olds I know seem to have at least as good a grasp of current affairs as their parents though.

Zenyatta Mondatta

Sadly not as good as Regatta de Blanc.

 

[Whiteley Saint]

But what did those 17 million actually vote for? I would bet quite a lot of money that there was a whole range of expectations, from just making a protest, through "soft" Brexit where we remain in the single market, all the way to the hard Brexit actually being proposed by our unelected Prime Minister. If you're telling me that all 17 million voters voted for what it actually looks like is going to happen then you are completely wrong.

They voted to Leave that is all anyone can possibly know because that was all that was asked. Anything else is conjecture.

 

[ChilcoSaint]

They voted to Leave that is all anyone can possibly know because that was all that was asked. Anything else is conjecture.

No it isn't, because I know, from talking to an admittedly small number, that people were confused about the terms on which we would leave.

 

[Whiteley Saint]

No it isn't, because I know, from talking to an admittedly small number, that people were confused about the terms on which we would leave.

And yet they still voted for it.

 

[The Ides of March]

Absolutely. I've said many times that if there had been a massive majority in favour of leaving I would have reluctantly accepted the result. But 17 million out of 46 million registered to vote is not the mandate of the people.

On the contrary, I wouldn't!!

 

[ChilcoSaint]

And yet they still voted for it.

Which is kind of the point, isn't it?

 

[Whiteley Saint]

Which is kind of the point, isn't it?

Exactly if they weren't sure why did they decide to take the risk?

 

[ChilcoSaint]

Exactly if they weren't sure why did they decide to take the risk?

Heaven only knows!

 

[ImpSaint]

Yes, YOUR view of the main aims.

The question was: "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"

Where did that say anything about the main aims?

Vin

David Cameron on Andrew Marr 12th June 2016:

"David Cameron confirmed Sunday that he will pull Britain out of the single market if there is a vote to leave the European Union at the upcoming referendum.

The prime minister told the BBC’s Andrew Marr show that it would be impossible to copy the Norwegian model by remaining inside the trading bloc despite being outside the EU because that would mean accepting freedom of movement and trade rules made in Brussels.


He said the Brexit campaign had made it clear to voters that voting to leave also meant pulling out of the single market. The prime minister said he would accept the result as an “instruction” despite warning that leaving would be like planting a “bomb” under the British economy."



In the government leaflet that cost the taxpayer £9m:

"The Government judges it could result in 10 years or more of uncertainty as the UK unpicks our relationship with the EU and renegotiates new arrangements with the EU and over 50 other countries around the world"



The first is just one case where our pro remain Prime Minister detailed we would be leaving the single market BECAUSE he accepted that freedom of movement and the UK making its own decisions (trade rules part of those decisions) were the key concerns of people.

The second is from the now infamous government advice leaflet that cost the taxpayer £9m and again it clearly details (I have put it in bold) that voting leave would mean the UK having to renegotiate new arrangements with the EU AND over 50 other countries. That last part is key. We would not be allowed to negotiate countries with "over 50 other countries around the world" if we stayed in the Single market and therefore it is quite clear that in that text it means "IF WE LEAVE WE WILL BE LEAVING THE SINGLE MARKET."

It is not enough for people to pull up people like Daniel Hannon as saying he wanted to stay in the single market. How many people do you really think have ever heard of Daniel Hannon even now.

It is also a stretch to say others on the leave side didn't clearly state that we would be leaving the single market because they were not going to rule out any possibilities should we win.

After all we should be aiming to negotiate as much as we can.

The key though is that those (Not just Cameron and Osborne) that wanted to send out the message of what would happen if we were "foolish" enough to vote leave repeated over and over again that we WOULD be leaving the single market if we voted leave. It was one of their most repeated "threats."

 

[ImpSaint]

I also find it very confusing that people think that those who didn't vote would have swayed it to the remain side. I would bank that a vast amount of those that didn't vote are the very same people that can't be bothered to do anything. The "chavs", The "dossers" etc and they would undoubtedly have voted heavily for leave.

 

[Onionman]

On the contrary, I wouldn't!!

I would. And my basis for that is a belief that even Farage would have had to accept a landslide vote to remain.

As it is, even before the vote, Farage was telling all and sundry that if it was close there'd need to be another referendum. Funny how little that's been brought up when people are accusing remainers of being "undemocratic".

Vin

 

[The Ides of March]

I would. And my basis for that is a belief that even Farage would have had to accept a landslide vote to remain.

As it is, even before the vote, Farage was telling all and sundry that if it was close there'd need to be another referendum. Funny how little that's been brought up when people are accusing remainers of being "undemocratic".

Vin

I am only interested in remaining as the vote to leave is extremely foolish. And common sense should prevail in this instance, not the votes of people brainwashed by the rag press and Bull**** Johnson and Nigel the "Funny Bloke"

 

[ImpSaint]

I would. And my basis for that is a belief that even Farage would have had to accept a landslide vote to remain.

As it is, even before the vote, Farage was telling all and sundry that if it was close there'd need to be another referendum. Funny how little that's been brought up when people are accusing remainers of being "undemocratic".

Vin

On the same Andrew Marr Show on 12/6/16 Farage was on before Cameron:

"Ukip leader Nigel Farage, interviewed before the prime minister on the show claimed there had been “a shift” in public opinion in the last fortnight.

“Collectively people are beginning to put two fingers up to the political class,” he said.

Farage also dismissed claims there could be another referendum if the vote was tight. “If the leave side were to narrowly lose, the chances of Parliament giving us another referendum is pretty slim.”

The Ukip leader also risked controversy after blithely dismissing the threat of a collapse in the value of the sterling in the event of an Out vote. Asked about the consequences of a weakened pound, the Ukip leader said: “So what?”

A lower pound was good for exports, he said."

It wasn't as if this was just on Marr or politics shows. All major news put these snippets on thinking they would "persuade" people that voting leave was a bad thing. It is just complete nonsense that people who voted leave "did not understand" or "didn't realise" these things because they were quite literally repeated over and over again.

Like the great Marillion album it is called "clutching at straws" as is all this talk of people changing their minds. You can see by this CNN/ComRes poll that isn't the case and we know where a lot of the "don;t knows" go because that includes the "shy" voters:

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/19/europe/cnn-brexit-poll/index.html

This is the Politico article from the 13/6/16 which I have taken the Marr excerpts from!! This passage is interesting from BEFORE the referendum:

There have been reports that the House of Commons, whose MPs are overwhelmingly pro-Remain, could vote against pulling out of the single market in the event of a Brexit. MPs could claim they were accepting voters’ wishes to withdraw from the EU while protecting them from the economic consequences of leaving the trading area.

However, the Leave campaign has made it clear that in order to restrict immigration and strike trade deals with countries outside the EU, Britain would have to leave the single market.

The prime minister said: “What the British public will be voting for is to leave the EU and leave the single market.”

http://www.politico.eu/article/davi...eu-referendum-vote-june-23-consequences-news/

 

[Puck]

I would. And my basis for that is a belief that even Farage would have had to accept a landslide vote to remain.

As it is, even before the vote, Farage was telling all and sundry that if it was close there'd need to be another referendum. Funny how little that's been brought up when people are accusing remainers of being "undemocratic".

Vin

Farage agreed about a big Remain win. You're misrepresenting his comments about a second referendum though. They came in the context of the government's shady decision to spend £9m (£2m more than the campaign spending limit) on leaflets arguing the case for Remain, just before the campaign officially started.

Quote from the BBC website below. Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36306681

The question of a second referendum was raised by Mr Farage in an interview with the Mirror in which he said: "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the Remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it."

Asked by the BBC about his Daily Mirror comments, Mr Farage said he was not admitting defeat in the referendum, saying: "I think we are going to win."

But he added: "If we were to lose narrowly, there'd be a large section, particularly in the Conservative Party, who'd feel the prime minister is not playing fair, that the Remain side is using way more money than the Leave side and there would be a resentment that would build up if that was to be the result."

Leave campaigners have criticised the government for spending £9m of taxpayers' money on a leaflet campaign promoting EU membership, with pamphlets sent to 27 million UK homes.

They say the campaign, which they have called "one-sided propaganda", cost more than the £7m each side is allowed to spend during the official campaign period.