The now-enacted will of (some of) the people

[Awol]

5 hours ago, Enda said:

The more I think about it,

"Yes, No Deal may well re-ignite the troubles in Northern Ireland... but it's okay we can just bring some of the tricks we learned in Somalia to the streets of Belfast"

is a rather wonderful encapsulation of the Brexit mindset.

I was thinking more the Republic than Belfast. Safe haven in a neighbouring state is a key requirement for the survival of terrorist groups (that one is from Afghan, not Somalia).

Nodding sympathetically when people threaten the return of the IRA to get their own way politically, is a rather wonderful encapsulation of the Remainer mindset.   

[Seat68]

9 hours ago, imavillan said:

not sure where you're going but, as i see you are in Stafford please allow me to remind you of how Stafford voted.....

Remain: 34,098 -46%

Leave: 43,386 - 56%

Electorate: 99,612

 Verified Ballot Papers: 77,527

 Turnout: 77.9%

 Ballot Papers Counted : 77,527

Valid Votes: 77,484

 Rejected Ballots: 43

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/elections-and-referendums/past-elections-and-referendums/eu-referendum/electorate-and-count-information

 

 

I live here and voted in it, unsure what your post represents? Genuinely. Assuming its along the lines of pipe down dweller of leave constituency.

Its interesting for our town, we have a very large eastern european population due to us being surrounded by farms they require a workforce, and that workforce is huge. We also have a large private healthcare business, again reliant on an eastern european workforce. That agricultural workforce supports businesses and contributes to our economy, its employed, it rents accomodation, it spends its money in the town. This town is suffering though, our high street is bare, your Brexit god Mr Wetherspoon is closing one of his branches of brexit central and shops at our north end are shuttered. 

Without doubt we will lose that workforce, that contribution to the local economy, and without doubt british people will not take them jobs and more local businesses will suffer.

The healthcare business has already lost so much of its european staff, they have made huge swathes of support staff redundant.

Now I have consistently said that I believe in democracy, I believe that those people who couldnt be trusted with a crayon let alone a pencil spoke and their voice was a resounding voice that I think Mr Farage said if it had been the result for Remain it should go back to the polls. Still a resounding voice. However democracy as I see it is lets do a version that doesnt destroy jobs, surely the version that all leavers wanted?

[blandy]

33 minutes ago, Awol said:

Nodding sympathetically when people threaten the return of the IRA to get their own way politically, is a rather wonderful encapsulation of the Remainer mindset.   

It’s rather mirrored by people who say “just leave” (regardless of getting the least damaging form of leave) or else we’ll have riots in the streets from the far right.

[blandy]

3 minutes ago, Seat68 said:

However democracy as I see it is lets do a version that doesnt destroy jobs, surely the version that all leavers wanted?

Not just wanted, but were promised, and it’s not just leavers that were promised it, but everyone was. “Exactly the same benefits.....no downside....”

[Awol]

Just now, blandy said:

It’s rather mirrored by people who say “just leave” (regardless of getting the least damaging form of leave) or else we’ll have riots in the streets from the far right.

Agreed, threatening violence isn’t okay. Civil disobedience & peaceful protest are in any case far more effective ways to pressure a government. Violence is the reason why, 20 weeks into the protests, Macron can’t compromise with the yellow vests. 

[blandy]

10 hours ago, imavillan said:

However, Anna Soubry is a one woman crusade who's constituency of Broxtowe voted 55 to 45 to leave and she is trying her hardest not to do what her constituents voted for. (as are many other MP's)

There’s a bit of a gap here, isn’t there?

There is not a single constituency anywhere whose constituents voted by a majority to leave ( or to remain). Because constituents includes people not eligible to vote (such as people under 18 and foreign nationals) and people who didn’t vote ( a significant chunk).

MPs have to represent the interests of all their constituents as best as they can, using their judgement, knowledge and experience etc.

its the same with the uk as a whole. Approximately 17 million voted leave, 16 million voted remain, 30+ million did not/ could not vote.  I don’t think anyone, leaver or remainer can say legitimately, verifiably, that they have a majority support from the people in their area or nation for one view or the other.

so Soubry or Mogg promoting the opposite view to (what someone has extrapolated, votes weren’t counted by constituency) how their constituency possibly voted is basically fine. 

[snowychap]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

I was thinking more the Republic than Belfast.

Are you suggesting that a return of the troubles in NI would see UK special forces rocking around Eire potting suspected terrorists?

[peterms]

16 minutes ago, blandy said:

 I don’t think anyone, leaver or remainer can say legitimately, verifiably, that they have a majority support from the people in their area or nation for one view or the other. 

The objection to that as a justification for MPs now taking a different view, quite reasonably, is that people were told that the result of the vote, UK-wide, would be respected.  Not that it would be respected if a majority of those entitled to vote was secured, not that MPs would use their judgement to assess the best course of action taking into account the vote in their constituency alongside other things.

The question that was put turned out to be much less coherent than envisaged (a yes/no question doesn't really work well for this), and the consequences of leaving were unclear and were also deliberately misrepresented, but that doesn't prevent people feeling that they were promised something - that the result would be implemented - but were deceived.

[jackbauer24]

Leave means leave! Except when a brexiteer thinks it doesn't...

If Leave Means Leave then I'd be MORE than happy to keep all the rules and regulations of the EU and just not field candidates for European Elections. See, we've left the EU. That's Leave.

Oh, you don't like that one? OK, how about Leave Means Leave? We follow May's deal to the letter and Leave. You don't like that leave either?

Right, got it. Leave means leave. So we leave but we stay in the customs union? No...

Mmm, struggling here. Leave means leave.... OK, we Leave with no deal but actually have to start dealing immediately with EU? No?

Leave Means Leave is the most moronic statement in this whole argument. The definition of Leave has never been defined by Brexiteers. If it hasn't been defined by Brexiteers it CAN'T have been voted on by the public.

So decide what Leave f'ing means then ask the public if that's what they thought it meant and the whole thing is sorted much sooner for everyone. If you're so sure your opinion is the most popular then put it to the vote immediately.

 

Edited April 7, 2019 by jackbauer24

[Awol]

4 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Are you suggesting that a return of the troubles in NI would see UK special forces rocking around Eire potting suspected terrorists?

I’m saying it wouldn’t be off the table in those circumstances, all would hinge on the approach taken by Dublin - in the hypothetical and hopefully unlikely scenario that Republicans choose violence over democratic means. 

[snowychap]

16 minutes ago, Awol said:

I’m saying it wouldn’t be off the table in those circumstances, all would hinge on the approach taken by Dublin - in the hypothetical and hopefully unlikely scenario that Republicans choose violence over democratic means. 

In this nothing off the table scenario, is the thought that these actions might be taken with Dublin in the know but turning a blind eye or against their wishes?

[blandy]

1 hour ago, peterms said:

that doesn't prevent people feeling that they were promised something - that the result would be implemented - but were deceived.

Sure, I agree.

whether the majority of blame for that lies with the the non-implementors, the people who promised the unachievable, the downright liars, the electoral law cheats, the E.U. the clown who triggered A50 before they had a clue, the numpty opposition who supported that, the failure to consult and cooperate, the buying of the DUP, the failure to listen to experts, the ridiculous “no deal is better than a bad deal” type sloganeering replacing actual thought, or whatever other clusterporkery you want to call into the equation is another matter.

[peterms]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

Sure, I agree.

whether the majority of blame for that lies with the the non-implementors, the people who promised the unachievable, the downright liars, the electoral law cheats, the E.U. the clown who triggered A50 before they had a clue, the numpty opposition who supported that, the failure to consult and cooperate, the buying of the DUP, the failure to listen to experts, the ridiculous “no deal is better than a bad deal” type sloganeering replacing actual thought, or whatever other clusterporkery you want to call into the equation is another matter.

I think the blame is widespread.  Cameron and his coterie clearly thought remain would win, so promising to implement the result was acceptable to them.  Leading Brexiters were saying that if they lost, it wouldn't be the end of the matter, but are now calling betrayal because efforts are being made to review and overturn the result.  Others didn't challenge at the time the idea that a yes/no choiuce was adequate and should be implemented, perhaps feeling that arguing against implementing a vote was a hiding to nothing.

I'm not sure anyone comes out of this well, in respect of this promise to abide by the result.  It's been damaging to politics, and to the perception of our politicians.

[HanoiVillan]

The blame falls primarily on the 2016 referendum, and hence Cameron. May has made repeated tactical mistakes, but placing the vague idea of 'Leave' on the ballot paper has proved completely insufficient. Leavers talk about the mandate to leave, but often the more firmly they believe in that mandate the more they undermine it, as @Awol is doing when he says he would prefer to stay in the EU than leave under May's Withdrawal Agreement, or Sammy Wilson does when he says the same thing and hopes we stay for a year or more extension. If Leavers were actually agreed, basically, that any form of 'Leave' were better than any form of 'Remain' then the 2016 mandate would be strong, but they aren't, so it isn't. 

Mandate-wavers also need to remember that 2017 was more recent than 2016, and that Labour's manifesto in particular is quite clear about the sort of Brexit they *wouldn't* support, as well as their general support for the idea of leaving. 

Edited April 7, 2019 by HanoiVillan

[bickster]

 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, HanoiVillan said:

The blame falls primarily on the 2016 referendum, and hence Cameron. May has made repeated tactical mistakes, but placing the vague idea of 'Leave' on the ballot paper has proved completely insufficient. Leavers talk about the mandate to leave, but often the more firmly they believe in that mandate the more they undermine it, as @Awol is doing when he says he would prefer to stay in the EU than leave under May's Withdrawal Agreement...

To expand about this, rather than disagree directly, I'm not entirely sure about what you say in its entirety. You're right I think in terms of pointing at people/parties and laying blame, but not in the proportions, perhaps. I mean if you take an ideal situation, kind of, there are different ways of looking at what went wrong.

First an advisory Leave/Remain referendum didn't have to be the primary fault. Had it been mandatory, then it would have been rendered void by law, because of the electoral crimes committed by Leave. But it was advisory so with no legal obligation to follow the result, the verdict wasn't quashed by law, because parliament could legally ignore if it so wished. Anyway, an advisory "we want to leave please" from the public could have been handled differently - first work with all of parliament, Scotland, Wales, NI to decide what kind of Brexit, then put it to the EU. Of course it might have ended up with parliament unable to agree on a version (as now), but the time pressure wouldn't be there to anything like the same extent, as there would be no calamity "No deal" date. So IMO the primary blame goes to May, with Cameron and the rest of the tories second. Third is the throbbers and liars (on both sides). Fourth is Labour (Corbyn) for such weaselly prevarication and double standards and also having an utterly unsustainable alternative proposition and failing to having any practical alternative proposal - if he did, he'd be PM by now. Fifth is the EU.

The (active) people on the leave side, particularly the hard leave side, have been shown to be massively dim and duplicitous. Dim and duplicitous beyond parody or satire and they've sabotaged their own (unattainable) dreams through their idiocy and hypocrisy. Hard remainers have done the same (to a much lesser extent).

There's not many people come out of it all with any credit or improved reputation, is there? 

 

[HanoiVillan]

@blandy I'm not sure that there is an 'ideal' way to conduct a major political and constitutional upheaval in some sense, but I think the questions about 'what sort of Brexit would people want' would have been much better decided before the referendum rather than after. This would have meant that it was clearer what people were voting *for*, which is always easier to ascertain before an election than after, and which has led to the ridiculous spectacle of parades of leavers claiming that things they said would be ideal before the election are now outrageous and out of the question. 

One alternative approach Cameron could have taken would have been to require two or three 'leave' plans, with at least some rough idea of future trajectory (in a customs union or not, in the single market or not, etc), and then have a two-step referendum (between 'Remain' and 'Leave', and then if 'Leave' won, between the flavours of Leave). Of course, that would have caused political challenges at the time, but ducking political challenges for the conveniently easy approach in an attempt to hold the Conservative Party together is why we are where we are. 

[sharkyvilla]

2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

@blandy I'm not sure that there is an 'ideal' way to conduct a major political and constitutional upheaval in some sense, but I think the questions about 'what sort of Brexit would people want' would have been much better decided before the referendum rather than after. This would have meant that it was clearer what people were voting *for*, which is always easier to ascertain before an election than after, and which has led to the ridiculous spectacle of parades of leavers claiming that things they said would be ideal before the election are now outrageous and out of the question. 

One alternative approach Cameron could have taken would have been to require two or three 'leave' plans, with at least some rough idea of future trajectory (in a customs union or not, in the single market or not, etc), and then have a two-step referendum (between 'Remain' and 'Leave', and then if 'Leave' won, between the flavours of Leave). Of course, that would have caused political challenges at the time, but ducking political challenges for the conveniently easy approach in an attempt to hold the Conservative Party together is why we are where we are. 

Even after the referendum we could also have negotiated two potential deals, one softer and one harder, then put them to parliament.  That would have needed some foresight though.  I still don't see why they still haven't realised a second referendum is the only solution to the current problem.

[chrisp65]

 

 

[NurembergVillan]

20 hours ago, NurembergVillan said:

It's not just about the far right.

It's bell ends like Gove, Johnson, Francois, James **** Dyson, that word removed from Wetherspoons, Neil Warnock, Rees-Mogg, Kate Hoey, Raab, Davis, Leadsom, and Jim Davidson.  Farage is in a league of his own.  Like an uber-word removed or something.

Even the poster-boy for middle England xenophobia, Jeremy Clarkson, thinks leaving is a bad idea.

1

 

20 hours ago, imavillan said:

I Take it your'e a remainer????

As for Jeremy Clarkson.....well ffs he's the biggest bell end of all time....if he's your poster boy i suggest you get a new one..... have a look at Jack Grealish, Tammy Abraham or John McGinn or Tyrone Mings

4

He ain't my poster boy.  Quite the opposite.  He's a massive rocket polisher, but even he can see the light on this one.