nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

What did people vote for in 2016's EU membership referendum?

Kermit.de.frog

The next parliament will be a Brexit parliament - they know that and they don't want that. That would represent what the people voted for and can't have that.

They don't accept the democratic result of the referendum.

<split from the main Brexit thread and renamed. This appears to be a divisive issue, please don't let it get too salty. But otherwise, have fun you guys!>

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

quokula

settopbox wrote: »

Would you be asking this question if remain had won the referendum ?

If remain won the referendum narrowly and the government took that as a mandate to join the Euro then it probably would be questioned quite rightly.

So a vote to leave the EU being taken as a vote to leave the Single Market, the Customs Union, the ECHR, Euratom etc, all of which have non-EU members, should certainly be open to question.

liamtech

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Nice and Lisbon both overturned.

The "guarantees" (the nonsense you are presumably going to bring up) given meant NOTHING. Defence and tax are up for grabs now.

We are screwed.

SO in other words - you voted against Nice and Lisbon, and are sore that you had to vote again? Thats how you ended up here>? Seriously?

A slim majority in ireland had concerns, and might i say those concerns were amplified by Declan Ganley (failed pro-life Politician), along with Sinn Fein who often railed against the EU, to distinguish themselves from their cousins in FF and FG

The UNDEMOCRATIC EU EMPIRE - sat down - addressed the concerns - and we voted again - satisfied with the guarantee - we voted OVERWHELMINGLY for both

NICE
Results Votes %
Yes 906,317 62.89%
No 534,887 37.11%
Valid votes 1,441,204 99.63%
Invalid or blank votes 5,384 0.37%
Total votes 1,446,588 100.00%

Lisbon
Results Votes %
Yes 1,214,268 67.13%
No 594,606 32.87%
Valid votes 1,808,874 99.60%
Invalid or blank votes 7,224 0.40%
Total votes 1,816,098 100.00%

Tell me how

settopbox wrote: »

Would you be asking this question if remain had won the referendum ?

That's a very fair point.

But, Farage, for one, said that a 52%/48% in favour of remaining would not have been game over by a long way.

Here are some of the main reasons why I think a 2nd referendum at this point could be considered in support of democracy rather than undermining it.

Very significant attempts have gone in to finding a deal which is agreeable and have thus far failed.
3 Years of the most involved political discussion of many of ours lifetimes have undoubtedly made people more informed.
If Brexit happens in 2020, no one born in the 21st century will have voted for it to come about.
Vote Leave advocate groups were found to have broken the law.
Micro targeting of voters based on illegally sourced data (cambridge analytica) was used to target a number of voters greater than the margin of victory
Very evocative advertising such as £250M per week for the NHS was found to be completely false.
Th biggest stumbling block to delivering Brexit, the border between Ireland and Northern Ireland was completely ignored ahead of the vote in 2016 and it is impossible to believe that if the arguments of the last 12 months or so (since the backstop was suggested in a real way) that it would not have influenced many to vovte differently.
The narrative before the vote about 'easiest deal in history', 'first call will not be to Brussels but to Berlin', 'the German car makers and French wine producers will be crying out to deal with us' was debunked in a manner so comprehensively that it is not even a matter of debate for the last 3 years

Kermit.de.frog

This thread (which I didn't start btw) should be titled "The UK voted to leave the EU"

Just to clear it up for the confused in advance :rolleyes:

Tell me how

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

This thread (which I didn't start btw) should be titled "The UK voted to leave the EU"

Just to clear it up for the confused in advance :rolleyes:

Ok, First question, what version of leave did they vote for?

I could leave my house in the morning to do one of the following.

Go to work.
To never come back.
To escape a fire by jumping from the top floor window.

All would honour the statement of 'leaving the house' but under entirely different circumstance and outcomes. It is entirely relevant to ask what manner and purpose I had in leaving.

Kermit.de.frog

They voted to leave all the institutions of the European Union.

It's really not complicated.

Mr.Nice Guy

liamtech wrote: »

SO in other words - you voted against Nice and Lisbon, and are sore that you had to vote again? Thats how you ended up here>? Seriously?

A slim majority in ireland had concerns, and might i say those concerns were amplified by Declan Ganley (failed pro-life Politician), along with Sinn Fein who often railed against the EU, to distinguish themselves from their cousins in FF and FG

The UNDEMOCRATIC EU EMPIRE - sat down - addressed the concerns - and we voted again - satisfied with the guarantee - we voted OVERWHELMINGLY for both

This is a revisionist narrative. In reality the public voted No and then our government decided out of convenience and self-interest that everyone who voted No was concerned merely about neutrality and abortion. There were very valid concerns about sovereignty that were never addressed because it didn't fit the agenda. What followed then was 'Project Fear' before the term became fashionable, and a bunch of scare stories about a two-speed EU that would emerge if the original vote of the Irish people were respected.

And as can be said about supporters of another referendum on Brexit, the people who supported a second referendum on Nice, Lisbon would NOT have supported one had the votes gone the other way, and we all know it. Justify that in whatever mental gymnastics suffice, but it boils down to 'we respect democracy provided the vote goes the way we like'.

I agree with Kermit that the best thing now is to get this Brexit issue sorted. They voted the way they did so let them get on with it. The French attitude has been correct in wanting to help Johnson get it over the line because it is better for the EU 27 that the UK goes on its own way and sorts out its identity issues on its own time.

Tell me how

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

They voted to leave all the institutions of the European Union.

It's really not complicated.

Oh so they wanted to leave the single market?
They wanted to leave the customs union?
They understood the implication for Northern Ireland businesses and the exact solution which would be implemented after Leaving?

Would you say yes to the above or agree it actually is a lot more complicated?

Kermit.de.frog

Tell me how wrote: »

Oh so they wanted to leave the single market?
They wanted to leave the customs union?
They understood the implication for Northern Ireland businesses and the exact solution which would be implemented after Leaving?

Would you say yes to the above or agree it actually is a lot more complicated?

They voted to leave the European Union that also means, by definition, leaving the CU and SM.

A solution has been agreed for the north so not sure what the point is.

Hurrache

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

They voted to leave all the institutions of the European Union.

It's really not complicated.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

They voted to leave the European Union that also means, by definition, leaving the CU and SM.
.

The thread is pretty short so it wasn't hard to miss, but I posted a quote from a member of the government party who said, amongst others,

Hannan -

To repeat, absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the single market

Owen Patterson -

Only a madman would actually leave the market

So what is it, they said the'll be leaving all institutions, or staying in some of them?

Kermit.de.frog

Hurrache wrote: »

So what is it, they said the'll be leaving all institutions, or staying in some of them?

The question was whether or not to leave the European Union.

They voted to leave thus that means the SM and CU.

Ignorance can not be legislated for any minority of voters who did not bother educating themselves.

The majority voted to leave.

Just accept it and move on.

Tell me how

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

They voted to leave the European Union that also means, by definition, leaving the CU and SM.

A solution has been agreed for the north so not sure what the point is.

Why did a solution have to be agreed?

I thought everything was simple and straightforward after the referendum delivered a Leave vote.

Are you accepting it wasn't that simple?

Robert McGrath

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The question was whether or not to leave the European Union.

They voted to leave thus that means the SM and CU.

Ignorance can not be legislated for any minority of voters who did not bother educating themselves.

The majority voted to leave.

Just accept it and move on.

But if non-EU members can be in the SM or CU, then surely leaving the EU does not automatically mean leaving the SM and CU? Your characterisation that leaving the EU means “by definition” leaving the CU and SM is therefore incorrect?

Hurrache

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The question was whether or not to leave the European Union.

They voted to leave thus that means the SM and CU.

Ignorance can not be legislated for any minority of voters who did not bother educating themselves.

The majority voted to leave.

Just accept it and move on.

People were told in the campaign that their place in the single market or customs union wasn't under threat. You're a contradiction.

skallywag

Hurrache wrote: »

People were told in the campaign that their place in the single market or customs union wasn't under threat.

Are you really sure about that? i.e. the leave campaign told their supporters that they would be staying in the SM/CU? That's not how I remember it anyway ...

Hurrache

skallywag wrote: »

Are you really sure about that? i.e. the leave campaign told their supporters that they would be staying in the SM/CU? That's not how I remember it anyway ...

I even gave you the names of the people and their exact quotes.

Kermit.de.frog

Hurrache wrote: »

People were told in the campaign that their place in the single market or customs union wasn't under threat. You're a contradiction.

Not at all.

They voted to leave the EU and so they leave the economic zone of the bloc. Again very simple.

I suspect you are a europhile and I understand you are absolutely terrified of the democratic vote in the UK being respected because when the UK is successfully and doing perfectly fine outside the EU pressure will come first and foremost on us here as to how we see our future.

A lot of things were said during the referendum.

The most important thing said was "we will carry out your wishes" afterward.

Get on with it. Respect the democratic vote.

Remainers can make their own arguments to rejoin afterward.

quokula

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

They voted to leave all the institutions of the European Union.

It's really not complicated.

Pretty sure that was not on the ballot paper.

skallywag

Hurrache wrote: »

I even gave you the names of the people and their exact quotes.

A couple of quotes is just what it is, a couple of quotes.

There were many others who made no secret of their desire to leave such institutions completely, and renegotiate from the off.

Kermit.de.frog

quokula wrote: »

Pretty sure that was not on the ballot paper.

You are all in denial. It's humorous how hard you all try to ignore the democratic vote in 2016.

They were asked whether the UK should leave the EU.

No if's or but's there. Quite straight forward.

(they picked the latter option)

skallywag

quokula wrote: »

Pretty sure that was not on the ballot paper.

Meaning what exactly?

A vote for leaving was a vote for leaving the customs union, having a border with the North, etc, etc. You would have to be pretty simple to interpret it any other way. Could things be negotiated after? Possibly. But leave clearly meant leave everything associated with the EU, in my humble opinion at least.

Tell me how

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Not at all.

They voted to leave the EU and so they leave the economic zone of the bloc. Again very simple.

I suspect you are a europhile and I understand you are absolutely terrified of the democratic vote in the UK being respected because when the UK is successfully and doing perfectly fine outside the EU pressure will come first and foremost on us here as to how we see our future.

A lot of things were said during the referendum.

The most important thing said was "we will carry out your wishes" afterward.

Get on with it. Respect the democratic vote.

Remainers can make their own arguments to rejoin afterward.

What has become evident is that the democratic vote is not clear. If two people voted to leave and one wanted a No Deal exit and the other remaining in the FTA, they cannot both be happy with leaving on one or the other. Hence, it is clear there is no majority for a single manner of leaving.

The fault of this was the structuring of the referendum as it was, but that still does not override the fact that there is no clear majority for any manner of leaving.

CelticRambler

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The question was whether or not to leave the European Union.

They voted to leave thus that means the SM and CU.

Your second statement does not follow from the first. Any country is free to arrange its affairs so as to be part of the EU's SM and CU (and Schengen Zone). Norway, Switzerland and Turkey come to mind. Can you point to specific information distributed by the Leave campaign pointing out that voting to Leave the EU also meant leaving the CU & SM?

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The next parliament will be a Brexit parliament - they know that and they don't want that. That would represent what the people voted for and can't have that.

In case you missed it, there was a general election in 2017 after the UK triggered Art. 50 that returned the current crop of MPs to Westminster. That means this parliament is a "Brexit" parliament, executing the Will of the People. Are you suggesting that the people who voted in 2017 were not actually voting for what they wanted? And if that's the case, what makes you think they're any more qualified to know what they want now?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

The people voted to leave the European Union.

I don't need to tell you that in the EU there is form in overturning referendums that go against the project.

This is, yet again, the long process of overturning the will of an electorate in the EU.

Thankfully the UK is not Ireland or the Netherlands or France who are told to vote again when the right answer is not given and meekly oblige.

Election in December, Tory majority, get it done.

Then everyone moves on and remainers can continue the UK's decades long psychodrama with the EU internally.

This sounds like a mish-mash of soundbites from Boris Johnson - are you really that short on self-expression that you can only copy someone else?

Regarding the bit in bold - I think it'll a long time before anyone has a majority in a UK general election.

Kermit.de.frog

CelticRambler wrote: »

In case you missed it, there was a general election in 2017 after the UK triggered Art. 50 that returned the current crop of MPs to Westminster.

90% of them elected on a platform to deliver the result of the referendum. It was in all the main party manifestos. Elected on a leave platform effectively.

It's just a continuous cycle of denial and whataboutery.

They voted to leave.

*sigh*

briany

Back to the diagram, everybody.

quokula

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

You are all in denial. It's humorous how hard you all try to ignore the democratic vote in 2016.

They were asked whether the UK should leave the EU.

No if's or but's there. Quite straight forward.

(they picked the latter option)

You've just posted a picture of the ballot paper, which directly contradicts what you said previously.

Can you point out the bit of the ballot paper that mentions the single market, the customs union, Euratom, or the ECJ or EFTA court for example?

Hurrache

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Not at all.

They voted to leave the EU and so they leave the economic zone of the bloc. Again very simple.

Why are you ignoring everything false that came from Leave campaigners, including those in the government at the time, as to what Brexit means?

Tell me how

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

They are not.

I'm that good I should be running the campaign meself :pac:

Next! :cool:

You didn't comment on this previously.

Tell me how wrote: »

If you respect democracy, what are your thoughts on the Leave campaign breaking the law in order to swing the vote to deliver a leave result?

What are your thoughts on Theresa May attempting to get her deal voted on 3 times (thus ignoring the first and second democratic votes)?

What are your thoughts on Johnson attempting to prorogue parliament thus attempting to stifle democratic practice?

What are your thoughts on the effort that has gone in to the last 3 years without being able to find a clear path forward which will most likely have influenced all observers and thus they are entitled to express their opinions once again on whether or not to leave (as originally posited by Jacob Rees-Mogg)?

Are you, like many Brexiteers, being entirely selective in your heartfelt desire to see democracy upheld?

Hurrache

skallywag wrote: »

A couple of quotes is just what it is, a couple of quotes.

There were many others who made no secret of their desire to leave such institutions completely, and renegotiate from the off.

So you initially doubt my claims, I reiterate the fact they're quotes from the government party, and now you just brush the facts away because it doesn't suit you?