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

johnnyskeleton

volchitsa wrote: »

The DUP are remainers now are they? I know you're pretty delusional but that seems hard for anyone to swallow.

DUPs stated preferences have always been:

1. Leave as an indivisiible part of the UK
2. Remain as part of the Uk
3. Every other option under the sun, and
4 (Very last option). Leave but Northern Ireland be given special status.

So yeah, DUP are leavers in preference to remain, but remainers in preference to the current withdrawal agreement.

It could be fairly said though that they overplayed the leave hand while they believed the ERG were behind them and the Tories needed them. So their sudden swich to opposition does seem peculiar if you forget that their only policy is opposing anything Irish

johnnyskeleton

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Remoaners? Really?

To be honest, there's little that convinces me that I'm on the right side than people thinking that they're clever saying that.

Its part of a very successful campaign to create an "us" vs "them" narrative in the UK where the "us" are confident, future looking straighttalkers whereas "them" are nervous, weak, backward looking complainers.

In this post truth word, this has been very successful. Sadly

volchitsa

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

DUPs stated preferences have always been:

1. Leave as an indivisiible part of the UK
2. Remain as part of the Uk
3. Every other option under the sun, and
4 (Very last option). Leave but Northern Ireland be given special status.

So yeah, DUP are leavers in preference to remain, but remainers in preference to the current withdrawal agreement.

It could be fairly said though that they overplayed the leave hand while they believed the ERG were behind them and the Tories needed them. So their sudden swich to opposition does seem peculiar if you forget that their only policy is opposing anything Irish

Except NI was being given special status under the first (T May) WA. So the reality is that they were never going to accept that. Also, they voted for Leave even when the predicted result was Remain, and not for "let's do whatever the rest of the U.K. is doing" so I'm not sure I accept that your 2 and 3 are the right way around either.

It seems to be that they called for Leave never thinking that they would be expected to follow through on it, but it's not our problem to help them sort their inconsistencies out after the fact to make it look as though they actually had a coherent list at the time. They didn't.

ancapailldorcha

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Its part of a very successful campaign to create an "us" vs "them" narrative in the UK where the "us" are confident, future looking straighttalkers whereas "them" are nervous, weak, backward looking complainers.

In this post truth word, this has been very successful. Sadly

True but now those dirty tactics can be used against them. If a Brexiter can play the fake news card then so can a Corbynite the next time accusations of antisemitism arise.

Now Remain will be the insurgent position, the option to pick if you want to kick the government in the teeth and the positive, outgoing vision for Britain. It's probably part of the reason why the leave brigade oppose one so strongly.

liamtech

For EskimoHunt

http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/55fd82d8ebad646cec000001/attachments/original/1463496002/Why_Vote_Leave.pdf?1463496002

Page 11

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xGt3QmRSZY

Throughout this video

https://fullfact.org/europe/what-was-promised-about-customs-union-referendum/

throughout this fact check

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/29/what-vote-leave-leaders-really-said-about-no-deal-brexit

throughout

There are plenty more Eskimohunt but please do read the above, and watch the video

SO i ask you again - please provide clear detailed evidence that the Vote Leave campaign was all about this hard Brexit

NOTE - i am posting this in the appropriate thread as the Mod has rightly suggested we not replay the 2016 Ref - again - and again

Strazdas

One thing that is completely glossed over is that a good 4-5m people must have used the referendum as a protest vote against Tory austerity. It's a bit galling to see the right wing press and the Tories claim those voters as their own and to be on their side.

Bit cynical

Strazdas wrote: »

One thing that is completely glossed over is that a good 4-5m people must have used the referendum as a protest vote against Tory austerity. It's a bit galling to see the right wing press and the Tories claim those voters as their own and to be on their side.

If this is the case then we should expect to see the Brexit side losing a lot their support in the run up to the election, the protest voters having had their protest.

liamtech

liamtech wrote: »

For EskimoHunt

http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/55fd82d8ebad646cec000001/attachments/original/1463496002/Why_Vote_Leave.pdf?1463496002

Page 11

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0xGt3QmRSZY

Throughout this video

https://fullfact.org/europe/what-was-promised-about-customs-union-referendum/

throughout this fact check

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/29/what-vote-leave-leaders-really-said-about-no-deal-brexit

throughout

There are plenty more Eskimohunt but please do read the above, and watch the video

SO i ask you again - please provide clear detailed evidence that the Vote Leave campaign was all about this hard Brexit

NOTE - i am posting this in the appropriate thread as the Mod has rightly suggested we not replay the 2016 Ref - again - and again

EskimoHunt - i have repeatedly requested that you respond to these pieces of evidence - and you have repeatedly ignored/forgotten/chosen/disregarded this issue

May i say that your continued refusal to engage on this topic - while STILL standing firm on the outcome of the 2016 referendum - i take as a tacit admittance that you have no way of arguing against the evidence

I AWAIT YOUR REPLY

sid waddell

No more Simpsons quotes please.

[Deleted User]

briany wrote: »

I wouldn't automatically assume that Scotland will vote to become independent in the event of a no-deal scenario. I agree it would up the chances of independence, were a 2nd IndyRef to be held, but I also think that the Scots might not have the overall appetite for 3 massive changes in a short space of time (Leaving the EU - Leaving the UK - Joining the EU without the previous opt-outs). You could call that 'compound uncertainty'.

With NI, I would have the same type of thoughts. I also think it would be a mistake to hold an IndyRef or Border Poll too quick after a no-deal where you'd be doing it in an atmosphere of heightened tension and rhetoric. It might be better to go into it when the dust has settled, and people are voting with their heads, not their hearts.

This, some reasonable sense emerges from the blizzard of rhetoric we've been treated to thus far.

It's quite astonishing how some assume that a Johnson victory in the forthcoming election, and its delivery of Brexit, will trigger all sorts of doomsday scenarios.

It's not objective, nor is it reasonable.

It appears to be driven by a near-religious hatred of Brexit itself, and by extension, the Tory Party, rather than an objective, fair, and reasonable analysis of Brexit.

I'm fully willing to concede that Brexit is not a simple process, but the degree to which it is vilified on here is completely out of proportion.

It appears hearts are ruling the heads, in other words.

listermint

Deleted User wrote: »

This, some reasonable sense emerges from the blizzard of rhetoric we've been treated to thus far.

It's quite astonishing how some assume that a Johnson victory in the forthcoming election, and its delivery of Brexit, will trigger all sorts of doomsday scenarios.

It's not objective, nor is it reasonable.

It appears to be driven by a near-religious hatred of Brexit itself, and by extension, the Tory Party, rather than an objective, fair, and reasonable analysis of Brexit.

I'm fully willing to concede that Brexit is not a simple process, but the degree to which it is vilified on here is completely out of proportion.

It appears hearts are ruling the heads, in other words.

There is no evidence of any benefits for brexit. So yes you are entirely correct. All youve provided to date is emotion and stuff you 'feel' will happen. Which is explicitly contrary to all actual evidence.

Entire industries are already on their arse as i type this. - Motor Manufacturing

[Deleted User]

listermint wrote: »

There is no evidence of any benefits for brexit.

This is part of the problem.

When I list a benefit, any benefit, it is criticised on here for not being a benefit.

What I disdain about the EU, and what I like about Brexit, is what you adore about the EU, and hate about Brexit.

As long as that remains the case, it is simply not possible for me to outline any "benefit" - as you will turn that "benefit" into a reason to oppose Brexit by definition.

In summary, it's about politics, not evidence.

Retr0gamer

A nebulous concept such as 'sovereignty' is about as much a benefit as a homeopathic remedy. The Placebo effect will only last so long.

[Deleted User]

Retr0gamer wrote: »

A nebulous concept such as 'sovereignty' is about as much a benefit as a homeopathic remedy. The Placebo effect will only last so long.

In the internationalist age we now occupy, the concept of sovereignty is certainly more complex than it used to be.

To some extent, the nation-state already cedes power to a variety of international institutions.

In its most rudimentary form, sovereignty is the ability of the nation-state to directly exercise power over itself.

With supranational organizations, such as the EU, that power is pooled and decisions are made for the collective. True, vetos exist and so forth, but ultimately - from a structural perspective - the power remains pooled.

To wish to see a repatriation of that pooled power back to the nation-state is not something to be sniffed at. For many people, and I include myself in this, we believe that directly elected officials and greater degrees of dispersed, devolved power is the best and fairest means to organize that power and law-generating potential.

Leroy42

Deleted User wrote: »

This is part of the problem.

When I list a benefit, any benefit, it is criticised on here for not being a benefit.

What I disdain about the EU, and what I like about Brexit, is what you adore about the EU, and hate about Brexit.

As long as that remains the case, it is simply not possible for me to outline any "benefit" - as you will turn that "benefit" into a reason to oppose Brexit by definition.

In summary, it's about politics, not evidence.

So your argument is that people are putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 7 whilst you don't even bother with that just arrive at a feeling and that should be enough because it has a title?

IAmTheReign

Deleted User wrote: »

This is part of the problem.

When I list a benefit, any benefit, it is criticised on here for not being a benefit.

What I disdain about the EU, and what I like about Brexit, is what you adore about the EU, and hate about Brexit.

As long as that remains the case, it is simply not possible for me to outline any "benefit" - as you will turn that "benefit" into a reason to oppose Brexit by definition.

In summary, it's about politics, not evidence.

I think we can all agree that the arguments certainly aren't based on evidence, since we haven't seen any evidence from you at all! Although if you cared to present some evidence supporting your claims about the damage cause by EU migration I'm sure everyone would be happy to have a look at it.

[Deleted User]

Leroy42 wrote: »

So your argument is that people are putting 2 and 2 together and coming up with 7 whilst you don't even bother with that just arrive at a feeling and that should be enough because it has a title?

I have absolutely no idea what this means.

IAmTheReign wrote: »

I think we can all agree that the arguments certainly aren't based on evidence, since we haven't seen any evidence from you at all! Although if you cared to present some evidence supporting your claims about the damage cause by EU migration I'm sure everyone would be happy to have a look at it.

I've already outlined an argument in favour of the nation-state and against the concept of pooled sovereignty:

Deleted User wrote: »

In the internationalist age we now occupy, the concept of sovereignty is certainly more complex than it used to be.

To some extent, the nation-state already cedes power to a variety of international institutions.

In its most rudimentary form, sovereignty is the ability of the nation-state to directly exercise power over itself.

With supranational organizations, such as the EU, that power is pooled and decisions are made for the collective. True, vetos exist and so forth, but ultimately - from a structural perspective - the power remains pooled.

To wish to see a repatriation of that pooled power back to the nation-state is not something to be sniffed at. For many people, and I include myself in this, we believe that directly elected officials and greater degrees of dispersed, devolved power is the best and fairest means to organize that power and law-generating potential.

Leroy42

Deleted User wrote: »

I have absolutely no idea what this means.

I've already outlined an argument in favour of the nation-state and against the concept of pooled sovereignty:

Apologies, I'll try to be clearer.

You are making the point that people are taking the certain aspects of Brexit and extrapolating it to mean the breakup of the union of other outcomes despite this not being necessarily true.

Yet you continue to make the 'argument' for Brexit based on nothing more than feelings. Britain will be a success post Brexit because, well it just will be. The economics will be grand because look at the last few years.

listermint

Deleted User wrote: »

This is part of the problem.

When I list a benefit, any benefit, it is criticised on here for not being a benefit.

What I disdain about the EU, and what I like about Brexit, is what you adore about the EU, and hate about Brexit.

As long as that remains the case, it is simply not possible for me to outline any "benefit" - as you will turn that "benefit" into a reason to oppose Brexit by definition.

In summary, it's about politics, not evidence.

No lets put a plug in this for the moment.

You have not provided any benefit the the average man or woman on the street with Brexit to their daily or yearly lives.

None, Zero. Zilch.

So whilst you can move the goalposts of what a benefit is all you like.

I see benefits in terms of things like My Wages, My Social Security, My Food consumption, My Job Prospects, My Travel Prospects, Health and Education.

You get the idea. Tangible real things. Not your fluffy things

[Deleted User]

listermint wrote: »

I see benefits in terms of things like My Wages, My Social Security, My Food consumption, My Job Prospects, My Travel Prospects, Health and Education.

You get the idea. Tangible real things. Not your fluffy things

Many people voted Brexit on non-economic grounds. So, whilst you can dismiss those reasons, they are valid reasons - many of the same reasons I would have voted Brexit, had I the chance.

In terms of the 2016 referendum, we've already been advised that other threads are available that deal specifically with that topic. I'm happy to address any questions you have over there, should you direct them to me.

In terms of Brexit as it stands, I think that the Johnson Deal is a fair compromise on what I originally demanded - a Clean Break Brexit. I now appreciate the need to compromise, and the Johnson Deal is precisely that. This is why 47% of the British people are voting Conservative in the upcoming election - soon to be 50%, judging from trends.

Leroy42

Deleted User wrote: »

Many people voted Brexit on non-economic grounds. So, whilst you can dismiss those reasons, they are valid reasons - many of the same reasons I would have voted Brexit, had I the chance.

In terms of the 2016 referendum, we've already been advised that other threads are available that deal specifically with that topic. I'm happy to address any questions you have over there, should you direct them to me.

In terms of Brexit as it stands, I think that the Johnson Deal is a fair compromise on what I originally demanded - a Clean Break Brexit. I now appreciate the need to compromise, and the Johnson Deal is precisely that. This is why 47% of the British people are voting Conservative in the upcoming election - soon to be 50%, judging from trends.

How many?

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

When I list a benefit, any benefit, it is criticised on here for not being a benefit.

I have only seen you list one thing which I would call a benefit - some people will feel better the day Brexit finally happens. It is not a big benefit, and it has to be balanced against the roughly half the UK population who will feel worse.

Of course, when the Leave voters later lose their jobs, they may not feel so good about it, but hey, that is just an economic prediction right now, so we can't think about it unless it actually happens. After it happens, it will be in the past, and we must look forward, not backward, wrapped in St George's flag and spinning, spinning towards the White Cliffs of Dover.

[Deleted User]

Leroy42 wrote: »

How many?

Enough to give Leave the victory.

IAmTheReign

Deleted User wrote: »

I've already outlined an argument in favour of the nation-state and against the concept of pooled sovereignty:

eskimohunt wrote:

To wish to see a repatriation of that pooled power back to the nation-state is not something to be sniffed at. For many people, and I include myself in this, we believe that directly elected officials and greater degrees of dispersed, devolved power is the best and fairest means to organize that power and law-generating potential

'I believe' is not an argument. An argument would explain why you believe this, and why feel it is incompatible with membership of the EU.

Zubeneschamali

Leroy42 wrote: »

How many?

How many voted Leave on non-economic grounds? All of them!

In polling at the time, the reasons given by Leave voters were sovereignty, control over immigration, stopping expansion of EU powers.

Only 1 in 20 said that trade would improve outside the EU.

Top reasons given by Remain voters were risk to the economy, access to the Single Market, and a feeling that the UK would be isolated after leaving.

So the vast majority of Leave voters backed Leave for non-economic reasons.

briany

Retr0gamer wrote: »

A nebulous concept such as 'sovereignty' is about as much a benefit as a homeopathic remedy. The Placebo effect will only last so long.

I have no problem with those who want to assert their sovereignty simply on the principle, so long as they accept their decision could bring markedly negative economic consequences. They should also accept that there is no thing as full sovereignty because in order to cooperate with other countries, you will need to alter the way you run your own country. So, when you're using your sovereignty, probably the biggest thing you're going to use it for is to wisely decide what countries you're going to get in bed with. The UK do not currently look poised to make a terrifically wise decision on that end, but we'll see how it goes for them, I guess.

Zubeneschamali

briany wrote: »

I have no problem with those who want to assert their sovereignty simply on the principle, so long as they accept their decision could bring markedly negative economic consequences.

Well, a problem with this is that if 52% of people think this way, everyone takes a hit. And we might find that the 52% includes a lot of people who will be cushioned from the effects by being a rich bollox.

And in practice, while they may say they are cool with taking an economic hit to gain sovereignty, the same people invariably also say that the economic hit has been exaggerated, that economics is an inexact science and so forth.

They are also setting up a "no-one could have known" defence for when the economic predictions come true, by putting a huge stretch of time, up to 50 years, between Brexit and any possible end to the economic downside.

[Deleted User]

IAmTheReign wrote: »

'I believe' is not an argument. An argument would explain why you believe this, and why feel it is incompatible with membership of the EU.

I've done this extensively in my previous post.

I am against the concept of pooled sovereignty. By definition, that must mean I'm in favour of a repratriation of that pooled sovereignty back to the nation-state. I believe in the model which argues that citizens should directly elect/remove legislators. Once you move up the EU ladder, those legislators become more distant. That's not the type of political direction I wish to see.

This isn't an economic argument; it's an argument in favour of controlling the sovereignty hitherto pooled with the EU.

It is economically neutral: as the decision could be economically advantageous or disadvantageous. Regardless of the economics, the sovereignty point stands.

Some argue that pooling sovereignty is a good thing, and they are entitled to that worldview. My perspective is clear - that power should, as much as possible, be controlled by the nation-state.

weldoninhio

[Deleted User] wrote: »

This, some reasonable sense emerges from the blizzard of rhetoric we've been treated to thus far.

It's quite astonishing how some assume that a Johnson victory in the forthcoming election, and its delivery of Brexit, will trigger all sorts of doomsday scenarios.

It's not objective, nor is it reasonable.

It appears to be driven by a near-religious hatred of Brexit itself, and by extension, the Tory Party, rather than an objective, fair, and reasonable analysis of Brexit.

I'm fully willing to concede that Brexit is not a simple process, but the degree to which it is vilified on here is completely out of proportion.

It appears hearts are ruling the heads, in other words.

Everything these days is an extreme. Global warming, you’re either an extremist or a denier. Large scale migration, you’re either a bleeding heart or a racist. People don’t seem to have any reasoning skills anymore.

[Deleted User]

weldoninhio wrote: »

Everything these days is an extreme. Global warming, you’re either an extremist or a denier. Large scale migration, you’re either a bleeding heart or a racist. People don’t seem to have any reasoning skills anymore.

Climate change is a fact. Even if it weren't, we should hasten our advance toward a green-based economy, given the omnipresent advantages that it brings re: the environment, health, jobs etc.

Personally, I believe that climate change is irreversible, but I'm still in favour of green politics regardless (see above).

In terms of the "bleeding heart" or "racist", they are extremes. My view is that immigration is a net positive to a country; an absolute necessity for a modern, global economy. All we ask is that we control borders, and not leave them open; in the same way we monitor who comes into our home, without saying that nobody should enter at all.

So, there are reasonable voices here. Unfortunately on this forum, you will find extremists who are unwavering in their political commitments - many of whom have shown no capacity to be at least willing to alter the way they consider these arguments.

I've had many people DM me saying that they agree with my views, but are unwilling to put their heads above the parapet here given what you will be subjected to. That's how bad things have gotten.