The Consequences of Brexit (part 2)

[Gamston]

But remain didn't win.

 

So what do you think you have won. What exactly is your prize?

 

And the 'sore losers', what have they lost?

 

You must have a plan......

Precisely remain didn't win and that is what all the fuss is about.

 

Democracy should be the 'winner' Any outcome, which doesn't involve the UK completely leaving the EU, will mean democracy is the 'loser', to pacify sore losers.

[unbeliever]

The precedent from a partial or de factor remain result despite a leave vote would be extremely dangerous. More important than any particular decision is always the integrity of the democratic process.

In this case we would never again be able to settle a divisive national issue through a referendum.

[L00b]

The precedent from a partial or de factor remain result despite a leave vote would be extremely dangerous.

The social backdraft from a suboptimal exit (meaning, an exit under which life gets worse for those who voted for it) would be far worse.

 

And the extent to which Leave has misrepresented what outcomes are possible further to an exit (i.e. "the cake and eating it" school of negotiation), has ensured that there will be a social backdraft of at least some extent come-what-may.

 

The bus said £350m pw to the NHS. The UK may well eventually get to spend £350m pw on the NHS. What the bus didn't say, nor any of the campaign heads, is what people are going to have to go through to get to that stage, and for how long.

More important than any particular decision is always the integrity of the democratic process.

Don't be absurd.

In this case we would never again be able to settle a divisive national issue through a referendum.

Never is a long time.

 

The problem is not that the UK's EU membership is a divisive issue.

 

The problem is the extent to which entities with vested interests have worsened and widened that division to their own ends, and a non-trivial portion of the public have bought into it with open arms. That's how and why you end up with rising hate crimes up to and including murder, rather than heated arguments that might come up to fisticuffs.

 

You want to worry more about the public's receptivity to future political campaigns and its relationship with the UK's political process, never mind a consultative referendum. We're heading straight for seasons/years of discontent. How our politician and billionaire overlords will laugh.

Edited December 19, 2016 by L00b

[Justin Smith]

To many the referendum wasn't about pounds, shillings and pence.

 

Err, to the great majority who voted leave that`s exactly what it was. I`m including the fact they (incorrectly) thought they (and/or their kids/grand kids) would end up with better paid work in this. Even those who are anti immigration aren't usually so bothered if they think (usually correctly) that it`s having a positive effect on their standard of living, particularly if it`s white Christion immigration (the type you tend to get from the EU).

 

---------- Post added 19-12-2016 at 22:04 ----------

 

Other countries and regions have broken away from parent nations and super states before. The cry for independence is hardly new.

Why is it okay for them and not for us?

 

That`s a false question because the UK is not part of a super state*. But the finer points of constitutional law are not the reason most people voted to leave the EU anyway, as I`m sure you know.

 

* as an example, in case you had forgotten, we haven`t even got the same currency as them.

 

---------- Post added 19-12-2016 at 22:14 ----------

 

Of course, but it was false promise wasn`t it ? They thought (not too deeply.....) "I`m not doing as well as I want, it can only make things better, and even if it doesn`t what have I got to lose ?". But it may make things worse, and almost certainly won`t make things better for them.

Sovereignty ? What exactly do you mean by that ? Quite apart from anything else I know a few people who were quite happy (although they were wrong because in reality the EU has very little power over the British government) that the EU might act as a brake on the last two Tory governments ! But to an extent it`s irrelevant anyway because I can guarantee that the great majority of those who voted to leave the EU it had nothing to do with that whatsoever. It was immigration and, as you said, desperation over their circumstances, plus wanting to kick the establishment, particularly if they (wrongly) thought it was the Tories who wanted to stay in the EU. And I think you know that`s all true.

 

The main message of the leave campaign was "take control". Sovereignty means we are in control of our nation. We've been losing it steadily since 1972. Now we're taking it back.

Whether you agree or not, that's what was decided.

 

I note you didn`t disagree with me

 

I've most certainly do.

 

If you`re trying to say that most people voted to leave the EU for some idealistic idea of sovereignty, and not for the reasons I have in bold, you`re either dangerously deluded, or you are being "economical with the actualité". Either way you`re running the risk of losing a bit of respect.

 

---------- Post added 19-12-2016 at 22:19 ----------

 

Precisely remain didn't win and that is what all the fuss is about.

 

Democracy should be the 'winner' Any outcome, which doesn't involve the UK completely leaving the EU, will mean democracy is the 'loser', to pacify sore losers.

 

Is that honest democracy ?

Edited December 19, 2016 by Justin Smith

[I1L2T3]

Precisely remain didn't win and that is what all the fuss is about.

 

Democracy should be the 'winner' Any outcome, which doesn't involve the UK completely leaving the EU, will mean democracy is the 'loser', to pacify sore losers.

 

That's complete rubbish. Democracy can be used to reverse poor decisions, and to limit and the damage caused by poor decisions. It's not a one-way street. Yours is a dud argument anyway. The referendum had huge democratic deficiencies.

 

That said, if you were bothering to listen to the concerns of remain voters then there wouldn't be a fuss.

[tzijlstra]

Opened a can of Pringles last night, 15% gap between lid and the greasy little treats.

[andyofborg]

Opened a can of Pringles last night, 15% gap between lid and the greasy little treats.

 

that sounds like you have mice, they are very clever you know

[tzijlstra]

that sounds like you have mice, they are very clever you know

 

You can't go round calling Leave voters mice! They have feelings too you know!

 

 

[El Cid]

Precisely remain didn't win and that is what all the fuss is about.

 

Democracy should be the 'winner' Any outcome, which doesn't involve the UK completely leaving the EU, will mean democracy is the 'loser', to pacify sore losers.

 

The worst outcome for leavers is that we leave the EU and keep immigration; the only way that we will not leave the EU is a second referendum.

In which case democracy is the winner.

We could remain in the EU and reduce immigration, everyone is a winner - but we could have done that from 2010 onwards, when the Conservatives promised below 100,000 in their manifesto.

[Gamston]

The worst outcome for leavers is that we leave the EU and keep immigration; the only way that we will not leave the EU is a second referendum.

In which case democracy is the winner.

We could remain in the EU and reduce immigration, everyone is a winner - but we could have done that from 2010 onwards, when the Conservatives promised below 100,000 in their manifesto.

After the UK leaves the EU there will still be immigration, but the UK will have more control on the numbers, because there will no longer be free movement. We had the second referendum this year, because the first referendum was in 1975. I agree democracy will be the winner, only if the Government follows the instructions of the voters and the UK exits the EU completely.