zoon wrote:
If it is more than enough time for a single issue then why did you not make up your mind and vote ? As I understand your posts
in this thread you have been saying that four months and three days is useless because you still did not know enough about all the issues involved. As it turns out you did have a good point most people were fairly clueless largely because no sizeable country has left the EU before. It could be argued that it would be a travesty of democracy to get people to vote for a
mass of unintended consequences they really did not want and then insist on holding them to that uninformed choice

surreptitious57 wrote:

zoon wrote:
Probably Thommo and GrahamH are right and leave is leave I still think the possibility of not leaving is worth staying with when its so clear that a high proportion of leave voters were wrong about what they were voting for. Thommo says rightly that the question on the ballot paper was clear it is equally clear that millions of people read it as meaning significantly less immigration

The people of this country had four months and three days to decide whether or not we should remain in the EU. This is more than enough time for a single issue. So we cannot have another referendum just because some are having second thoughts as that would be a complete travesty of democracy. So for better or for worse the decision has to stand. Sometimes though you have to wonder. Since the second most googled question after the referendum was what is the EU ? which could mean that a significant proportion of the population actually voted for or against something they knew absolutely nothing about. Seriously

GrahamH wrote:

zoon wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

zoon wrote:
As you say, it's the Mail, but the Mail is here reporting against its own position. I agree there's nothing significant yet, but I'm still waiting for clearer statements in the media about what the official Leave line is on immigration: i.e. effectively no change.

Wasn't Mail on Sunday pro remain and Daily Mail pro leave?

OK, I was taking the headline in isolation and I think you are right about the Mail on Sunday versus the Mail, I'm not arguing people have changed their minds in significant numbers as yet. I still think many more are likely to when (if) it dawns on them that Leave are not even intending to ask for big changes in immigration rules.

I am also not happy with the opinion I think you have been expressing further back, that the result should stand because people should learn to accept the consequences of their actions? Perhaps I am misrepresenting you here, I haven't looked for the post. This is not a schoolroom, and if it was, if a child set the house on fire would you refuse to put the fire out on the grounds that the child should learn about the consequences of its actions?

That wasn't quite my point. Not that people should face the consequences of their votes, but rather that democracy matters. It's bad if people don't engage. It's bad if peoples think their votes don't count. We have seen a few saying they were surprised by the result and they voted as a protest, not to see Leave win. There's a much bigger issue with that than punishing the voter.
The big thing I sthat governments should not expect to be free to manipulate votes as they like. It's dangerous for democracy for the elite to ignore or twist a result as they like.
This is not a school room. Voters must be treated as, and behave as, adults, to a substantial degree.

I think the lesson from all this is not that we should never trust the people with big votes but rather that referenda must present a much clearer and fairer picture of what the outcomes of the options are likely to be.

The Scottish referendum had a detailed document setting out what people were voting for. In this one there was fuck all from Leave. Just lies and hints at things they never intended to deliver.

This seems particularly salient because a key issue in this farce is sovereignty.

zoon wrote:

GrahamH wrote:

zoon wrote:

GrahamH wrote:
Wasn't Mail on Sunday pro remain and Daily Mail pro leave?

OK, I was taking the headline in isolation and I think you are right about the Mail on Sunday versus the Mail, I'm not arguing people have changed their minds in significant numbers as yet. I still think many more are likely to when (if) it dawns on them that Leave are not even intending to ask for big changes in immigration rules.

I am also not happy with the opinion I think you have been expressing further back, that the result should stand because people should learn to accept the consequences of their actions? Perhaps I am misrepresenting you here, I haven't looked for the post. This is not a schoolroom, and if it was, if a child set the house on fire would you refuse to put the fire out on the grounds that the child should learn about the consequences of its actions?

That wasn't quite my point. Not that people should face the consequences of their votes, but rather that democracy matters. It's bad if people don't engage. It's bad if peoples think their votes don't count. We have seen a few saying they were surprised by the result and they voted as a protest, not to see Leave win. There's a much bigger issue with that than punishing the voter.
The big thing I sthat governments should not expect to be free to manipulate votes as they like. It's dangerous for democracy for the elite to ignore or twist a result as they like.
This is not a school room. Voters must be treated as, and behave as, adults, to a substantial degree.

I think the lesson from all this is not that we should never trust the people with big votes but rather that referenda must present a much clearer and fairer picture of what the outcomes of the options are likely to be.

The Scottish referendum had a detailed document setting out what people were voting for. In this one there was fuck all from Leave. Just lies and hints at things they never intended to deliver.

This seems particularly salient because a key issue in this farce is sovereignty.

So if there were clear evidence for a major shift in opinion when the dust settles a bit more and everyone realises free immigration is what leave want, would you then oppose the government of the day overturning the result?

GrahamH wrote:

Briton wrote:Okay. I'm amazed that anyone would regret voting remain though...on what grounds, that they ended on the losing side?

I don't know. Perhaps they feared an immediate financial melt-down and having seem the initial drop and bounce is not the end of the world, and hearing a few post-result voices saying "see, not so bad" perhaps they think they should have been bolder. I'm not arguing that, just pondering what those people might mean.

"A chancellor who was forecasting economic armageddon two weeks ago is now calling it a bump in the road" Alex Salmond.

Thatcher and Reagan rode to power by promising a brighter future, which never quite materialised other than for a minority with access to elite education and capital assets. The contemporary populist promise to make Britain or American ‘great again’ is not made in the same way. It is not a pledge or a policy platform; it’s not to be measured in terms of results. When made by the likes of Boris Johnson, it’s not even clear if it’s meant seriously or not. It’s more an offer of a collective real-time halucination, that can be indulged in like a video game.
The Remain campaign continued to rely on forecasts, warnings and predictions, in the hope that eventually people would be dissuaded from ‘risking it’. But to those that have given up on the future already, this is all just more political rhetoric. In any case, the entire practice of modelling the future in terms of ‘risk’ has lost credibility, as evidenced by the now terminal decline of opinion polling as a tool for political control.

http://www.perc.org.uk/project_posts/th ... of-brexit/

GrahamH wrote:This is an interesting and different take on things:

Thatcher and Reagan rode to power by promising a brighter future, which never quite materialised other than for a minority with access to elite education and capital assets. The contemporary populist promise to make Britain or American ‘great again’ is not made in the same way. It is not a pledge or a policy platform; it’s not to be measured in terms of results. When made by the likes of Boris Johnson, it’s not even clear if it’s meant seriously or not. It’s more an offer of a collective real-time halucination, that can be indulged in like a video game.

The Remain campaign continued to rely on forecasts, warnings and predictions, in the hope that eventually people would be dissuaded from ‘risking it’. But to those that have given up on the future already, this is all just more political rhetoric. In any case, the entire practice of modelling the future in terms of ‘risk’ has lost credibility, as evidenced by the now terminal decline of opinion polling as a tool for political control.

http://www.perc.org.uk/project_posts/th ... of-brexit/

5. The least ‘enslaved’ nation in the EU just threw off its ‘shackles’

.@Survation poll finds 52% Scots don't want #indyref2 (x-dks) but 54% would vote yes if one held

ronmcd wrote:

zoon wrote:

ronmcd wrote:

Is that in today's Times? I might go out and purchase a copy.

GrahamH wrote:Wow. Is this our next PM?

Video of Boris being booed and heckled.

https://www.facebook.com/Newsflare/vide ... 304080309/

ronmcd wrote:It's ALL falling apart today. That shite Boris wrote in his telegraph article was clearly talking about being IN the EU, and what he said is being ripped apart. He quoted the German equivalent of CBI saying we'd still be in the single market, they've said today that's nonsense.

You know what? I think Boris is fucked. He's going to be hung drawn and quartered by the people who voted out.

Europe's leaders begin crunch talks to contain Brexit fallout

John Kerry’s arrival in Brussels kicks off key meetings among EU countries before Tuesday’s crucial summit
The US secretary of state, John Kerry, is flying into Brussels for urgent talks at the start of a crunch week for Europe as leaders struggle to contain the fallout from Britain’s seismic decision to leave the EU.

Kerry will meet the EU’s foreign policy chief, Federica Mogherini, in the Belgian capital on Monday morning and then fly to London for talks with the British foreign secretary, Philip Hammond.

The president of the European council, Donald Tusk, is to meet French president François Hollande in Paris before flying with Hollande to Berlin for talks with the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, and Matteo Renzi, the Italian prime minister, ahead of a crucial two-day EU summit starting on Tuesday.

European leaders have said they would like Britain to make a swift start on the marathon task of extricating itself from the bloc by triggering article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, the untested procedure governing how a member state leaves, as soon as possible.
More...

Brussels officials have also emphatically ruled out informal talks on a possible trade deal before the UK triggers article 50. “No notification, no negotiation,” one official said on Sunday. A diplomat added: “If they treat their referendum as a non-event, we will also treat their referendum as a non-event.”

The prime minister reportedly told the commission’s president, Jean-Claude Juncker, at a 2014 G20 summit that he could win a referendum “by a margin of 70 to 30”. Juncker replied that even Luxembourg would not vote to stay in the EU by such a big majority, according to one EU diplomat.

Brussels insiders are also frustrated and angry that Cameron did not use the UK reform deal – painstakingly agreed by all EU member states in February – to defend the EU during the campaign. “You don’t reverse a perception between 19 February and 23 June that you have created,” the diplomat said.

As shockwaves from the Brexit decision continued to spread, EU officials also said on Sunday the bloc was preparing to move its European Banking Authority from London, setting up a race led by Paris and Frankfurt to host the regulator.

mattthomas wrote:

ronmcd wrote:It's ALL falling apart today. That shite Boris wrote in his telegraph article was clearly talking about being IN the EU, and what he said is being ripped apart. He quoted the German equivalent of CBI saying we'd still be in the single market, they've said today that's nonsense.

You know what? I think Boris is fucked. He's going to be hung drawn and quartered by the people who voted out.

Good, I hope so.

Scot Dutchy wrote:
This I found interesting:

Brussels officials have also emphatically ruled out informal talks on a possible trade deal before the UK triggers article 50. “No notification, no negotiation,” one official said on Sunday. A diplomat added: “If they treat their referendum as a non-event, we will also treat their referendum as a non-event.”