Brexit - The UK leaves the EU

[baldgye]

The only legitimate reason for holding another referendum (of any type) on the subject would be if the first vote was clearly rigged or that criminal activity

Which has occurred.
I do disagree in general however, so many MP’s seem to be unsure of how to position themselves, with neither party having a strong leader they are floundering. If nothing else another vote before committing suicde, would at least give them more of an understanding

 

[Mr Tree]

It is pretty clear as it was framed in the referendum - do we remain in or leave the EU? The question categorically does not ask the UK people how we might leave or what leaving the EU might entail - it simply instructs the government that the will of the UK people is that we should leave the EU. The rest of the decision-making process follows from there, and should be decided by Parliament - and not by holding a referendum on each and every point of contention.

The only legitimate reason for holding another referendum (of any type) on the subject would be if the first vote was clearly rigged or that criminal activity was perpetrated by one or the other campaign - it is pretty clear that the Leave campaign were peddling a bunch of falsehoods, and probably also broke election funding laws, not to mention what else might have been going on behind closed doors, but alas it is not possible to determine how (if any) one particular vote may have been influenced by any particular campaign or campaigner - at the end of the day, each person who cast a vote is responsible for their vote, and thus the final result ought to be respected unless criminal behaviour is proven.

I get your perspectice. I don't think we'll agree on this as in my opinion something that entails such a variety of possible outcomes it shouldn't be framed as the option 'leave the eu'.
I do agree there shouldn't have been a choice on how to leace, I think parlement should've set an a plan on that and then posed that against a stay vote.

But yeah when your opinion is that 'leave' and just that was a 'good' option yeah it was a good referendum.

Don't take the qouted words as mocking I qouted them as I don't know a better word for what I mean but the qouted words do generally mean what I want tl say.

 

[Danoff]

It is pretty clear as it was framed in the referendum - do we remain in or leave the EU? The question categorically does not ask the UK people how we might leave or what leaving the EU might entail - it simply instructs the government that the will of the UK people is that we should leave the EU. The rest of the decision-making process follows from there, and should be decided by Parliament - and not by holding a referendum on each and every point of contention.

The only legitimate reason for holding another referendum (of any type) on the subject would be if the first vote was clearly rigged or that criminal activity was perpetrated by one or the other campaign - it is pretty clear that the Leave campaign were peddling a bunch of falsehoods, and probably also broke election funding laws, not to mention what else might have been going on behind closed doors, but alas it is not possible to determine how (if any) one particular vote may have been influenced by any particular campaign or campaigner - at the end of the day, each person who cast a vote is responsible for their vote, and thus the final result ought to be respected unless criminal behaviour is proven.

Well put.

At some point it is the job of the elected officials to carry out the details. Maybe (maybe) the general population can be considered informed enough to vote on Brexit itself, or if not, it can be considered something that can't be carried out without their consent, even if they're not informed enough to really make an educated decision. But the general population very quickly becomes totally out of their depth when it comes to detailed implementation of those plans.

In the US we get carried away with putting things to vote often (especially during my time in CA, but also in CO). I consider myself to be pretty informed when it comes to the goings-on of government regulations, and I often consider myself unqualified to vote on things which are put to the general population. I believe in the last election CO asked about some very specific property tax adjustments (that would impact like... 600 people total in the state, not me) and I found myself researching what the tax even was, who had to pay it, and asking all kinds of questions (of google) that nobody was answering about the effects of changing it. If I don't know what it is, and don't know how it works once I know what it is, how on Earth is this the job of the general population to determine?

I kinda get it, it's a tax change, people have to vote on that. But our tax code is so unbelievably complex that people have no chance of understanding what's being changed, who it impacts, and what the possible unintended consequences will be.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Also, statistically a decent % of the leave voters have died of old age...

I understand a decent % of remain voters have drowned in bathtub of bitter tears as well. Might even out.

 

[UKMikey]

I understand a decent % of remain voters have drowned in bathtub of bitter tears as well. Might even out.

Except that the first percentage has facts and figures behind it, and the other is in your head.

 

[baldgye]

Except that the first percentage has facts and figures behind it, and the other is in your head.

Sorry, but that’s just one person. The U.K. has a population of some 60million. Thus his opinion and statement isn’t relevant or important.

There, I think that’s right.

 

[UKMikey]

Oops! Completely wrong thread.

 

[_ApexPredator]

Perhaps, but in a democratic society it's political suicide to ignore the will of the people.

Actually, I'd argue it's the opposite. We have the term Tyranny of the majority for a reason, after all.
This passage seems pretty relevant:

The scenarios in which tyranny perception occurs are very specific, involving a sort of distortion of democracy preconditions:

• Abandonment of rationality: when, as Tocqueville remembered, a decision "which bases its claim to rule upon numbers, not upon rightness or excellence".[6] The use of public consultation, technical consulting bodies, and other similar mechanisms help to improve rationality of decisions before voting on them. Judicial review (e.g. declaration of nullity of the decision) is the typical way after the vote.

In other words, "I don't like the result so it doesn't count".

No, in other words, it's becoming increasingly clear that there are going to be no benefits to anyone if we leave, and we ought to be doing everything possible to mitigate any further harm brought about by what was clearly a woefully uninformed and oversimplified vote.

It would have been fair if what was defined as brexit would have been clear

Nailed it. This is why simple, binary referendums are so dangerous, and it's nothing new.
Here is David Davis in 2002, ironically, chipping in on this very subject:

"There is a proper role for referendums in constitutional change, but only if done properly. If it is not done properly, it can be a dangerous tool."
He went on to describe how Clement Attlee, one of Davis' heroes, famously described the referendum as the device of demagogues and dictators.
"We may not always go as far as he did, but what is certain is that pre-legislative referendums are the worst type of all. They should be held when the electorate are in the best possible position to make a judgment. They should be held when people can view all the arguments for and against and when those arguments have been rigorously tested. In short, referendums should be held when people know exactly what they are getting. So legislation should be debated by Members of Parliament on the Floor of the House, and then put to the electorate for the voters to judge.

We should not ask people to vote on a blank sheet of paper and tell them to trust us to fill in the details afterwards. For referendums to be fair and compatible with our parliamentary process, we need the electors to be as well informed as possible and to know exactly what they are voting for. Referendums need to be treated as an addition to the parliamentary process, not as a substitute for it."

It is pretty clear as it was framed in the referendum - do we remain in or leave the EU?

Clear as crystal.
Except, as much as Leave voters wish it were, it just isn't that simple. Which I'd suggest is why, two years in, the Brexit secretary has one foot in the door and we still have no plan.

 

[Touring Mars]

The trouble is, however, that leaving the EU was always going to be via negotiation - and thus it is not only undesirable but practically impossible to pre-define what the outcomes will be. Obviously it would help to have a clear idea of what it is one would like to achieve, but the very nature of the process means that having mandated outcomes just isn't going to work. And it isn't the case that the government is being handed a blank sheet of paper to fill it in as it pleases - anything agreed at the negotiating table in Brussels will still have to pass muster at Westminster (and Holyrood, Cardiff and Stormont (such as it is!)) sooner or later, but at this juncture it doesn't make a lot of sense to tie the hands of the negotiators, especially if that forces them down a road that is certain to be rejected by the other side e.g. the 'cake-and-eat-it' model. I'm sure that most people - Leave and Remain - would prefer a bespoke deal where the UK gets to maintain full access to the EU single market but without having to sign up to the 'Four Freedoms' - the trouble is that the EU cannot grant that, and so why bother mandating it as the official position of the UK when it has already been ruled out time and time again? Far from making it clearer, all that is likely to do is to increase the chances of a No-deal outcome, which is pretty much the worst case scenario for all involved.

 

[baldgye]

The trouble is, however, that leaving the EU was always going to be via negotiation - and thus it is not only undesirable but practically impossible to pre-define what the outcomes will be. Obviously it would help to have a clear idea of what it is one would like to achieve, but the very nature of the process means that having mandated outcomes just isn't going to work. And it isn't the case that the government is being handed a blank sheet of paper to fill it in as it pleases - anything agreed at the negotiating table in Brussels will still have to pass muster at Westminster (and Holyrood, Cardiff and Stormont (such as it is!)) sooner or later, but at this juncture it doesn't make a lot of sense to tie the hands of the negotiators, especially if that forces them down a road that is certain to be rejected by the other side e.g. the 'cake-and-eat-it' model. I'm sure that most people - Leave and Remain - would prefer a bespoke deal where the UK gets to maintain full access to the EU single market but without having to sign up to the 'Four Freedoms' - the trouble is that the EU cannot grant that, and so why bother mandating it as the official position of the UK when it has already been ruled out time and time again? Far from making it clearer, all that is likely to do is to increase the chances of a No-deal outcome, which is pretty much the worst case scenario for all involved.

How can anything other than a ‘no-deal’ outcome be the.. outcome?
We can’t negotiate, we have, by leaving, nothing to offer and in order to even have deals, we need to meet the EU’s non-wavering very clearly defined requirements.... which we can’t (for various reasons) do...

The problem with Brexit was that Leave had no goal other than political gain and didn’t see Leave ever winning. There was no plan, no thought put into it... and now we have two years (less now) to try and figure out how to not only untangle ourselves from the worlds biggest economy (of which London is the worlds biggest financial centre), but then setup trade deals with them... and of course every other nation we trade with, as those deals where setup though the EU... that’s ALL our trade... and we have less than a year to renegotiate all our trade...


It isn’t working, it can’t ever work. The whole debate and vote was a fallacy and a lie.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

Also, statistically a decent % of the leave voters have died of old age...

Except that the first percentage has facts and figures behind it, and the other is in your head.

Eep.......you know an issue must annoy you too much when it compels you to post for the first time in a while. (Sorry, not meant to single either of you out, and the following rant isn't aimed at you, just the general idea that kinda gets to me )

I have several issues with this analysis.

First, it doesn't take into account that voters still alive have aged. Since this analysis is based around the premise of age being a predictor of Leave/Remain voting - and I believe it was indeed the single greatest predictor of the referendum - then as well as the voters who have died and the voters who have been "born", you also need to consider how the change in age of existing voters affects their likelihood to vote Leave/Remain, rather than assuming their positions are fixed.

Second, it's unclear to me whether these stats factor in turnout by age. A cursory look at the death figures seems to suggest they don't - they line up with rough calculations I did using national turnout. I don't know about the new voters, by brain hasn't engaged enough to go about working that out. If it doesn't then that's another thing that really should be considered, since there's a significant difference in turnout between old and young...........well, likely. In fairness, I believe it can be very difficult to retrospectively work out turnout by demographic, so what the exact figures were for the referendum is anyone's guess.

Third, I don't understand why the switching and expat figures have been included in this. Is the purpose of this analysis to show how age has affected the makeup of the referendum voters, or just to show how people might vote at a later date? If it's the latter..........well then I'm not sure why you need to do it, we already have opinion polls for that, showing similar results. (Yeah I know that's not second referendum polling, brain still not engaged, can't find any other list.)

Fourth, putting all the statistics to one side..........I find it slightly disturbing that there appears to be a suggestion that, if it's curtains for you around the time of a vote (or before the result of that vote can be implemented), then your vote doesn't really count as much as other people's votes. So much so that if referendums - which conventionally have been a generational thing in the UK - are decided by enough of these people, a re-vote needs to happen much sooner than usual to account for it.

==========================

The last point is the crux of why ideas like this annoy me so much. Instinctively, it's a bit outlandish, and not an idea I've heard much before the referendum. But maybe it's a perfectly legitimate idea to have debates around - as well as other ideas that have been raised post-referendum, like how "informed" people were before a vote affects the meaning or validity of that vote (particularly concerning less-educated people). Or what sort/amount of lying it takes, from either side of a campaign, to declare a referendum void. Or whether MPs should override the results of referendums if they feel it's in the best interests of the country.

Note that I've deliberately phrased those ideas generally - they seem like ideas that could be talked about regardless of how we had voted in the referendum. And that's my problem. You'd be very hard pressed to convince me that a lot the politicians and activists who raise these ideas, would be raising them if we'd just voted to Remain in the first place. If that is the case then there isn't actually a set of ideas to debate - it's simply window dressing for just the one idea - as @Imari puts it, "When you don't get the result you want, throw it out and try again".

Which is a shame, because there just seems to be little point in engaging with these points if they're coming from disingenuous positions.

 

[UKMikey]

Note that I've deliberately phrased those ideas generally - they seem like ideas that could be talked about regardless of how we had voted in the referendum. And that's my problem. You'd be very hard pressed to convince me that a lot the politicians and activists who raise these ideas, would be raising them if we'd just voted to Remain in the first place. If that is the case then there isn't actually a set of ideas to debate - it's simply window dressing for just the one idea - as @Imari puts it, "When you don't get the result you want, throw it out and try again".

If the vote were the same margin but the positions were reversed it's unlikely that the same politicians and activists would be raising similar concerns. Whether politicians and activists on the other side of the argument would be proposing statistical reasons for the result might be a different story however. It's difficult to say one way or the other.

In any event I'm willing to bet that regardless of whether this guy's figures are wildly out, or shouldn't've even been posted in the first place, the numbers involved would still dwarf the number of remainers who drowned in a bathtub of their own bitter tears as I posted above.

 

[baldgye]

@TRGTspecialist With your last two points (4 and your crux);

It matters because voting for something that will not affect you is pretty awful. Not only that, but the Leave campaign rode on the coattails of racism and xenophobia, a trait that the older generation are more likely to carry.
This ties into your crux.

The EU and the UK’s relationship is complex. Global economics and global politics tend to be. Therefore when the general public is deciding international policies having correct and accurate information is fundamental to making an accurate choice. The second largest political Leave campaign group wasn’t just lying it was convicted and given the harshest punishment possible for doing so. Not only that but nearly every key issue raised by the leaders of the main Leave campaign have openly admitted to lying and have changed tactics and stances since the vote.

How can you have a valid result if one choice or both choices are lies?
You have to choose, would you like sweets, or a million pounds? ...I’ll take the money please, oh sorry, that was a lie.

Would that be a fair question?

Or whether MPs should override the results of referendums if they feel it's in the best interests of the country.

The result of the referendum isn’t a hard line decision. The public cannot make policies.
And it’s 100% the job of an PM to put what they feel is the interests of the country above all else, that is why they are voted to represent us.

 

[TRGTspecialist]

If the vote were the same margin but the positions were reversed it's unlikely that the same politicians and activists would be raising similar concerns. whether politicians and activists on the other side of the argument could be a different story however.

Absolutely there would be, and it would grind my gears just as much. Heck, there was at least one eejit trying it on before the referendum!

In any event I'm willing to bet that even if this guy's figures are wildly out the numbers involved would dwarf remainers who drowned in a bathtub of their own bitter tears as I posted above.

Unclear - depends on the saltiness distribution by age demographic, I'd say.

 

[Touring Mars]

How can anything other than a ‘no-deal’ outcome be the.. outcome?
We can’t negotiate, we have, by leaving, nothing to offer and in order to even have deals, we need to meet the EU’s non-wavering very clearly defined requirements.... which we can’t (for various reasons) do...

I don't agree with this - there is plenty scope for a deal of some description to be negotiated, though I must say I do share much of your pessimism that a deal will be struck, even though we disagree about the possibility that one can be struck.

All the more reason why the UK should be as flexible as possible, because the EU have considerably more constraints about what they are willing or indeed able to agree to.

 

[baldgye]

I don't agree with this - there is plenty scope for a deal of some description to be negotiated, though I must say I do share much of your pessimism that a deal will be struck, even though we disagree about the possibility that one can be struck.

All the more reason why the UK should be as flexible as possible, because the EU have considerably more constraints about what they are willing or indeed able to agree to.

But how can we be more flexible?

I voted to leave the EU, I shouldn’t have the follow their trade laws or keep getting EU migrants... leave means leave...

The problem is that the Leave campaign lied so extensively that what they’d be willing to accept varies greatly... with the punchline being, we’d end up worse off... when people where categorically told time and time again, we would be better outside the EU. Which is, what they voted for and, that was a lie. So how can we be flexible?

 

[Touring Mars]

But how can we be more flexible?

I voted to leave the EU, I shouldn’t have the follow their trade laws or keep getting EU migrants... leave means leave...

The problem is that the Leave campaign lied so extensively that what they’d be willing to accept varies greatly... with the punchline being, we’d end up worse off... when people where categorically told time and time again, we would be better outside the EU. Which is, what they voted for and, that was a lie. So how can we be flexible?

In terms of our negotiating position with the EU, the UK is more flexible if it is not bound by law to adopt a specific stance prior to talks starting, thus leaving us able to negotiate more freely. As you allude to, the EU are not able or willing to negotiate on some things (and neither is the UK) hence all the more reason to leave as many options open as possible at this stage.

I wouldn't go as far to say as it is a lie that the UK will be better off outside the EU - the truth is no-one actually knows what will happen, but there will be both costs and benefits to leaving the EU. I suspect, however, that many of the costs will be instant and/or impact people in the short term, and will put pressure on the government to show what (if any) the benefits will/have been in the longer term.

Contrary to popular belief, the EU do not actually want (or gain from) the UK being 'worse off' after Brexit - but they are compelled to insist that one may only benefit from full access to the EU internal market if you also accept the 'Four Freedoms' - however the UK people have pretty clearly voted against continuing acceptance of these (well, one in particular - the 'free movement of people') at the expense of full access to the EU Single Market. Britain will take a hit as a result, but it is not a given that it will work out as a net loss for the UK, especially in the long term.

 

[Outspacer]

Eep.......you know an issue must annoy you too much when it compels you to post for the first time in a while. (Sorry, not meant to single either of you out, and the following rant isn't aimed at you, just the general idea that kinda gets to me )

I have several issues with this analysis.

First, it doesn't take into account that voters still alive have aged. Since this analysis is based around the premise of age being a predictor of Leave/Remain voting - and I believe it was indeed the single greatest predictor of the referendum - then as well as the voters who have died and the voters who have been "born", you also need to consider how the change in age of existing voters affects their likelihood to vote Leave/Remain, rather than assuming their positions are fixed.

Second, it's unclear to me whether these stats factor in turnout by age. A cursory look at the death figures seems to suggest they don't - they line up with rough calculations I did using national turnout. I don't know about the new voters, by brain hasn't engaged enough to go about working that out. If it doesn't then that's another thing that really should be considered, since there's a significant difference in turnout between old and young...........well, likely. In fairness, I believe it can be very difficult to retrospectively work out turnout by demographic, so what the exact figures were for the referendum is anyone's guess.

Third, I don't understand why the switching and expat figures have been included in this. Is the purpose of this analysis to show how age has affected the makeup of the referendum voters, or just to show how people might vote at a later date? If it's the latter..........well then I'm not sure why you need to do it, we already have opinion polls for that, showing similar results. (Yeah I know that's not second referendum polling, brain still not engaged, can't find any other list.)

Fourth, putting all the statistics to one side..........I find it slightly disturbing that there appears to be a suggestion that, if it's curtains for you around the time of a vote (or before the result of that vote can be implemented), then your vote doesn't really count as much as other people's votes. So much so that if referendums - which conventionally have been a generational thing in the UK - are decided by enough of these people, a re-vote needs to happen much sooner than usual to account for it.

==========================

The last point is the crux of why ideas like this annoy me so much. Instinctively, it's a bit outlandish, and not an idea I've heard much before the referendum. But maybe it's a perfectly legitimate idea to have debates around - as well as other ideas that have been raised post-referendum, like how "informed" people were before a vote affects the meaning or validity of that vote (particularly concerning less-educated people). Or what sort/amount of lying it takes, from either side of a campaign, to declare a referendum void. Or whether MPs should override the results of referendums if they feel it's in the best interests of the country.

Note that I've deliberately phrased those ideas generally - they seem like ideas that could be talked about regardless of how we had voted in the referendum. And that's my problem. You'd be very hard pressed to convince me that a lot the politicians and activists who raise these ideas, would be raising them if we'd just voted to Remain in the first place. If that is the case then there isn't actually a set of ideas to debate - it's simply window dressing for just the one idea - as @Imari puts it, "When you don't get the result you want, throw it out and try again".

Which is a shame, because there just seems to be little point in engaging with these points if they're coming from disingenuous positions.

You missed the biggest issue I have with misusing those stats - the dying only resulted in a (possible) swing of 50 thousand. Probably less, since it's fair to assume that a notable percentage of the elderly who died had medical issues that prevented them from voting (e.g. dementia). So it rests on a poll of regretters and the ex-pats 15 year rule which made a 20x bigger difference. Now that may give a valid result of some kind, but it certainly isn't because of leave voters dying!!

If anything, what's remarkable is that regretters alone might well not be enough yet to change the result of the referendum.

On the disengenuous side, playing devil's advocate, it's surely just as easy to dismiss the 18-25 group on the grounds that they're still wet behind the ears and don't have the life experience to make their votes valid. Had they voted leave I bet that's what we'd be hearing.

 

[baldgye]

In terms of our negotiating position with the EU, the UK is more flexible if it is not bound by law to adopt a specific stance prior to talks starting, thus leaving us able to negotiate more freely. As you allude to, the EU are not able or willing to negotiate on some things (and neither is the UK) hence all the more reason to leave as many options open as possible at this stage.

I wouldn't go as far to say as it is a lie that the UK will be better off outside the EU - the truth is no-one actually knows what will happen, but there will be both costs and benefits to leaving the EU. I suspect, however, that many of the costs will be instant and/or impact people in the short term, and will put pressure on the government to show what (if any) the benefits will/have been in the longer term.

Contrary to popular belief, the EU do not actually want (or gain from) the UK being 'worse off' after Brexit - but they are compelled to insist that one may only benefit from full access to the EU internal market if you also accept the 'Four Freedoms' - however the UK people have pretty clearly voted against continuing acceptance of these (well, one in particular - the 'free movement of people') at the expense of full access to the EU Single Market. Britain will take a hit as a result, but it is not a given that it will work out as a net loss for the UK, especially in the long term.

It seems clear to me that we would be worse off, both short term and long term. What is there economically that we could gain from having to renegotiate every single trade deal alone, and without the support and power of the worlds biggest economies with us?

 

[MatskiMonk]

On the disengenuous side, playing devil's advocate, it's surely just as easy to dismiss the 18-25 group on the grounds that they're still wet behind the ears and don't have the life experience to make their votes valid.

I think it's fair to say that on average, younger people have grown up in a more multi-cultural society. There's less inherent division in their minds between Europe, and us. Older generations did not grow up with that, they saw it happen later in life, and as such might never have wanted to accept it so readily. Heck, my parents (one leave, one remain) spent their childhoods growing up in this country as we were recovering from a situation where these nations were literally killing each other.

 

[baldgye]

I think it's fair to say that on average, younger people have grown up in a more multi-cultural society. There's less inherent division in their minds between Europe, and us. Older generations did not grow up with that, they saw it happen later in life, and as such might never have wanted to accept it so readily. Heck, my parents (one leave, one remain) spent their childhoods growing up in this country as we were recovering from a situation where these nations were literally killing each other.

It’s also worth noting that older generations are the ones predominantly reading Newspapers, specifically The Daily Mail and Express are essentially written for their older audiences, and have campaigned viciously against the EU and foreigners at every opportunity. The rampant racism and xenophobia they publish and have published for years has only helped contribute to the situation we are now in.

Edit: damn, I need to work on my grammar... those sentences haha

 

[Imari]

Perhaps, but it isn’t the ‘will of the people’ to be poorer, or to loose Northern Ireland, or to loose the NHS. The ‘will of the people’ was an impossibility they were lied to about.

The will of the people is that they value their independence from the EU more than those things.

He’s an idiot that managed to sway ‘the will of the people’ in his direction. A man who said Africans are spreading AIDS in the U.K. on TV

Like I said, an idiot.

The problem is that the head of the Leave campaign's media strategy is on record as saying that some of their claims were simply ludicrous and untruthful. BBC.

So politics as normal. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. If people choose to believe Facebook or Instagram or the party most invested in getting the outcome they want about major political decisions that face their country, then perhaps this is a good reason for people to rethink how they approach politics and voting.

You don't necessarily believe that the car salesman down the road is telling you the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

That's what has made a mockery of that 'democratic' referendum and that is why some Leave voters are saying that they would vote differently in the face of the facts that we know now.

The fact that leaving the EU is much harder than they thought and likely to do much more damage? Yeah. Shame. If only that had been made clear by someone before the vote.

It's clearly one thing to vote on something thinking that it doesn't matter, it's another to watch your country walking up to the precipice. I feel sorry for the UK, but this is how your democracy works. The EU isn't going to let you back out, even if there's another referendum.

The slim margin of the result is naturally leading to questions about how strong the mandate for Leave is given that many of the pro-Leave campaign claims were retracted within days of the result with many more being debunked as time goes on. In terms of that mandate there's also some merit in the argument that the result was 50/50 given the fact that two countries voted to stay while two voted to leave.

Many results in politics are by slim margins. Doesn't mean a thing as far as the result. Democracy isn't a game. If people didn't want to leave, they shouldn't have voted for it. If they wanted accurate information, it was largely available if people looked outside of their echo chambers. If you require honesty in political campaigns, legislate it.

The result is in part a product of the system, just as the election of Donald Trump was.

Also, statistically a decent % of the leave voters have died of old age...

Jesus Christ, dude. "The election is invalid because some of the people involved have died."

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...wh-still-not-sorry-for-mccain-dying-quip.html

Which has occurred.

Sorry, where's the criminal activity?

Actually, I'd argue it's the opposite. We have the term Tyranny of the majority for a reason, after all.

And that's why in cases where the public cannot make an informed decision the issues are not put to a public referendum. It's deemed in those cases that a smaller group of experts will make a better decision.

But if you're going to have a referendum, you don't then get to throw it out if you don't get the result you want.

No, in other words, it's becoming increasingly clear that there are going to be no benefits to anyone if we leave, and we ought to be doing everything possible to mitigate any further harm brought about by what was clearly a woefully uninformed and oversimplified vote.

Certainly. Unfortunately, at this stage that probably means following through and trying to get the best deal possible while leaving the EU instead of hoping for a miracle that will make all this go away.

It seems clear to me that we would be worse off, both short term and long term. What is there economically that we could gain from having to renegotiate every single trade deal alone, and without the support and power of the worlds biggest economies with us?

Is this again where you're not wanting to recognise the result just because it doesn't fit with your world view? Some people see things like immigration as a bigger threat to the UK than the positives from these trade relationships.

Besides, I'm pretty sure you'll still have the US backing you. Their leadership at the moment is right on board with the sort of mindset that led to the Leave decision.

 

[baldgye]

@Imari

-how can you know that? All we know is that just over half the voters voted to leave.

-that was an example relating to how a new vote would change

- https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/...rime-committed-over-brexit-vote-a3799261.html

-so my opinion isn’t valid because I’m bias? How do you know people only voted for immigration? What about the £350m a week the NHS was going to be getting?

And the US has already said they’d put the EU over the U.K. in trade deals... but I guess we can trust Trump...

 

[Touring Mars]

It seems clear to me that we would be worse off, both short term and long term. What is there economically that we could gain from having to renegotiate every single trade deal alone, and without the support and power of the worlds biggest economies with us?

There's too many variables to say what will be a net gain and what won't, but in principle the UK will be able to negotiate trade deals tailored to specifically benefit the UK. The flipside of the EU's massive bargaining power is the lack of flexibility and huge bureaucracy (and associated costs) of having to please 27 members at the same time - and while this holds the bloc in good stead for attracting trade deals, it also acts as a hinderance and, perhaps critically, makes the EU far less capable of reacting swiftly to rapidly changing conditions.

Sorry, where's the criminal activity?

The Leave campaign has broken spending rules during the EU referendum left, right and centre apparently - though I was really talking about serious criminal activity like corruption, vote rigging, intimidation etc.

 

[_ApexPredator]

And that's why in cases where the public cannot make an informed decision the issues are not put to a public referendum.

 

[Mr Tree]

==========================

The last point is the crux of why ideas like this annoy me so much. Instinctively, it's a bit outlandish, and not an idea I've heard much before the referendum. But maybe it's a perfectly legitimate idea to have debates around - as well as other ideas that have been raised post-referendum, like how "informed" people were before a vote affects the meaning or validity of that vote (particularly concerning less-educated people). Or what sort/amount of lying it takes, from either side of a campaign, to declare a referendum void. Or whether MPs should override the results of referendums if they feel it's in the best interests of the country.

Note that I've deliberately phrased those ideas generally - they seem like ideas that could be talked about regardless of how we had voted in the referendum. And that's my problem. You'd be very hard pressed to convince me that a lot the politicians and activists who raise these ideas, would be raising them if we'd just voted to Remain in the first place. If that is the case then there isn't actually a set of ideas to debate - it's simply window dressing for just the one idea - as @Imari puts it, "When you don't get the result you want, throw it out and try again".

Which is a shame, because there just seems to be little point in engaging with these points if they're coming from disingenuous positions.

I don't consider myself an activist but I'm a leftist. And while I agree a lot of people wouldn't call it out.

I have called out to my friends and family silly things and lies by our socialist party. I thinknif they lie they should be called out on it just as well.

I'm also in favour of rethinking how we look at voting rights/duties. Uninformed people should bot vote over our future. And campaines that outright lied like the leave campaign should invalidate the result even if it was the remain part that lied i would still hold this idea.

I do think these things need to be legislated and clear so this can't be abused to easily.

Again I can't comment on your average activist but can show you my opinion.

 

[Outspacer]

I think it's fair to say that on average, younger people have grown up in a more multi-cultural society. There's less inherent division in their minds between Europe, and us. Older generations did not grow up with that, they saw it happen later in life, and as such might never have wanted to accept it so readily. Heck, my parents (one leave, one remain) spent their childhoods growing up in this country as we were recovering from a situation where these nations were literally killing each other.

Many of the now older generation were around to vote on "Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?" in 1975. The result was a clear 67% Yes, despite it being a time when racist stuff was on TV.

The group that could've voted on both are 60+ now, and it's clear they've had some shift in thinking. What can't be said is that they voted Leave because of nostalgic dreams of the good old days or anything like that. That's a young person's fallacy.

 

[Imari]

Firstly, it's quite hard to know what you're responding to in a long post if you don't at least make an effort to show which parts you're talking about. But I'll do my best.

@Imari

-how can you know that? All we know is that just over half the voters voted to leave.

Fair enough. I'm offering an opinion on why people might choose to vote for Leave without feeling that they were misled.

-that was an example relating to how a new vote would change

Any vote will change. Do it again the next day and you'll have people who changed their mind because they got out of the wrong side of bed.

Does it change it meaningfully? Probably not. But ultimately you have a vote on a certain date and you stick with the results. If you're going to call every vote outdated just because you don't like the results, why have a vote at all?

- https://www.standard.co.uk/news/uk/...rime-committed-over-brexit-vote-a3799261.html

So not convicted or even prosecuted as such. Allegations only.

Where are you going with this?

-so my opinion isn’t valid because I’m bias? How do you know people only voted for immigration? What about the £350m a week the NHS was going to be getting?

Your opinion isn't invalid because you're biased. The whole point of a referendum is to get an accurate read on people's preferences and biases.

Your problem is that you think that your opinion is the only one that matters.

And the US has already said they’d put the EU over the U.K. in trade deals... but I guess we can trust Trump...

Well, the US is starting a trade war with the EU. Are they also starting a trade war with the UK?

I'm sorry, was that inaccurate in some fashion?

 

[baldgye]

There's too many variables to say, but in principle the UK will be able to negotiate trade deals tailored to benefit the UK. The flipside of the EU's massive bargaining power is the lack of flexibility and huge bureaucracy (and associated costs) of having to please 27 members at the same time - while this holds the bloc in good stead for attracting trade deals, it also acts as a hinderance and, perhaps critically, makes the EU far less capable of reacting swiftly to rapidly changing conditions.

Those costs, and lack of flexibility can’t outweigh the benefits of having access to the worlds biggest economy, otherwise the EU wouldn’t exist as it does.

@Imari

-That’s fine, but because the campaign was largely based on lies it’s impossible to know.

-Leave fined for breaking electoral law
(Sorry previous link wasn’t the most helpful)

— sorry I can’t select text at the moment because iOS is WONDERFUL!
But yeah, a referendum is designed to do that. And it failed. The choices where not only too nebulous (due to the nature of what leaving the EU would mean, like for example what do we do about Northern Ireland?) but the campaign(s) where based on lies. How can you take anything really meaningful from its result?

-I don’t only value my own opinion and those like it. But the main tenants of the Leave campaign where not true, so challenging those views seems pretty reasonable to me... like I said earlia on somewhere (haha) if you’re given two choices and one of those choices is a lie, how is it a fair question?

-And I don’t know what Trumps intentions are, if I did I’d probably have a pretty sweet publishing deal!

 

[MatskiMonk]

Many of the now older generation were around to vote on "Do you think that the United Kingdom should stay in the European Community (the Common Market)?" in 1975. The result was a clear 67% Yes, despite it being a time when racist stuff was on TV.

The group that could've voted on both are 60+ now, and it's clear they've had some shift in thinking...

It was a different thing in a different time. In 1975 they weren't* voting for or against what we did this time around.

*edited... damn fingers...

What can't be said is that they voted Leave because of nostalgic dreams of the good old days or anything like that. That's a young person's fallacy.

Leave seem to think the past was best, by past I take this to imply prior to the situation we were in when we voted on in the referendum. Given clear Remain/Leave split between Young/Old, it's fair to suggest that the older you are, the more you are nostalgically dreaming of the good old days ...

... but anyway... that's all just stats, I stand by my original point. Younger people are exposed to a more multi-cultural, multi-national society these days and I still think that this leads them to see less division necessary between 'us' and 'them'.