Britain - The Official Thread

[Mr Tree]

Yeah apparently my idea on older generations not having a right to votr on long lasting issues seems emotional as most disagree.

The 14-18yr olds was as a reply to the argument used 'they have the best intrest in mind'. Ofcourse there are very good reasons to let that agegroup vote and I agree with all of them being made.

The 1940's mentality was an exacgeration based on anecdotal experience (I accept things to be diffrent for other people) my experience is that my grandparents believe in a world where we still live in small souvereign countries and we have no reason to work with germans/french/uk... this is a nice worldview but doesn't take into account the world has changed. It doesn't account for global politics nor does it account for copanies now having more money then a single country. Becoming nationalistic in europe means the big players can throw us around. I often think they want to go back to a 'simpler' time disregarding the fact the world has become more complex.

Thanks to all for at least adressing the idea. There obviously are some things I'll need to struggle myself through to have less resentfull feelings towards older generations.


@Spurgy 777 'you can just shut up because you'll be dead soon anyway' is about as straightforward one can say it and note I said only on tjing they statisticly seen on acerage won'r live through. But yeah that's my sentiment somewhat.

I don't see the disrespect, it is a statistical reality. It's not a real pleasant idea that's definitly true, we all die one day or an other.

 

[Liquid]

Rod Liddle and Fraser Nelson write for the Spectator too.

I would say Andrex is cheaper but the Spectator is already full of 🤬.

 

[baldgye]

A vote is a vote, you can't keep redoing it because the result was close because a decision has to be made one way or another. Also, the remain campaign lied just as much if not more with all their scare mongering and predictions of doom, so frankly if anyone on either side listened to the campaigns and didn't find out information for themselves then that's their own fault.

Unfortunately it's a compromise you have to make for a democracy to work, a country can't run if it keeps changing it's mind on what it wants to do every 5 seconds because no decisions are ever made and implemented.

How can a vote be a vote if you've been lied to about what it is you're voting for? Most referendums require a certain % of votes to carry a majority before being decided, this wasn't the case for Brexit.
The Remain campaign wasn't charged and found guilty of lying.

No one is changing there mind ever 5 seconds? Where did you get this idea from? People can be wrong, you can change your mind, you can also change your mind when the facts are laid out in front of you. You don't have to simply blinding go with a decision you made based upon lies, that isn't the foundation of democracy. You make the best decision you can with the facts you have to hand, if those 'facts' turn out to be lies you then change, you don't just continue blindly.

If you think that the BBC in imbalanced for reflecting the fact that most people can accept when the result of a vote doesn't go their way, and doesn't fill half of their panels with extreme remain voters who want more referendums until we get the "right" result, then you are far more biased than they are.

Except, this isn't true. Yes, of course I'm bias everyone who voted is, there was and isn't a middle ground, it's For or Against.

Meh, you think it's the best case scenario for Brexit, 52% of people would probably say otherwise. The best Brexit was presented as one where the UK parliament has the final say in all laws, where we have the power to make our own trade deals, control immigration from the EU and where were no longer paying the EU money for a trade agreement. Whether all of that is achievable or not is up for debate, but that is what people who voted Brexit seemed to be voting for and support.

It's not surprising at all that you think that the best Brexit is one where we practically don't leave the EU at all and essentially remain, as you said nothing would change other than we no longer get to vote so what would be the point in leaving if we were to do that? It's why I hate the idea of a "soft" Brexit, there's no such thing, it's just remaining without any say on EU laws.

No, not I if you listen to what the European Union has to say and it's very clear about their terms. We have everything to loose and little to offer, there isn't any way we can 'win' because if that was possible, we would have already done so or have gotten those plans of 'winning' in place. Instead we have gotten nowhere, are coming to the very real reality of Ireland reunifying and Scotland holding another vote to leave the UK.

The only way we can continue to hold onto Northern Ireland and keep British citizens part of Britain, would be to keep ALL of the EU trade laws and hold them in UK law. That's it. That's why, best case, we continue to hold their laws, but have no say in their parliament.

We already have and have always had the power to control our immigration, we have chosen to little about it because it benefits this country.
We can also trade with anyone we want too, it's just that Europe, is on the same continent as us.


52% of people all voted for very different things, and on the back very different promises and lies. Where as 48% of the UK all voted for the one same thing, for nothing to change and for the UK to continue to prosper, like it has done since we joined.


sorry for the long post

 

[Liquid]

This 52-48 rubbish is endless; that fecker Farage said before the referendum that any result should be greater than 55 to be valid.

At least quote the real figures. There were 46,500,001 eligible voters for the referendum. Turnout was only 72.2% meaning:

37.5% voted for Brexit
34.7% voted against Brexit

27.8% of people allowed to vote did not or chose not to. 0.08% of votes were invalidated.

 

[UKMikey]

This 52-48 rubbish is endless; that fecker Farage said before the referendum that any result should be greater than 55 to be valid.

At least quote the real figures. There were 46,500,001 eligible voters for the referendum. Turnout was only 72.2% meaning:

37.5% voted for Brexit
34.7% voted against Brexit

27.8% of people allowed to vote did not or chose not to. 0.08% of votes were invalidated.

Wow, the vote was even closer than I'd previously thought if there was only a 2.8% difference.

I wonder if the abstaining/apathetic 27.8% actively wanted things to change or didn't mind if they stayed the same but I'm afraid it's a moot point now.

 

[baldgye]

Turnout was only 72.2% meaning...

..it was a pretty good turnout!

 

[Dotini]

This 52-48 rubbish is endless; that fecker Farage said before the referendum that any result should be greater than 55 to be valid.

At least quote the real figures. There were 46,500,001 eligible voters for the referendum. Turnout was only 72.2% meaning:

37.5% voted for Brexit
34.7% voted against Brexit

27.8% of people allowed to vote did not or chose not to. 0.08% of votes were invalidated.

In order to force a 55% plurality - one way or the other - would you consider a campaign of protest, civil disobedience, boycott, employee walkouts, strikes, vandalism and other minor acts of anarchy?

 

[Johnnypenso]

This 52-48 rubbish is endless; that fecker Farage said before the referendum that any result should be greater than 55 to be valid.

At least quote the real figures. There were 46,500,001 eligible voters for the referendum. Turnout was only 72.2% meaning:

37.5% voted for Brexit
34.7% voted against Brexit

27.8% of people allowed to vote did not or chose not to. 0.08% of votes were invalidated.

In a democracy, turnout is irrelevant to anything but an intellectual discussion, post vote. If you don't bother to vote, you don't have a say.

 

[Mr Tree]

In a democracy, turnout is irrelevant to anything but an intellectual discussion, post vote. If you don't bother to vote, you don't have a say.

Honnest question.

What do you mean: to anything but an intellectual discussion?

Also I agree you don't vote not anyones problem but yours either you vote and have a say or you don't and I nor anyone should care.

 

[TenEightyOne]

In a democracy, turnout is irrelevant to anything but an intellectual discussion, post vote. If you don't bother to vote, you don't have a say.

Huh? One's abstention is a say.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Wow, the vote was even closer than I'd previously thought if there was only a 2.8% difference.

I wonder if the abstaining/apathetic 27.8% actively wanted things to change or didn't mind if they stayed the same but I'm afraid it's a moot point now.

it's generally accepted that people who don't vote don't want change.

 

[Spurgy 777]

The 14-18yr olds was as a reply to the argument used 'they have the best intrest in mind'. Ofcourse there are very good reasons to let that agegroup vote and I agree with all of them being made.

In case you missed it, I did add that most people (well I would hope anyway) vote for what they think is in the best interest of the country and their families, not just older people.

How can a vote be a vote if you've been lied to about what it is you're voting for? Most referendums require a certain % of votes to carry a majority before being decided, this wasn't the case for Brexit.

Because people can form an opinion without taking every word they're told as 100% true. If lies meant that a vote was invalid then no vote would be valid. I also have no issue with how the "winner" of the vote was decided. It should be whoever has the majority of the votes from the people who actually voted, anything else is introducing bias in favour of one choice over another.

The Remain campaign wasn't charged and found guilty of lying.

Doesn't mean it didn't, just means they were more intelligent about it. I suppose you could say it was more half truths than flat out lies, but still completely dishonest.

No one is changing there mind ever 5 seconds? Where did you get this idea from? People can be wrong, you can change your mind, you can also change your mind when the facts are laid out in front of you. You don't have to simply blinding go with a decision you made based upon lies, that isn't the foundation of democracy. You make the best decision you can with the facts you have to hand, if those 'facts' turn out to be lies you then change, you don't just continue blindly.

I said the country, not people. With 30 odd million people voting you're unlikely to get the same result every time, so if you keep redoing the vote if the result is close then chances are you will get results in favour of both sides and a country that is continually changing it's mind with nothing getting done. So the only logical solution to avoid never ending referendums for big decisions is to give everyone one chance, if they regret their vote then that's their own fault. Plus I doubt you would be saying the same things if the vote had gone the other way, but I could be wrong.

Except, this isn't true. Yes, of course I'm bias everyone who voted is, there was and isn't a middle ground, it's For or Against.

That's not how bias works, bias is coming to a conclusion based on your own opinion and not based on facts. In this case your bias is leading you to say that the BBC is biased because they aren't filling 50% of their panels with people who agree with you that the referendum isn't valid, Brexit shouldn't go ahead and we should remain. In reality, not everyone who voted for remain agrees with you on that and probably a majority disagree with it and accept the result as it is and think the government should carry it out. It seems to only be the very extremes of each side that would call for another referendum if the result didn't go their way, so it's nonsense to expect the BBC to fill half their panels with people of that point of view.

No, not I if you listen to what the European Union has to say and it's very clear about their terms. We have everything to loose and little to offer, there isn't any way we can 'win' because if that was possible, we would have already done so or have gotten those plans of 'winning' in place.

A free trade agreement is hugely beneficial to both sides, it would be ridiculously idiotic for the EU to not compromise to maintain it in some form, and if they don't why the 🤬 would we want a government like that to have any say at all in how we run our country?

Instead we have gotten nowhere, are coming to the very real reality of Ireland reunifying and Scotland holding another vote to leave the UK.

The only way we can continue to hold onto Northern Ireland and keep British citizens part of Britain, would be to keep ALL of the EU trade laws and hold them in UK law. That's it. That's why, best case, we continue to hold their laws, but have no say in their parliament.

Proving my point about the scaremongering, Scotland aren't going to have another referendum, and it's unlikely that were going to lose Northern Ireland.

We already have and have always had the power to control our immigration, we have chosen to little about it because it benefits this country.
We can also trade with anyone we want too, it's just that Europe, is on the same continent as us.

Not even remotely true, we have virtually no power over immigration from the EU and no power to make our own trade agreements. As it is right now we have to accept anyone and everyone from the EU into the country, regardless of whether they are beneficial or not.

52% of people all voted for very different things, and on the back very different promises and lies. Where as 48% of the UK all voted for the one same thing, for nothing to change and for the UK to continue to prosper, like it has done since we joined.

Another great example of your bias, trying to paint the debate as a unified block of 48% that agrees on everything and 52% that don't agree. Bringing you back to reality, 52% of people agree on leaving the EU, 48% agree on remaining. However neither of those groups, remain or leave, are likely to agree on the details of our continued relationship with the EU and to try and argue that the remainers are a group living in some fairy tale land where everything is wonderful and nothing needs to be changed is disingenuous at best and is hijacking the opinions of others for your own gain.

This 52-48 rubbish is endless; that fecker Farage said before the referendum that any result should be greater than 55 to be valid.

At least quote the real figures. There were 46,500,001 eligible voters for the referendum. Turnout was only 72.2% meaning:

37.5% voted for Brexit
34.7% voted against Brexit

27.8% of people allowed to vote did not or chose not to. 0.08% of votes were invalidated.

The rubbish is thinking that the "actual numbers" including the people that didn't vote are remotely relevant to anything. As long as the turnout isn't stupidly low (in this case it was quite good), then it doesn't matter at all. It's only brought up in attempt to belittle the result and make the number of people who voted leave seem as small as possible to justify the vote as invalid, nonsense.

Huh? One's abstention is a say.

Unfortunately it's not though because there's no way of knowing why you didn't vote. Was it because you're lazy? Didn't care? Undecided? Disagree with the question/don't like anything of the voting options? No way to tell and until you can the people that don't vote are irrelevant to any discussion of the result.

 

[UKMikey]

it's generally accepted that people who don't vote don't want change.

Generally, perhaps, but not by the fellow following your post, lol.

(Admittedly it was my thought as well but what can one do?)

 

[Liquid]

In order to force a 55% plurality - one way or the other - would you consider a campaign of protest, civil disobedience, boycott, employee walkouts, strikes, vandalism and other minor acts of anarchy?

I haven't imposed any supermajority conditions. That 55% condition was to have been of the votes cast, not of the total population. 52% of the people who voted in the referendum voted in favour of Brexit. This is indisputable.

What is disputable is using that figure to then say "More than half of the country are in favour of Brexit" or "A majority of the country want to leave". That simply isn't true and that's why I presented the relative figures based on the turnout.

If you really do want to go even further, the population of the UK in 2016 was estimated to be 65,640,000 meaning:

26.5% voted for Brexit
24.6% voted against Brexit
19.7% eligible to vote didn't
29.2% of the population weren't eligible to vote

And for what it's worth, why would I be considering a campaign of protest, anarchy and strikes?
If a supermajority is required and isn't met, the motion fails.

In a democracy, turnout is irrelevant to anything but an intellectual discussion, post vote. If you don't bother to vote, you don't have a say.

Do you disagree that the statement "more than half of the country voted for Brexit" is misleading?

The rubbish is thinking that the "actual numbers" including the people that didn't vote are remotely relevant to anything. As long as the turnout isn't stupidly low (in this case it was quite good), then it doesn't matter at all. It's only brought up in attempt to belittle the result and make the number of people who voted leave seem as small as possible to justify the vote as invalid, nonsense.

Lies, damn lies and statistics. I haven't offered any commentary on Brexit itself, only the voting breakdown.

"More than half of the country voted for Brexit" just isn't true.

 

[Spurgy 777]

Lies, damn lies and statistics. I haven't offered any commentary on Brexit itself, only the voting breakdown.

I never said they were lies, I said it was irrelevant.

"More than half of the country voted for Brexit" just isn't true.

No it's not, but again it's irrelevant to the point being made so why do you care? I find it unnecessarily pedantic to expect people to be more accurate than that, everyone knows what they mean.

 

[baldgye]

@Spurgy 777 If you don't mind I'll break up your post a little rather than quote large paragraphs, just for space/time
It's clear we wont/don't agree on the grey area, so let's put that aside as differences and settle on what we can talk about with more certain terms.

Proving my point about the scaremongering, Scotland aren't going to have another referendum

The First Minister has put forward the idea, again, after the idea had properly died after the last vote. This is bolstered by the huge % of Scotts who voted to Remain. This isn't 'scaremongering' this is just fact. Of course, if they will actually get the vote is another issue, but if the Scottish Parliament pushes the idea, they will have more public support for it now than they ever did pre-Brexit vote.

it's unlikely that were going to lose Northern Ireland.

Based on what? Maintaining The Good Friday Agreement and an open/free boarder is the only thing that can keep NI from imploding. How do we maintain those? Well we have to put into law all the EU trade laws, meaning when we leave, we'll be stuck with all those horrible laws we wanted so desperately to escape.

we have virtually no power over immigration from the EU [...] As it is right now we have to accept anyone and everyone from the EU into the country, regardless of whether they are beneficial or not.

Incorrect. We can eject EU migrants after 3 months if they are of no benefit and we can impost far harsher restrictions than we currently have. Similar to other EU nations.
We don't because;
1. The cost of doing so would be massive.
2. EU migrants are a net benefit.

and no power to make our own trade agreements.

We are partnered with the biggest economy in the world we have trade agreements all over the world and get great preferential treatment as an EU member. How many trade agreements have we made, or gotten stencilled out since the vote? How many counties have lined up and said they can't wait to trade with us? The USA did, then said it would work on getting further into bed with the EU. Then threatened a trade war.
All the great possible trading nations that are thousands and thousands of miles away are better than the whole of the EU?

What nation/nations are we blocked from trading with because of the EU?

A free trade agreement is hugely beneficial to both sides, it would be ridiculously idiotic for the EU to not compromise to maintain it in some form, and if they don't why the 🤬 would we want a government like that to have any say at all in how we run our country?

This is one thing I've seen a lot. But one thing people seem to forget is that the EU is a political entity.
To answer your question, they wouldn't because it shows that nations who leave the EU are worse off, thus justifying it's existence.
If the UK just got a free trade deal, why would any other nation bother to remain?

On the second part of this quote, the European Parliament don't run the UK and never have.

 

[PeterJB]

If we're supposed to assume that people who abstained don't want change, then they should have voted remain!

 

[UKMikey]

If we're supposed to assume that people who abstained don't want change, then they should have voted remain!

If we're supposed to assume that they did want change, then they should have voted leave.

It works both ways.

 

[baldgye]

If we're supposed to assume that they did want change, then they should have voted leave.

It works both ways.

Which is why, if you don't vote, you don't get a voice.

 

[UKMikey]

Which is why, if you don't vote, you don't get a voice.

Which is why I said the point is moot.

 

[Tired Tyres]

Which is why, if you don't vote, you don't get a voice.

True, but you HAVE to take the non voter percentage into account to understand the real breakdown of what people want.

 

[Touring Mars]

I agree that there's no point speculating about what those who didn't vote might have wanted - no vote means your opinion may as well not exist.

In terms of 'respecting the result', I think most people now just want the entire debacle sorted one way or another... as I've said all along and as has been said earlier, there really is no such thing as a 'soft Brexit'... all this talk about 'we didn't vote to leave the Single Market' is, IMHO, nonsense. One thing is for sure - no matter which way you choose to interpret the referendum result, the overwhelming support for our continued membership of the EU (that was expected by all of the major political parties) never materialised and the case for staying in was not made strongly enough - indeed, it is still clear now that both the Tories and Labour were and still are not happy with the way things are going in the EU. And let's not forget that the UK never was really a fully signed up member of the club anyway - it is very debatable just how long the EU could go on with someone like us as a member when our policies and national interests are so clearly out of step with what the EU has in mind for the future e.g. ever-closer political and monetary union etc. For me, it will always come back to what Angela Merkel said in 2013 - that for the Eurozone (and by extension, the EU) to work, then all member states need to be prepared to cede sovereignty to Berlin Brussels - the question then became for many people 'where do you draw the line?', but it is no surprise that the UK was the first to ask the question 'who gets to even draw the line?'. IMO, this is why the entire issue of EU membership was put to a referendum at all - to give the British people a stark, simple 'YES' or 'NO' as to who ultimately gets to determine the future direction of the country - and the case for entrusting more sovereign power to Europe was decisively lost.

 

[baldgye]

True, but you HAVE to take the non voter percentage into account to understand the real breakdown of what people want.

Can you?
What about the people who voted leave to get that £350m a week back into the NHS? Because that was a categorical and provable lie, do they now not want to leave the EU?

If we can't agree on what the people who voted for, wanted, then how can we work out what the people who didn't vote wanted?

 

[Spurgy 777]

The First Minister has put forward the idea, again, after the idea had properly died after the last vote. This is bolstered by the huge % of Scotts who voted to Remain. This isn't 'scaremongering' this is just fact. Of course, if they will actually get the vote is another issue, but if the Scottish Parliament pushes the idea, they will have more public support for it now than they ever did pre-Brexit vote.

Yes she did go around trying to get support for another referendum but ultimately it's unlikely that Scotland would be accepted back into the EU if they left the UK so Brexit really doesn't help her position much, which is probably why we haven't heard from her in a while, at least I haven't anyway.

Based on what? Maintaining The Good Friday Agreement and an open/free boarder is the only thing that can keep NI from imploding. How do we maintain those? Well we have to put into law all the EU trade laws, meaning when we leave, we'll be stuck with all those horrible laws we wanted so desperately to escape.

Based on the last time I checked the polls on reunification. It was only at 1/3 in favour at best, so you can't reunify a country that doesn't want to be reunified, and you can't put up a hard border between the two, so all parties involved will need to come up with a solution. I'm not saying it's going to be easy, but I find it unlikely that they won't be able to think of something, maybe I'm just being too optimistic.

Incorrect. We can eject EU migrants after 3 months if they are of no benefit and we can impost far harsher restrictions than we currently have. Similar to other EU nations.
We don't because;
1. The cost of doing so would be massive.
2. EU migrants are a net benefit.

I'll admit this is an area that I haven't looked into a huge amount of detail on because it seems to be a generally accepted fact by nearly everyone that we have very little control over immigration from the EU. The type of control that allows you to restrict the number of people entering based on their skill sets and on whether they already have a job, and where if they don't fit the requirements you can stop them from entering at all.

We are partnered with the biggest economy in the world we have trade agreements all over the world and get great preferential treatment as an EU member. How many trade agreements have we made, or gotten stencilled out since the vote? How many counties have lined up and said they can't wait to trade with us? The USA did, then said it would work on getting further into bed with the EU. Then threatened a trade war.
All the great possible trading nations that are thousands and thousands of miles away are better than the whole of the EU?

It's all very well being part of a trading block, but it's no use if the 28 members of the trading block can't even agree with each other on what they want from a trade agreement. The benefit therefore of not being in a block is that you can actually get deals done, even if those deals aren't as good as you might get otherwise, it's a compromise.

Oh and to answer your question about how many agreements have we made so far since the vote, none. Pretty sure we're not allowed to negotiate any until after we've left.

What nation/nations are we blocked from trading with because of the EU?

None (other than North Korea maybe? ), but whether we can trade with them is irrelevant, it's the agreements under which with trade with them that is important. If the cost of trade is huge it's not beneficial.

This is one thing I've seen a lot. But one thing people seem to forget is that the EU is a political entity.
To answer your question, they wouldn't because it shows that nations who leave the EU are worse off, thus justifying it's existence.
If the UK just got a free trade deal, why would any other nation bother to remain?

Because the EU thinks that it benefits it's countries more than just having a free trade agreement. If we left and lost for example free movement of people whilst keeping free trade, the EU should think were worse off, so why do they care?

On the second part of this quote, the European Parliament don't run the UK and never have.

Re-read it, I said why should they have any say in how our country is run, not that they run it. I hope you would admit that the EU do have some say.

If we're supposed to assume that they did want change, then they should have voted leave.

It works both ways.

That's the point, it's why it's pointless bringing it up because people that don't vote have no effect on the overall result.

True, but you HAVE to take the non voter percentage into account to understand the real breakdown of what people want.

As I've already mentioned, a no vote doesn't give you any indication on what those people want or why they chose not to vote so it can't really be used to draw any conclusions.

 

[baldgye]

Based on the last time I checked the polls on reunification. It was only at 1/3 in favour at best, so you can't reunify a country that doesn't want to be reunified, and you can't put up a hard border between the two, so all parties involved will need to come up with a solution.

What solution? There is only one solution; We make into British law all the EU trade laws you are so desperate to escape.
What other solution is there?

I'll admit this is an area that I haven't looked into a huge amount of detail on because it seems to be a generally accepted fact by nearly everyone that we have very little control over immigration from the EU.

Except that it isn't a fact.

Spoiler

so frankly if anyone on either side listened to the campaigns and didn't find out information for themselves then that's their own fault.

None

So we need to leave the worlds biggest economy and the union which we do over 50% of our trade with, so we can trade with, no one else?

Because the EU thinks that it benefits it's countries more than just having a free trade agreement

Why would it benefit the EU more to have a trade agreement with us than to not and impose tariffs on us? You've said there isn't anyone else you want to trade with, so the EU can get a better deal in trading with us, they can charge us more and pay us less. There member states become better off financially and no other EU state thinks leaving would actually be a good idea.

 

[Liquid]

Which is why, if you don't vote, you don't get a voice.

Then why are income and sales taxes involuntary? Non-voters pay the same taxes as everyone else and ought to have some voice as to how that money is used.

 

[Touring Mars]

Then why are income and sales taxes involuntary? Non-voters pay the same taxes as everyone else and ought to have some voice as to how that money is used.

A 'non-voter' is just someone who didn't vote - they still have the right to vote and thus can vote if they choose...

 

[Liquid]

A 'non-voter' is just someone who didn't vote - they still have the right to vote and thus can vote if they choose...

I still don't think it's fair to dismiss the opinions of a non-voter out of hand when they still pay taxes.

 

[baldgye]

I still don't think it's fair to dismiss the opinions of a non-voter out of hand when they still pay taxes.

So everyone who pays taxes, should be allowed to vote... or at least be poled to understand how they would have voted, if they could and chose not too?

 

[Scaff]

...and you can't put up a hard border between the two,

Why can't you?

It may well be a disastrous move to do so, but that doesn't mean it can't be done, nor does it mean that may not end up being the final option.

After all the model already exists, Gibraltar is not part of the EU customs union and has a hard border.