Re: Brexit
 

The EU did a U turn with regards to the rebate on the proviso that Brexit was cancelled. Doubt we'd get it back if we left and rejoined.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/10...al-vote-latest

Re: Brexit
 

Yes, I was responding to a post that suggested we could leave then have a referendum on rejoining after a number of years.

Re: Brexit
 

I think you're right. I think Remainers have acknowledged that there's a high chance we'll leave the EU and have had a long time to appreciate this. By contrast, I think Brexiters are now only coming to terms with the fact that there's a chance that we won't in their generation, hence the more emotional language used on occasions.

Re: Brexit
 

The sheer lack of a clear majority of the electorate positively voting leave based on a flawed referendum, seems a strange reason to respect the result.

I know the leave voters will respond with but 52% of those who voted chose leave. This is still less than 4% more than voted remain, far too tight to be a wholehearted endorsement of Brexit.

Re: Brexit
 

But we all knew before we voted in the referendum that all that was needed was a straight democratic majority one way or other so to complain about it afterwards is basically tantamount to sour grapes.

Re: Brexit
 

If you don’t vote, you choose not to be heard. So please stop trying to ‘hear’ those who abstained from the vote.

The referendum was not flawed. Every eligible person had a vote and was able to do so without hindrance. There are a great many countries where they would laugh in your face for suggesting any vote held in the U.K. in the last century might be described as “flawed”.

I sincerely doubt you would be making this argument if the result had been the exact reverse.

Re: Brexit
 

So the choice made by a minority should be put up with for the long term, just because the referendum was poorly sorted in the first place.

If we were offered a second referendum on the deal, no deal or remain, at least then the result would be a positive choice for a known outcome.

It is one thing to put up with a government elected by a minority of the population, at least there is the chance of change only a few years later.

This is something we will be stuck with for decades. Left with either a deal with no control, or a leap into the abyss which could end up with cheap imports overwhelming what little we still produce ourselves and the balance of trade can go hang.

---------- Post added at 17:57 ---------- Previous post was at 17:54 ----------

Neither would Farage have shut up in that situation. It does work both ways.

For too long a minority has chosen who governs, with no consensus and no need to listen to the electorate.

Re: Brexit
 

But it was not a minority was it?

---------- Post added at 17:04 ---------- Previous post was at 16:59 ----------

A second referendum is not needed and do you think the vast majority of voters want to go through that with duplicitousness and mendaciousness from politicians of both sides again?..

---------- Post added at 17:07 ---------- Previous post was at 17:04 ----------

Blame that on the complete omnishambles from HMG since the referendum result.

Re: Brexit
 

Those who do not vote have simply exercised the freedom not to vote. That’s really all there is to it. You really need to stop wailing as if it’s some sort of injustice. Your neighbour who sat on their hands at the last election received a poll card in the post just as you did. Respect their decision on how to use (or not use) it. It’s their vote, their business.

Re: Brexit
 

Ah I’ve missed the discussion over the definition of electorate and population, over and above those who actually voted.

Re: Brexit
 

Our electoral system is disengaged from the population. This is why we have had minority supported governments since the 1930s.

This has nothing to do with whether people choose not to vote, but that so many votes cast are actually worthless.

Re: Brexit
 

Re: Brexit
 

There’s nothing convenient about it.

To go back to your original post you described the EU as follows ”morphing towards federalism; the Euro might collapse; Turkey might join the EU.” You continued to say we have “No chance of preserving Status Quo, which I concede never did us too much harm”.

You then concontradict yourself and say it doesn’t matter if any of the above is actually true in a referendum about EU membership, neither does it matter the extent we can exempt ourselves or hold veto over any of it. :confused:

Re: Brexit
 

I guess I must have missed the invitation sent to each voter to comment on how the referendum process should be structured.

---------- Post added at 18:40 ---------- Previous post was at 18:36 ----------

Again, not addressing the legitimacy of changing the country's structural & economic future based on a simple arithmetic majority with no minimum turnout.

If asked before the vote, I would have requested a supermajority based referendum but, surprise, no one asked .. I wonder why?

Re: Brexit
 

Toto, I don’t think we’re in Kansas any more. :dozey:

The referendum was conducted according to the usual high standards of British elections and delivered a fair result. Furthermore the turnout was relatively high compared to recent General Elections and, due to the simple, binary question, it resulted in the highest number of British voters supporting any proposition in electoral history.

It was fair, it was reasonable, it was historic.

You know I think I preferred it when your delusion of choice was that there might be a re-run, because where we’re taking the discussion right now is just nuts.

While The UK has limited precedent for referendums, they have only ever been used for matters affecting the constitution and have never required a supermajority. It didn’t require one the last time we voted on the EU.

In any case, why should the deck be stacked so heavily in favour of one side?