Brexit Poll

[Captain...]

I think that you are not thinking to the future, in fact from what you have written your actually looking to the future, by looking towards the past.

 

For example: If France sells us something, and any trade deal gets done means that we have to pay more to use your example. Well that's fine, we are now in a Global market, we can look outside the 27 states without seeking their permission.

 

In fact we can look to all of the other countries of the world, including Europe.

 

I appreciate, that France can (always have been able too) now buy (insert 1 of 27 of EU member states) products instead of UK ones, however I imagine that most of our exports into the EU are actually highly advanced products, not raw materials or simple products that can be obtained in less developed markets.

 

For example if highly developed countries want to buy military grade laser equipment, they are likely to remain buying British, due to the quality, not Latvian ones. I may be wrong...

 

If we want to sell our milk or potatoes, we may struggle, I appreciate, but I'd much rather our major supermarkets supported our farmers by buying their products rather than supposedly cheaper alternatives from Europe. Maybe a silly example is I always buy British meat, never Danish bacon for example, because for me a national economy & quality issue.

 

Of course and that is why James Dyson was happy to leave the EU, his products are top quality and there are no competitors in terms of quality so price doesn't matter.

 

I've not seen the breakdown of the goods we sell to the EU, but anything that relies on price for its competitive edge will suffer, we will also no longer be part of the EU competitive tendering rule, so we would not be able to compete on a level playing field with companies from other EU countries for big international contracts. Bombardier got a massive contract to produce trains in Derby for the French rail network, billions of pounds worth business, that  wouldn't have happened if we hadn't been in the EU.

 

The flip side is the UK awarded a massive train contract to a Spanish rail firm which again wouldn't have happened if we hadn't been in the EU and had to follow EU competitive tendering legislation.

 

If we leave the EU we might become more self sufficient, keep more money in the UK and grow and develop our own industries, ironically to do that we would probably need  plenty of low skilled workers.

 

I am not 100% against leaving the EU, but I really don't have any faith in the people who will be doing it to do it in any way that is beneficial to anyone other than themselves.

[Kilworthfox]

I think we are on the same page really. Both remain and leave both had positive and negative aspects which is why the vote was so close.

[Alf Bentley]

I think 55% either way would have made it clear, I would support a second referendum because so many people seem to have changed their mind, I would also support a second referendum when we actually have some sort of exit strategy in place, some clear idea of what is going to happen to the EU migrants, what is going to happen with the trade deals and the movement of godds and the freedom of movement, what sort of controls we will have on our border, what will happen to the thousands of British citizens living in the EU, what will happen to Scotland and NI.

 

 

I ended up in the Remain camp and arguing that case vociferously. I reckon Brexit may well be disastrous on multiple levels. But I really don't think you can move the goalposts like that. You'd risk major social unrest, contempt for the democratic process, potentially serious violence.

 

Maybe a 55% or 60% vote for Brexit should have been required - but it wasn't. The rules were clear. There could have been a campaign for a 55% threshold BEFORE the vote, but there wasn't.

 

Some people change their mind after every vote and regret their decision in the light of events. There are people who now regret voting Tory in 2015 - or Labour in 1997 - for various reasons, but that's not a case for another vote. At elections, parties regularly lie and mislead voters to win power - and some voters then regret their decision afterwards...but surely it's up to the opposing side to expose such lies and convince people to vote differently BEFORE the vote.

 

During the campaign, it was clear that the Leave campaign didn't have an agreed exit strategy. It was clear that there was no agreed post-Brexit policy on migration, on trade deals or on border controls. It was clear that there were issues in relation to British expats, potential Scottish independence and the Irish border. I raised many of these issues on here myself. Pretty much all of those issues were raised by Remain during the campaign. Remain also accused Leave of serial dishonesty in its claims. But a majority of voters either didn't believe them or thought those issues didn't matter as much as their reasons for wanting to leave. I think they were wrong, but then I think they're wrong every time they vote for a Tory government. That's democracy, unfortunately - the worst system apart from all the others. 

 

One doubt in my mind: I've read that the legislation states that the referendum had "advisory" status and that parliament, not the government, is responsible for taking the final decision, as it would involve repealing the 1972 European Communities Act - and only parliament can repeal legislation. That MIGHT represent legal grounds on which parliament could vote to ignore the referendum.....I'm still very doubtful that would be a good idea. The public conception is that although parliament is senior to the government, the electorate is senior to parliament - and that the electorate expressed its will through the referendum. Even if it is legally viable for parliament to view the referendum result as "advisory" and to cite good reasons for ignoring that "advice", I think that would be very dangerous for our democracy - and potentially for social order.

 

I wish other circumstances applied, but they don't. So I think we should concentrate on getting the best possible Brexit deal and making sure any damage is dealt with fairly, not dumped on those least able to handle it (e.g. if the public finances end up in a mess, the burden shouldn't be placed on those most reliant on public services; and protecting the peace process should be the key priority when taking decisions about the Irish border).

 

Close relations with the EU should also remain a priority - and the other 27 EU states don't want 2-3 years of uncertainty before we have another referendum; they want clarity ASAP. 

[Alf Bentley]

It does sound like a Ken analogy, but I stand by it any sort of in or out option without offering an alternative will get a huge amount of support for the negative option because people all want different things and people are all hoping for different things by leaving the EU.

 

 

Sorry, I was being obscure there. I wasn't referring to a Ken analogy. It's just that he is often to be found in a real pub named the King's Head in Leicester!

 

On the real issue, I agree with your logic, but don't reckon the EU would be happy to negotiate potential exit deals for countries to put to their voters. They'd risk encouraging lots of countries to chance their arm to see if they could get a better deal, and then maybe have it rejected at referendum. It could cause continuous instability, surely?

[Webbo]

 

 

During the campaign, it was clear that the Leave campaign didn't have an agreed exit strategy. It was clear that there was no agreed post-Brexit policy on migration, on trade deals or on border controls. It was clear that there were issues in relation to British expats, potential Scottish independence and the Irish border. I raised many of these issues on here myself. Pretty much all of those issues were raised by Remain during the campaign. Remain also accused Leave of serial dishonesty in its claims. But a majority of voters either didn't believe them or thought those issues didn't matter as much as their reasons for wanting to leave. I think they were wrong, but then I think they're wrong every time they vote for a Tory government. That's democracy, unfortunately - the worst system apart from all the others. 

 

 

It was really impossible to give an exact exit strategy. For 1 the leave camp consisted of people from more than 1 party and people of none. Apart from Brexit they all had different ideas of what they wanted next. Secondly everything is subject to negotiation therefore nothing could be promised. They only had to say "we'll get this" for the EU to say "no you won''t" and make them look like liars.

[Captain...]

I ended up in the Remain camp and arguing that case vociferously. I reckon Brexit may well be disastrous on multiple levels. But I really don't think you can move the goalposts like that. You'd risk major social unrest, contempt for the democratic process, potentially serious violence.

 

Maybe a 55% or 60% vote for Brexit should have been required - but it wasn't. The rules were clear. There could have been a campaign for a 55% threshold BEFORE the vote, but there wasn't.

 

Some people change their mind after every vote and regret their decision in the light of events. There are people who now regret voting Tory in 2015 - or Labour in 1997 - for various reasons, but that's not a case for another vote. At elections, parties regularly lie and mislead voters to win power - and some voters then regret their decision afterwards...but surely it's up to the opposing side to expose such lies and convince people to vote differently BEFORE the vote.

 

During the campaign, it was clear that the Leave campaign didn't have an agreed exit strategy. It was clear that there was no agreed post-Brexit policy on migration, on trade deals or on border controls. It was clear that there were issues in relation to British expats, potential Scottish independence and the Irish border. I raised many of these issues on here myself. Pretty much all of those issues were raised by Remain during the campaign. Remain also accused Leave of serial dishonesty in its claims. But a majority of voters either didn't believe them or thought those issues didn't matter as much as their reasons for wanting to leave. I think they were wrong, but then I think they're wrong every time they vote for a Tory government. That's democracy, unfortunately - the worst system apart from all the others. 

 

One doubt in my mind: I've read that the legislation states that the referendum had "advisory" status and that parliament, not the government, is responsible for taking the final decision, as it would involve repealing the 1972 European Communities Act - and only parliament can repeal legislation. That MIGHT represent legal grounds on which parliament could vote to ignore the referendum.....I'm still very doubtful that would be a good idea. The public conception is that although parliament is senior to the government, the electorate is senior to parliament - and that the electorate expressed its will through the referendum. Even if it is legally viable for parliament to view the referendum result as "advisory" and to cite good reasons for ignoring that "advice", I think that would be very dangerous for our democracy - and potentially for social order.

 

I wish other circumstances applied, but they don't. So I think we should concentrate on getting the best possible Brexit deal and making sure any damage is dealt with fairly, not dumped on those least able to handle it (e.g. if the public finances end up in a mess, the burden shouldn't be placed on those most reliant on public services; and protecting the peace process should be the key priority when taking decisions about the Irish border).

 

Close relations with the EU should also remain a priority - and the other 27 EU states don't want 2-3 years of uncertainty before we have another referendum; they want clarity ASAP. 

 

Largely agree, often people change their mind after voting in an election in hindsight, after the lies and dishonesty have come to the fore, it is the instant regret of those that say they only voted exit as a protest and didn't actually want us to leave that have pissed me right off.

 

There was a campaign before the referendum to make it 60% one way or the other or trigger a second referendum, but it was ignored.

 

Cameron has copped out by resigning, he called the referendum he should deal with the result and then resign, it is going to be months before we have a new leader, then the bill will need to go through the commons, it will be carnage if they don't pass it, but Scottish and NI MPs won't vote for it Labour could try and make it difficult for the Tories and there are some Tory MPs who might want to see it stopped depending on who becomes their new leader. That will have the effect of dragging the process out even longer and add more uncertainty before we even get to dealing with the EU.

 

A second referendum could be called in the mean time which sets out the requirements for it to pass, 55% to leave and we leave the EU, Scotland gets another independence referendum and so does NI where they would be free to join the EU, 55% to stay we stay in the EU and never have a referendum on it again. No clear majority of 55% and we stay in the EU go to the negotiating table with them, and have another referendum in three years time until we get to 55% either way.

[Alf Bentley]

It was really impossible to give an exact exit strategy. For 1 the leave camp consisted of people from more than 1 party and people of none. Apart from Brexit they all had different ideas of what they wanted next. Secondly everything is subject to negotiation therefore nothing could be promised. They only had to say "we'll get this" for the EU to say "no you won''t" and make them look like liars.

 

 

With hindsight, Remain should have made much more of those divisions in the Leave camp and the lack of any clear exit strategy. Whether it would have made any difference, I don't know. But they didn't do it, anyway - or not enough.

 

Particular European politicians did deny Leave claims that they could get the single market AND an end to free movement. Again, Remain didn't make enough of an issue of that. Again, though, I'm not sure it would have changed anything if they had got that message across. A lot of people just had the attitude: "We don't care what you say because we don't trust you, we want out" and either "it'll be alright on the night" or "we don't care if it does us some harm, our 'independence' will be worth it" - or even "we're Britain, a big nation and they need us more than we need them so we're bound to get a good deal".

[Guest MattP]

Largely agree, often people change their mind after voting in an election in hindsight, after the lies and dishonesty have come to the fore, it is the instant regret of those that say they only voted exit as a protest and didn't actually want us to leave that have pissed me right off.

 

There was a campaign before the referendum to make it 60% one way or the other or trigger a second referendum, but it was ignored.

 

Cameron has copped out by resigning, he called the referendum he should deal with the result and then resign, it is going to be months before we have a new leader, then the bill will need to go through the commons, it will be carnage if they don't pass it, but Scottish and NI MPs won't vote for it Labour could try and make it difficult for the Tories and there are some Tory MPs who might want to see it stopped depending on who becomes their new leader. That will have the effect of dragging the process out even longer and add more uncertainty before we even get to dealing with the EU.

 

A second referendum could be called in the mean time which sets out the requirements for it to pass, 55% to leave and we leave the EU, Scotland gets another independence referendum and so does NI where they would be free to join the EU, 55% to stay we stay in the EU and never have a referendum on it again. No clear majority of 55% and we stay in the EU go to the negotiating table with them, and have another referendum in three years time until we get to 55% either way.

 

But you'll never get it 55% either way, we'll be having referendums until the end of time on such a divisive issue if that's the idea. There is no need for any second referendum, the people have been asked and they have made a clear decision.

 

The DUP were firmly behind Brexit so the idea all Northern Ireland MP's won't vote for it isn;t right, unfortunately the referendum result there wasn't based on facts but almost on religious lines. (You seem happy to ignore these things when the vote lands in your favour) - the vast majority of Labour MP's have also stated they respect the result and it has to be implemented as well so if you are looking for parliament to block the will of the people you are going to be left hanging.

 

Plus it's not upto us whether Scotland and NI can join the EU, Sturgeon is there today and already running into trouble, France and Spain are making noises about vetoing them and we all know Scotland would have either implement some serious austerity or tax rises for their financial situation to be even close to the application being taken seriously. People talk like joining the EU is as easy as joining the WI.

[Len Finsbury]

I'm undecided as to whether a second referendum should be held. As it stands at the moment, the majority of those that voted were in favour of leaving and whilst I don't necessarily think they have made the correct choice, the rules of the 'game' mean that the result should stand.

 

However, if enough people that voted leave decided that the campaign in which they made their choice was unjust and fraudulent and they were tricked into voting that way, then a second referendum should take place - the problem with this is that it's impossible to logistically organise as remainers would hijack any attempts to find this out.

Another possible reason for a second referendum is if our deal with the EU changed. Those that voted out wanted out of this current EU agreement but if the deal changed then there is a case for a another vote on the proposed changes.

 

Whether either of these would happen is another thing.

[pSinatra]

My missus is so politcally indifferent that during the general election & I asked her who she would vote for she said she'd vote for whoever I voted for.  She would probably vote for someone because "they've got nice hair".

 

Like it or not, her vote is worth just as much as anybody else's.  That's democracy.

 

It's snobbery to say that anyone who voted against another person's vote is unintelligent.  We all have busy lives, family, work commitments, other interests & some find politics extremely dull & exclusive.

 

There's some decent posters on here who have a good grasp of politics/economics/foreign policy, etc & I find it all very interesting, whether I agree or not.  Not everyone is so politically informed.  It was up to Cameron & co to break it down & clearly explain the implications of our vote.  He failed to do so & got the result he deserved.  I think he took a remain result for granted.  It's not that the public are stupid, it's because he led a shit campaign.  He fought a campaign on fear & failed to appeal to our intelligences.

 

Another referendum could easily cause a swing towards remain, simply because so many people seemed 50/50 & their vote could have gone either way on the day.  At least, me & my friends seemed that way.  I didn't vote, as I was out of the country, but I couldn't have said 100% what I would have voted.  I suppose the shitstorm we are in would probably swing me towards remain, but I couldn't promise.

[Alf Bentley]

There was a campaign before the referendum to make it 60% one way or the other or trigger a second referendum, but it was ignored.

 

Scotland gets another independence referendum and so does NI where they would be free to join the EU, 55% to stay we stay in the EU and never have a referendum on it again. No clear majority of 55% and we stay in the EU go to the negotiating table with them, and have another referendum in three years time until we get to 55% either way.

 

 

I wasn't even aware of the campaign to have a 60% threshold, and I'm probably in the 1% of the population who are the most interested in politics. Rather than say it was ignored, you could say "it was unsuccessful".

 

Referendums are something to have only occasionally, surely? You'd probably never get a 60% vote either way, and nobody wants to keep having referendums.

 

N. Ireland might opt to become independent or to reunite with the Irish Republic some time in the distant future, but wouldn't support it now. There might well be a route by which Scotland could become independent and stay in the EU, but not N. Ireland - not yet, anyway. Plus, a majority of unionist areas of N. Ireland voted Leave, albeit by a much narrower margin than the margin by which nationalist areas voted Remain (hence the Remain vote overall, despite the unionists being about 55% of the population or whatever). 

[Len Finsbury]

I wasn't even aware of the campaign to have a 60% threshold, and I'm probably in the 1% of the population who are the most interested in politics. Rather than say it was ignored, you could say "it was unsuccessful".

 

Referendums are something to have only occasionally, surely? You'd probably never get a 60% vote either way, and nobody wants to keep having referendums.

 

I'm unclear how N. Ireland could join the EU if the rest of the UK left, unless N. Ireland left the UK, either to become independent or to reunite with the Irish Republic. That might happen some time in the distant future, but wouldn't have enough support now. There might well be a route by which Scotland could become independent and stay in the EU, but not N. Ireland - not yet, anyway. Plus, a majority of unionist areas of N. Ireland voted Leave, albeit by a much narrower margin than the margin by which nationalist areas voted Remain (hence the Remain vote overall, despite the unionists being about 55% of the population or whatever). 

 

This is the one with over 4 million signatures. Whilst it seems to have been hijacked by the remain camp, it was started by a leave voter in case the result was close.

[ajthefox]

I think it's a shame we're leaving but I must admit the way some of my fellow remain supporters have taken the news is less than graceful.

 

I wish it wasn't the case, but I think the attitude of denial towards the vote has been really disappointing.

[Dodgy Bob]

Wonder how many remain voters didn't vote because the bookies odds were saying remain was a shoe in and they thought there was no point (I know of at least one person to whom this applies (who isn't me)). Could be a couple of million more remain votes there straight away. Another couple of hundred thousand from glastonbury. Another couple of hundred thousand students who were too busy with exams.

Democracy, does it completely ignore these factors?

[Webbo]

Wonder how many remain voters didn't vote because the bookies odds were saying remain was a shoe in and they thought there was no point (I know of at least one person to whom this applies (who isn't me)). Could be a couple of million more remain votes there straight away. Another couple of hundred thousand from glastonbury. Another couple of hundred thousand students who were too busy with exams.

Democracy, does it completely ignore these factors?

People being at Glastonbury? Seriously?

 

You could just as easily say some Leavers didn't vote because they'd heard Remain were going to win and it seemed pointless.

[ramboacdc]

voted stay but the people spoke and i just hope this brings up political upheaval in this country and the end of dirty politics and lies.

[ramboacdc]

People being at Glastonbury? Seriously?

 

You could just as easily say some Leavers didn't vote because they'd heard Remain were going to win and it seemed pointless.

i was at glastonbury and postal voted. a lot of people there were saying they had forgot to register for it.

 

definitely wasn't 1.2 million remain votes there though. 

[Bryn]

Voted remain and would support any attempt to keep us in, I'm devastated to have lost my EU citizenship.

Think there should be a second poll for whether or not you believe it should ever have come to a referendum, which for me it never should have. Certainly not such an ill-informed one, we should have taken far longer and had a much more factual debate. When it became clear neither side knew what it was on about the referendum should have been postponed. For me, the electorate had no idea what it was voting for, and remaining in the short-term is the least restrictive option.

[Len Finsbury]

Wonder how many remain voters didn't vote because the bookies odds were saying remain was a shoe in and they thought there was no point (I know of at least one person to whom this applies (who isn't me)). Could be a couple of million more remain votes there straight away. Another couple of hundred thousand from glastonbury. Another couple of hundred thousand students who were too busy with exams.

Democracy, does it completely ignore these factors?

 

This is certainly a possibility but I don't think anyone even thought remain was a shoo in until after the voting closed, did they? I always thought it would be close but the BBC were reporting that the financial sector and bookmakers had remain as runaway leaders, which surprised me. 

[Len Finsbury]

Voted remain and would support any attempt to keep us in, I'm devastated to have lost my EU citizenship.

Think there should be a second poll for whether or not you believe it should ever have come to a referendum, which for me it never should have. Certainly not such an ill-informed one, we should have taken far longer and had a much more factual debate. When it became clear neither side knew what it was on about the referendum should have been postponed. For me, the electorate had no idea what it was voting for, and remaining in the short-term is the least restrictive option.

Unfortunately, holding a referendum was in the Tory's manifesto and it may have swung many people for voting for them. They had to do it as a result, whether right or wrong to do so.

[Bryn]

Far more important manifesto pledges have been cast aside once the election was won.

[Webbo]

Can we replay the game against Iceland until we beat them?

[Dodgy Bob]

People being at Glastonbury? Seriously?

You could just as easily say some Leavers didn't vote because they'd heard Remain were going to win and it seemed pointless.

They wouldn't have heard remain were going to win from the bookies, wasn't leave at about 12/1 the night before the referendum? The polls had shifted, all expectations were that remain would win. Some remain voters would have not voted on the basis that they thought remain were going to win anyway. How many? Who knows, but it's a factor along with glastonbury and student exams.

If there was another vote next week, remain would win and I think everyone knows it, especially with what we now know about the leave campaign being mainly based on lies. That's why the reaction from leave voters against the idea is so strong. If they were confident in leave winning again, the idea of another vote wouldn't bother them.

[Webbo]

The wouldn't have heard remain were going to win from the bookies, wasn't leave at about 12/1 the night before the referendum? The polls had shifted, all expectations were that remain would win. Some remain voters would have not voted on the basis that they thought remain were going to win anyway. How many? Who knows, but it's a factor along with glastonbury and student exams.

If there was another vote next week, remain would win and I think everyone knows it, that's why the reaction from leave voters against the idea is so strong. If they were confident in leave winning again, the idea of another vote wouldn't bother them.

So if Remain had won you'd be quite happy to have it re run until we voted to leave? Come off it, this is getting pathetic.

[Strokes]

Far more important manifesto pledges have been cast aside once the election was won.

Really, who decides level of importance?