UK voters should make final Brexit decision if talks with EU collapse: poll

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, kwilco said:

 

https seems the UK government Is now fully endorsing "project fear" ... they now have a minister for food. This was only normally seen  in and around WW1 & WW2.  

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/sep/26/uk-appoints-food-supplies-minister-amid-fears-of-no-deal-brexit?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

This has probably more to do with accepting USA's food standards to British tables in the future, than actually having a food shortage in UK.

 

Enjoy the USA produced foods. 

[BwindiBoy]

15 minutes ago, kwilco said:

 

https seems the UK government Is now fully endorsing "project fear" ... they now have a minister for food. This was only normally seen  in and around WW1 & WW2.

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/sep/26/uk-appoints-food-supplies-minister-amid-fears-of-no-deal-brexit?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

 

Oh the irony - virtually every one of your posts is to convey project fear.

[sandyf]

5 hours ago, oilinki said:

This has probably more to do with accepting USA's food standards to British tables in the future, than actually having a food shortage in UK.

 

Enjoy the USA produced foods. 

Of course they will, who will turn their back on the cheaper American Cornish Pasties, Cumberland Sausage and Stilton, not forgetting a wee dram of American 'Scotch'. 

Brexit means brexit, whatever the cost.

[sandyf]

19 hours ago, nauseus said:

 

You can continue with your pedantic diversion alone, Sandy. I'm not hungry today.

How to avoid reality in one easy step.

Brexit has always been an emotional argument based on a distorted perception of the EU.

[rixalex]

6 hours ago, kwilco said:

It is the democratic right of my country to change its mind.....It appears that Brexiteers will accept a very slim majority in this respect..... so the next referendum should put a end to their madness.

Why would another vote put an end to anything? Once you break the promise of having said you would "abide by the result of the 2016 referendum, whichever way it went", and having used the excuse of "referendums are only advisory", henceforth, who will take any referendum seriously and who from the losing side will not simply leave it a few months and then declare that the public has changed its mind, and therefore we must have another referendum? The answer is nobody. That's the thing about democratic rights. If you blatantly ignore them once, the precedent is set.

[rixalex]

7 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Of course they will, who will turn their back on the cheaper American Cornish Pasties, Cumberland Sausage and Stilton, not forgetting a wee dram of American 'Scotch'. 

Brexit means brexit, whatever the cost.

The customer is king. Let them decide.

[sandyf]

30 minutes ago, rixalex said:

The customer is king. Let them decide.

Of course brexit patriotism is an ideology applied when it suits.

 

A country that was once a byword for steady, imperturbable (sometimes maddening) stodginess has suddenly revealed itself to be fractious, impulsive and jittery. A land of fair play and cautious pragmatism (don’t rock the boat, no need to frighten the horses, steady as she goes) has become moody and quarrelsome. Thanks to Theresa May, the idea that we are in any way “strong and stable” has lost all credibility.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/08/brexit-england-rethink-identity-nation

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

20 hours ago, CG1 Blue said:

"we as Eu members can vote to maybe accept you again . at our terms and condition"

You clearly don't know the British people if you think we would agree to be even more subservient to the EU.

 

"Britain alwys stoppedEu from moving forward"

I'm interested to hear how you want the EU to move forward now that Britain will no longer be holding it back. Do you want a United States of Europe led by Juncker or his successor?

 

"Britain is not so important , like it thinks"

Please tell us about your important country, and what it has contributed to the world.

He/She's probably Belgian ???? . 

Edited September 27, 2018 by CanterbrigianBangkoker

[CanterbrigianBangkoker]

1 hour ago, rixalex said:

Why would another vote put an end to anything? Once you break the promise of having said you would "abide by the result of the 2016 referendum, whichever way it went", and having used the excuse of "referendums are only advisory", henceforth, who will take any referendum seriously and who from the losing side will not simply leave it a few months and then declare that the public has changed its mind, and therefore we must have another referendum? The answer is nobody. That's the thing about democratic rights. If you blatantly ignore them once, the precedent is set.

To champagne socialist lefty types, the means ALWAYS justifies the end. So, dirty tactics mean nothing to them, it's all fair game to reach the outcome THEY desire.

[dick dasterdly]

17 hours ago, Orac said:

 

Couple of points on this.

The first paragraph is wrong in that 60% of Labour constituencies might have voted leave but that does not mean the remaining 40% were Tory since they would be the remaining Labour constituencies.

Also there is is the flip side of the coin for MPs that have a different view regarding brexit from their constituents. As well as the many Labour MPs in leave constituencies there are quite a few MPs of both parties who have strongly supported Brexit who are in constituencies that voted remain including the likes of Raab, Fox, Redwood, Grayling, Hoey, Baker and Duncan-Smith not to mention TM herself.

Any future vote would be extremely bitter and divisive whether it be GE or referendum so it is to be hoped that our current elected officials can sort this out between themselves.




Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

"The first paragraph is wrong in that 60% of Labour constituencies might have voted leave but that does not mean the remaining 40% were Tory since they would be the remaining Labour constituencies."

 

You're right, and I feel v. embarrassed at making such a stupid mistake.

[rixalex]

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

Of course brexit patriotism is an ideology applied when it suits.

 

A country that was once a byword for steady, imperturbable (sometimes maddening) stodginess has suddenly revealed itself to be fractious, impulsive and jittery. A land of fair play and cautious pragmatism (don’t rock the boat, no need to frighten the horses, steady as she goes) has become moody and quarrelsome. Thanks to Theresa May, the idea that we are in any way “strong and stable” has lost all credibility.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/08/brexit-england-rethink-identity-nation

Wrong for you to assume that supporting Brexit means supporting patriotism.

 

For many, Brexit is simply about democracy and self-determination.

[Stupooey]

2 hours ago, rixalex said:

Why would another vote put an end to anything? Once you break the promise of having said you would "abide by the result of the 2016 referendum, whichever way it went", and having used the excuse of "referendums are only advisory", henceforth, who will take any referendum seriously and who from the losing side will not simply leave it a few months and then declare that the public has changed its mind, and therefore we must have another referendum? The answer is nobody. That's the thing about democratic rights. If you blatantly ignore them once, the precedent is set.

One would hope that one of the lessons learned from this whole exercise is never to have a referendum again. What started off as merely a way of solving an internal dispute in the Consevative Party has escalated into the present omnishambles. I have posted before about how the referendum was ill-conceived and poorly run. It would now appear that by March next year, because of natural wastage of (mainly Leave) 2016 voters and the addition of new potential voters, a re-run of the referendum with people voting (or not voting) the same way they did in 2016 would result in a majority for Remain. If the UK does finally leave in 2019 it will almost certainly be against the will of the electorate at that time.

[rixalex]

2 minutes ago, Stupooey said:

One would hope that one of the lessons learned from this whole exercise is never to have a referendum again. What started off as merely a way of solving an internal dispute in the Consevative Party has escalated into the present omnishambles. I have posted before about how the referendum was ill-conceived and poorly run. It would now appear that by March next year, because of natural wastage of (mainly Leave) 2016 voters and the addition of new potential voters, a re-run of the referendum with people voting (or not voting) the same way they did in 2016 would result in a majority for Remain. If the UK does finally leave in 2019 it will almost certainly be against the will of the electorate at that time.

It wasn't the referendum itself that was the problem, it was the politicians who promised to abide by it but who have in the main just tried everything to do the opposite. Had the referendum result been the way that they had wanted; had the nation dutifully voted to remain, there would have been none of the "present omnishambles", the vote would have been accepted and the whole chapter closed.

 

And regarding, "if the UK does finally leave in 2019 it will almost certainly be against the will of the electorate at that time", if that is true - it seems like unverified random speculation at this point to me - well then, having respected the outcome of the 2016 referendum, those people who want back in can make their case then.

[nauseus]

8 minutes ago, Stupooey said:

One would hope that one of the lessons learned from this whole exercise is never to have a referendum again. What started off as merely a way of solving an internal dispute in the Consevative Party has escalated into the present omnishambles. I have posted before about how the referendum was ill-conceived and poorly run. It would now appear that by March next year, because of natural wastage of (mainly Leave) 2016 voters and the addition of new potential voters, a re-run of the referendum with people voting (or not voting) the same way they did in 2016 would result in a majority for Remain. If the UK does finally leave in 2019 it will almost certainly be against the will of the electorate at that time.

 

The result of the 2016 referendum proves that it was desired by at least half of the country, whatever the reason for it finally happening.  You can join Club Morbide and wait for enough leave voters to expire if you think that's a good way to overturn the result but you might also consider that as people age, they become more aware and, as a consequence, some of the people that voted in may well want out now. So your assumption that the majority opinion has changed in favour of remain may well be erroneous.

 

There were several promises of referenda before 2015 and if one of those had actually been fulfilled, we would have been long gone. The shambles we have is due to lack of good leadership and a parliament that is evidently more interested in remaining in this supranational EU, the extent of which was certainly not approved in the 1975 referendum.

 

[dick dasterdly]

18 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

The result of the 2016 referendum proves that it was desired by at least half of the country, whatever the reason for it finally happening.  You can join Club Morbide and wait for enough leave voters to expire if you think that's a good way to overturn the result but you might also consider that as people age, they become more aware and, as a consequence, some of the people that voted in may well want out now. So your assumption that the majority opinion has changed in favour of remain may well be erroneous.

 

There were several promises of referenda before 2015 and if one of those had actually been fulfilled, we would have been long gone. The shambles we have is due to lack of good leadership and a parliament that is evidently more interested in remaining in this supranational EU, the extent of which was certainly not approved in the 1975 referendum.

 

"There were several promises of referenda before 2015 and if one of those had actually been fulfilled, we would have been long gone."

 

It's impossible to know whether an earlier referendum would have resulted in a leave vote, but I suspect that the various promises of a referendum (that were broken when gaining power....) was a contributory factor to the leave vote.

 

The electorate haven't trusted politicians for decades, but had always 'hoped' that they were telling the truth on the main points in their election manifestos.

 

When finally given the opportunity to vote on the increasingly disliked eu - the electorate took the opportunity to give uk politicians a well deserved 'kick up the bum' to show their displeasure at not only the eu, but also the uk politicians.

 

IMO of course.

 

Edit -

 

"The shambles we have is due to lack of good leadership and a parliament that is evidently more interested in remaining in this supranational EU"

 

Couldn't agree more ☹️.

Edited September 27, 2018 by dick dasterdly

[tebee]

38 minutes ago, Stupooey said:

One would hope that one of the lessons learned from this whole exercise is never to have a referendum again. What started off as merely a way of solving an internal dispute in the Consevative Party has escalated into the present omnishambles. I have posted before about how the referendum was ill-conceived and poorly run. It would now appear that by March next year, because of natural wastage of (mainly Leave) 2016 voters and the addition of new potential voters, a re-run of the referendum with people voting (or not voting) the same way they did in 2016 would result in a majority for Remain. If the UK does finally leave in 2019 it will almost certainly be against the will of the electorate at that time.

 

29 minutes ago, rixalex said:

It wasn't the referendum itself that was the problem, it was the politicians who promised to abide by it but who have in the main just tried everything to do the opposite. Had the referendum result been the way that they had wanted; had the nation dutifully voted to remain, there would have been none of the "present omnishambles", the vote would have been accepted and the whole chapter closed.

 

And regarding, "if the UK does finally leave in 2019 it will almost certainly be against the will of the electorate at that time", if that is true - it seems like unverified random speculation at this point to me - well then, having respected the outcome of the 2016 referendum, those people who want back in can make their case then.

 

10 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

The result of the 2016 referendum proves that it was desired by at least half of the country, whatever the reason for it finally happening.  You can join Club Morbide and wait for enough leave voters to expire if you think that's a good way to overturn the result but you might also consider that as people age, they become more aware and, as a consequence, some of the people that voted in may well want out now. So your assumption that the majority opinion has changed in favour of remain may well be erroneous.

 

There were several promises of referenda before 2015 and if one of those had actually been fulfilled, we would have been long gone. The shambles we have is due to lack of good leadership and a parliament that is evidently more interested in remaining in this supranational EU, the extent of which was certainly not approved in the 1975 referendum.

 

 

 

But we have a major problem, because in 2016 leave never expected to win the referendum, they could quite happily promise all sorts of things, which were impossible to deliver or, in some cases, mutually incompatible. What was promised as also so vague, that everybody could assume the version of leave they wanted was what was on offer. 

 

Because of this, and the refusal of both the politicians to admit they lied and the public  to accept they were lied to, there was never a hope in hell of delivering what was promised. May brought in leave politicians in major roles in government, but made major unforced tactical errors, to try and capture the mood of the leave voting public. That made the difficult task of delivering a  leave that lived up to some of it's pre-referendum promises almost impossible. The leave team proved mostly incompetent, but were also stymied by the internal disputes over what leave means, apart from leave.  

 

Much of parliament does still want to remain, but that is because no form of leave has been yet found that will not decimate much of the economy. Politicians, from both sides, are astute enough to realize if they do inflict a bad version of leave on their constituents, they will shortly be out of a job. They are faced with a choice if we don't find a decent version of Brexit, either risk losing  their jobs by not delivering the "will of the people" or lose their jobs because their constituents don't like being poorer.

[dick dasterdly]

Just now, tebee said:

 

 

 

 

But we have a major problem, because in 2016 leave never expected to win the referendum, they could quite happily promise all sorts of things, which were impossible to deliver or, in some cases, mutually incompatible. What was promised as also so vague, that everybody could assume the version of leave they wanted was what was on offer. 

 

Because of this, and the refusal of both the politicians to admit they lied and the public  to accept they were lied to, there was never a hope in hell of delivering what was promised. May brought in leave politicians in major roles in government, but made major unforced tactical errors, to try and capture the mood of the leave voting public. That made the difficult task of delivering a  leave that lived up to some of it's pre-referendum promises almost impossible. The leave team proved mostly incompetent, but were also stymied by the internal disputes over what leave means, apart from leave.  

 

Much of parliament does still want to remain, but that is because no form of leave has been yet found that will not decimate much of the economy. Politicians, from both sides, are astute enough to realize if they do inflict a bad version of leave on their constituents, they will shortly be out of a job. They are faced with a choice if we don't find a decent version of Brexit, either risk losing  their jobs by not delivering the "will of the people" or lose their jobs because their constituents don't like being poorer.

"Because of this, and the refusal of both the politicians to admit they lied"

 

To look on the bright side, the govt. 'sort of' admitted (after the referendum result) that Osborne's promised 'punishment budget' was a lie - and he was sacked as a result.  A bit unfair, as nobody in the govt. came out to admit that it was a lie prior to the referendum....

 

"Much of parliament does still want to remain"

 

Agree entirely....

[Stupooey]

55 minutes ago, rixalex said:

It wasn't the referendum itself that was the problem, it was the politicians who promised to abide by it but who have in the main just tried everything to do the opposite. Had the referendum result been the way that they had wanted; had the nation dutifully voted to remain, there would have been none of the "present omnishambles", the vote would have been accepted and the whole chapter closed.

 

And regarding, "if the UK does finally leave in 2019 it will almost certainly be against the will of the electorate at that time", if that is true - it seems like unverified random speculation at this point to me - well then, having respected the outcome of the 2016 referendum, those people who want back in can make their case then.

The main problem as I see it is that nobody actually believed the Referendum result would turn out the way it did. Because of this it was treated as just another election, with no thought given as to who should be allowed to vote (UK nationals who are long-term EU residents? 16 and 17 year olds?) or whether a simple majority was sufficient for such a drastic change (what if it had been 50.01/49.99?).

Regarding the "unverified random speculation", I did some number crunching but admittedly had to make some assumptions, namely that Leavers and Remainers have been dying off at the same rate (it may well be that many Remainers have lost the will to live) and that the new 18-20 year olds would vote and turn out in the same manner as their predecessors. The net loss to Leave and the net gain to Remain would be just sufficient to cancel out the majority from 2016.

[kwilco]

4 hours ago, rixalex said:

Why would another vote put an end to anything? Once you break the promise of having said you would "abide by the result of the 2016 referendum, whichever way it went", and having used the excuse of "referendums are only advisory", henceforth, who will take any referendum seriously and who from the losing side will not simply leave it a few months and then declare that the public has changed its mind, and therefore we must have another referendum? The answer is nobody. That's the thing about democratic rights. If you blatantly ignore them once, the precedent is set.

End democracy? Why?

Why would another vote put an end to anything?

 

Why should it? It's your democratic right to argue the other way ...but we'll still be in the Eu - get over it!

Edited September 27, 2018 by kwilco

[kwilco]

Referndum or not - you can't promise to make the world flat.

[mommysboy]

2 hours ago, CanterbrigianBangkoker said:

To champagne socialist lefty types, the means ALWAYS justifies the end. So, dirty tactics mean nothing to them, it's all fair game to reach the outcome THEY desire.

 

Wow, that's rich!

[nauseus]

4 hours ago, sandyf said:

How to avoid reality in one easy step.

Brexit has always been an emotional argument based on a distorted perception of the EU.

It seems to be that your perception of reality is what has been distorted. 

[rixalex]

8 minutes ago, kwilco said:

End democracy? Why?

Why would another vote put an end to anything?

 

Why should it? It's your democratic right to argue the other way ...but we'll still be in the Eu - get over it!

Where did i say "end democracy"? I try to leave the overblown hyperbole to the remainers.

 

It's not the having another vote thing that is anti-democratic, it's the failing to implement one vote, and then having another, and then implementing that one.

 

That's just picking and choosing when to implement a vote based on whether it goes your way or not. On what planet is that democracy?

 

As for getting over anything, if the vote had been to remain i would have got over it immediately. You are the one who needs to "get over it". You lost. Man up and accept it.

[rixalex]

25 minutes ago, Stupooey said:

Regarding the "unverified random speculation", I did some number crunching but admittedly had to make some assumptions, namely that Leavers and Remainers have been dying off at the same rate (it may well be that many Remainers have lost the will to live) and that the new 18-20 year olds would vote and turn out in the same manner as their predecessors. The net loss to Leave and the net gain to Remain would be just sufficient to cancel out the majority from 2016.

Your calculations (otherwise known as speculations) are flawed because you don't take into account the fact that remainers have got older (as of course have we all) and if your theory of older people being more likely to vote leave, that therefore means that a percentage of remainers (now older and wiser) have now come around to the leave argument.

[rixalex]

56 minutes ago, tebee said:

 

But we have a major problem, because in 2016 leave never expected to win the referendum, they could quite happily promise all sorts of things, which were impossible to deliver or, in some cases, mutually incompatible. What was promised as also so vague, that everybody could assume the version of leave they wanted was what was on offer. 

 

 

Voting to remain it is also far from certain what that vote will mean in terms of the direction the EU goes in. At the end of the day, a vote either way is a vote for something the down the road. It's really not about today. It's about the future. And that is something nobody knows.

 

A vote in which everything is laid out in terms of, this will happen, and then this, followed by this, resulting in this, and then this will happen, and then we'll all live happily ever after - that vote doesn't exist. It will never happen, until the day we can see in to the future. I get that is what you would like, but what you like isn't available and never will be.

[CG1 Blue]

2 hours ago, nauseus said:

you might also consider that as people age, they become more aware and, as a consequence, some of the people that voted in may well want out now. So your assumption that the majority opinion has changed in favour of remain may well be erroneous.

That is a very good point. This argument that the 16 year olds from 2016 would now be old enough to vote (Remain) is counterbalanced by the 20 somethings who have now seen the light, and would vote against EU rule this time.

[aright]

1 hour ago, rixalex said:

Voting to remain it is also far from certain what that vote will mean in terms of the direction the EU goes in. At the end of the day, a vote either way is a vote for something the down the road. It's really not about today. It's about the future. And that is something nobody knows.

 

A vote in which everything is laid out in terms of, this will happen, and then this, followed by this, resulting in this, and then this will happen, and then we'll all live happily ever after - that vote doesn't exist. It will never happen, until the day we can see in to the future. I get that is what you would like, but what you like isn't available and never will be.

I agree. Part of the problem is the great unwashed(understandably) want to be part of the negotiation loop and have their feelings recognized. It's too late, their feelings were recognized at the referendum, it's now up to the negotiators to carve out the best deal they can, without (nor should they) listening to or recognizing current sentiment. As a result of the vote red and green lines have been set and  giving running commentary on either side will only draw opprobrium . People can have their say when the deal is on the table.

[tebee]

2 hours ago, rixalex said:

Your calculations (otherwise known as speculations) are flawed because you don't take into account the fact that remainers have got older (as of course have we all) and if your theory of older people being more likely to vote leave, that therefore means that a percentage of remainers (now older and wiser) have now come around to the leave argument.

 

But do remainers become leavers as they grow older ?

 

I think the culture and values change would be too great.

 

I suspect the difference is most of the older generation have got their news from the mainstream media's what have been mostly anti-EU for years, while the younger generation get theirs from online sources which tend to be more balanced overall, although there are extremes of both sides if you want to choose them. If they are interested, they can conduct their own research online and make their own decision.

 

Of course confirmation bias will lead you to rely on sources that support your existing world view - I always read some that support the opposite of my views, but I'm probably an exception.      

 

 

[Stupooey]

2 hours ago, rixalex said:

Your calculations (otherwise known as speculations) are flawed because you don't take into account the fact that remainers have got older (as of course have we all) and if your theory of older people being more likely to vote leave, that therefore means that a percentage of remainers (now older and wiser) have now come around to the leave argument.

 

As I said, my figures were calculated on the basis that those who voted in 2016 would vote the same way again, and abstainers would abstain again. Surveys have shown that very few have changed sides since the Referendum, but if anything there has been a small shift towards Remain, particularly among Labour supporters in the North. I would also suspect that the complacency which affected the Remain vote last time would not be repeated.

And your "older and wiser" is my "older and more demented". Myself included.

[aright]

1 minute ago, tebee said:

 

But do remainers become leavers as they grow older ?

 

I think the culture and values change would be too great.

 

I suspect the difference is most of the older generation have got their news from the mainstream media's what have been mostly anti-EU for years, while the younger generation get theirs from online sources which tend to be more balanced overall, although there are extremes of both sides if you want to choose them. If they are interested, they can conduct their own research online and make their own decision.

 

Of course confirmation bias will lead you to rely on sources that support your existing world view - I always read some that support the opposite of my views, but I'm probably an exception.      

 

 

What online sources do you believe are more balanced overall?