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

[bristolboy]

4 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

I don't know.  I think it was senior legal wigs in the government and it wasn't contested by anyone; proof in the pudding.  Surely a legal challenge would have been made if it was possible.

A legal challenge to what? The very same reason that the referendum was only advisory also means that no legal challenge to the government invoking article 50 would succeed. There was a legal challenge to the PM invoking Article 50 without the consent of the House of Commons and that succeeded.

[mommysboy]

9 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

A legal challenge to what? The very same reason that the referendum was only advisory also means that no legal challenge to the government invoking article 50 would succeed. There was a legal challenge to the PM invoking Article 50 without the consent of the House of Commons and that succeeded.

A legal challenge to invoking Article 50 on the grounds that the referendum was advisory only, and therefore, there no grounds to enact it legally, I suppose!

 

Quite simply, Parliament (inevitably) accepts that a referendum is binding.  Parliament does not accept that it may be circumvented in passing laws, hence that legal challenge succeeded.

 

You really are going down a back alley to nowhere really imo.

 

 

 

Edited August 16, 2018 by mommysboy

[bristolboy]

1 minute ago, mommysboy said:

A legal challenge to invoking Article 50 on the grounds that the referendum was advisory only, and therefore, there no grounds to enact it legally, I suppose!

 

Quite simply, Parliament (inevitably) accepts that a referendum is binding.  Parliament does not accept that it may be circumvented in passing laws, hence that legal challenge succeeded.

 

You really are going down a back alley to nowhere really imo.

 

 

 

But Parliament doesn't need an advisory referendum to invoke article 50. It's a right guaranteed by EU law. Parliament may have chosen to follow that advice but it free not to do so. Of course, political reality would have made that a very difficult course to follow but realpolitik is not the law.

The point about the success of that legal challenge is that the remainers who brought that suit surely would have tried to prevent Brexit if they thought that the referendum somehow made Parliament's action contrary to law. But it's such an obviously baseless point, that they didn't. Of course, if you can provide some actual evidence that the referendum was legally binding, that would prove your point. So far, I haven't seen that anywhere.

[ThaiPauly]

On 8/10/2018 at 3:23 PM, nabbie said:

Little off topic, Not so good news for UK expats ?    due to Brexit progress?

Brexiteers don't pay any attention to charts like this, they think they are made up to scare them!!

[mommysboy]

5 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

But Parliament doesn't need an advisory referendum to invoke article 50. It's a right guaranteed by EU law. Parliament may have chosen to follow that advice but it free not to do so. Of course, political reality would have made that a very difficult course to follow but realpolitik is not the law.

The point about the success of that legal challenge is that the remainers who brought that suit surely would have tried to prevent Brexit if they thought that the referendum somehow made Parliament's action contrary to law. But it's such an obviously baseless point, that they didn't. Of course, if you can provide some actual evidence that the referendum was legally binding, that would prove your point. So far, I haven't seen that anywhere.

I simply can't see the point in arguing further.

 

I can only say that technically you are right; now let's look at reality.  Ultimately, Parliament decided not to act against the will of the people, and it is sovereign.

 

 

 

 

Edited August 16, 2018 by mommysboy

[mommysboy]

6 minutes ago, ThaiPauly said:

Brexiteers don't pay any attention to charts like this, they think they are made up to scare them!!

I'm anticipating a further marked devaluation upon exit- working on about 37 baht to the pound. My opinion only- not scaremongering.

[mommysboy]

Let's read some expert analysis on the subject of voiding/challenging Brexit.

 

https://www.ft.com/content/98a2c89a-37ef-11e8-8b98-2f31af407cc8

 

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, tebee said:

Even the Tory Express is now saying it is a shambles and we need a second referendum -  I can't help feeling Brexit is slowly dying.

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1003415/Brexit-news-latest-chequers-deal-brexit-single-market-second-referendum-Theresa-May

It's Hunter saying it, just quoted by the Express, silly. 

[nauseus]

39 minutes ago, ThaiPauly said:

Brexiteers don't pay any attention to charts like this, they think they are made up to scare them!!

Your assumption is incorrect, they definitely pay attention and those in Thailand feel the pain as real. 

 

But you might also add that the THB has been appreciating steadily until very recently.   

 

 

 

[tebee]

Even if there is no way to legally challenge Brexit, the mood in the country is changing as it becomes more and more obvious that the Brexit that was promised is just not possible - politicians  will find a way to abandon it when it becomes less politically painful to not deliver an outdated will of the people that to get the blame for delivering a disaster.

 

That day is fast approaching.... 

[tebee]

18 minutes ago, nauseus said:

It's Hunter saying it, just quoted by the Express, silly. 

It may be just an opinion piece, but would we have see such opinions published in the Express even 6 months ago?

 

Now even the Telegraph is openly saying the Tories are clueless !

 

   https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/08/15/chris-grayling-has-no-credible-plan-no-deal-brexit-road-hauliers/

[Stupooey]

As I see it, the problems we see now are down to almost nobody thinking, up to the moment the result was declared, that Leave would win the Referendum. Certainly not the Government, who as we well know had made no contingency plans. Not even Farage, in many ways the catalyst for the vote, who was prepared to concede defeat on voting day. Because of this, no thought was given as to who should be allowed to vote, the same electoral roll being used as for General Elections. In view of the long-ter  effect of the result, should 16 year olds have been allowed to vote, as they were for example in the Scottish Referendum? How about the 700,000-odd UK citizens who have worked in the EU for more than 15 years, who would have to apply for work permits if the UK left and many of whom would then be forced to return? Arguably they are more affected by the result of the vote than UK residents, and you don't have to be Einstein (or even Lord Ashcroft) to know which way most of them would have voted. Cameron was so confident of a Remain vote that he promised to "implement your decision". But a decision must be decisive. Is 52-48 decisive? Would 50.01-49.99 have been decisive? In the real world, a referendum to make major changes to the Constitution of a body would require something like a 2:1majority. Even 60/40, or 50% of the electorate, would be difficult to argue against, but the problem with a referendum is that, unless it is seen to be decisive, it causes more problems than it solves, as we are currently witnessing.

As someone who is opposed to referenda per se (for a start they fly in the face of UK sovereignty, which rests with Parliament), I can hardly support a second (sorry, third - I nearly forgot 1975) one, but I do have a solution, albeit radical. I believe that the leaders of all the parties represented in Parliament who were opposed to Brexit (all except the DUP, I believe) should actually bite the bullet and show some leadership. Until now they have been too afraid to follow their convictions for fear of being labelled 'undemocratic' by their opponents. I believe they should issue a joint statement reversing the decision on the triggering of Article 50, on the basis that the referendum was not decisive. The re-negotiated terms would need to be implemented, though, and if necessary further negotiation addressing the concerns of Brexit supporters (many of whom appear to have voted on single issues rather than the complete package), using the referendum result as a bargaining tool, which could be implemented if sufficient progress was not made within, say, 2 years.

I realise that this might cause apoplexy amongst Leave voters, but like many others I am not convinced that the Referendum result truly reflected the wishes of the British people. For several reasons the result was skewed in favour of Leave, and nearly all the indicators since show a small majority in favour of Remain. Although the 2017 election was not run as an in-or-out decider, it was hardly an endorsement of the existing situation: for example, the sole UKIP MP was soundly defeated by an anti-Brexit Conservative in Clacton.

Edited August 16, 2018 by Stupooey
Typo

[mommysboy]

19 minutes ago, Stupooey said:

As I see it, the problems we see now are down to almost nobody thinking, up to the moment the result was declared, that Leave would win the Referendum. Certainly not the Government, who as we well know had made no contingency plans. Not even Farage, in many ways the catalyst for the vote, who was prepared to concede defeat on voting day. Because of this, no thought was given as to who should be allowed to vote, the same electoral roll being used as for General Elections. In view of the long-ter  effect of the result, should 16 year olds have been allowed to vote, as they were for example in the Scottish Referendum? How about the 700,000-odd UK citizens who have worked in the EU for more than 15 years, who would have to apply for work permits if the UK left and many of whom would then be forced to return? Arguably they are more affected by the result of the vote than UK residents, and you don't have to be Einstein (or even Lord Ashcroft) to know which way most of them would have voted. Cameron was so confident of a Remain vote that he promised to "implement your decision". But a decision must be decisive. Is 52-48 decisive? Would 50.01-49.99 have been decisive? In the real world, a referendum to make major changes to the Constitution of a body would require something like a 2:1majority. Even 60/40, or 50% of the electorate, would be difficult to argue against, but the problem with a referendum is that, unless it is seen to be decisive, it causes more problems than it solves, as we are currently witnessing.

As someone who is opposed to referenda per se (for a start they fly in the face of UK sovereignty, which rests with Parliament), I can hardly support a second (sorry, third - I nearly forgot 1975) one, but I do have a solution, albeit radical. I believe that the leaders of all the parties represented in Parliament who were opposed to Brexit (all except the DUP, I believe) should actually bite the bullet and show some leadership. Until now they have been too afraid to follow their convictions for fear of being labelled 'undemocratic' by their opponents. I believe they should issue a joint statement reversing the decision on the triggering of Article 50, on the basis that the referendum was not decisive. The re-negotiated terms would need to be implemented, though, and if necessary further negotiation addressing the concerns of Brexit supporters (many of whom appear to have voted on single issues rather than the complete package), using the referendum result as a bargaining tool, which could be implemented if sufficient progress was not made within, say, 2 years.

I realise that this might cause apoplexy amongst Leave voters, but like many others I am not convinced that the Referendum result truly reflected the wishes of the British people. For several reasons the result was skewed in favour of Leave, and nearly all the indicators since show a small majority in favour of Remain. Although the 2017 election was not run as an in-or-out decider, it was hardly an endorsement of the existing situation: for example, the sole UKIP MP was soundly defeated by an anti-Brexit Conservative in Clacton.

 

I think it was a shame England didn't win the world cup, but you know...

[Stupooey]

Don't worry, they'll have another chance in 4 years' time. I'm sure they'll win then, particularly if the Premiership is not clogged up with all these damned foreigners keeping the far superior English players out of the teams.

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, Stupooey said:

As I see it, the problems we see now are down to almost nobody thinking, up to the moment the result was declared, that Leave would win the Referendum. Certainly not the Government, who as we well know had made no contingency plans. Not even Farage, in many ways the catalyst for the vote, who was prepared to concede defeat on voting day. Because of this, no thought was given as to who should be allowed to vote, the same electoral roll being used as for General Elections. In view of the long-ter  effect of the result, should 16 year olds have been allowed to vote, as they were for example in the Scottish Referendum? How about the 700,000-odd UK citizens who have worked in the EU for more than 15 years, who would have to apply for work permits if the UK left and many of whom would then be forced to return? Arguably they are more affected by the result of the vote than UK residents, and you don't have to be Einstein (or even Lord Ashcroft) to know which way most of them would have voted. Cameron was so confident of a Remain vote that he promised to "implement your decision". But a decision must be decisive. Is 52-48 decisive? Would 50.01-49.99 have been decisive? In the real world, a referendum to make major changes to the Constitution of a body would require something like a 2:1majority. Even 60/40, or 50% of the electorate, would be difficult to argue against, but the problem with a referendum is that, unless it is seen to be decisive, it causes more problems than it solves, as we are currently witnessing.

As someone who is opposed to referenda per se (for a start they fly in the face of UK sovereignty, which rests with Parliament), I can hardly support a second (sorry, third - I nearly forgot 1975) one, but I do have a solution, albeit radical. I believe that the leaders of all the parties represented in Parliament who were opposed to Brexit (all except the DUP, I believe) should actually bite the bullet and show some leadership. Until now they have been too afraid to follow their convictions for fear of being labelled 'undemocratic' by their opponents. I believe they should issue a joint statement reversing the decision on the triggering of Article 50, on the basis that the referendum was not decisive. The re-negotiated terms would need to be implemented, though, and if necessary further negotiation addressing the concerns of Brexit supporters (many of whom appear to have voted on single issues rather than the complete package), using the referendum result as a bargaining tool, which could be implemented if sufficient progress was not made within, say, 2 years.

I realise that this might cause apoplexy amongst Leave voters, but like many others I am not convinced that the Referendum result truly reflected the wishes of the British people. For several reasons the result was skewed in favour of Leave, and nearly all the indicators since show a small majority in favour of Remain. Although the 2017 election was not run as an in-or-out decider, it was hardly an endorsement of the existing situation: for example, the sole UKIP MP was soundly defeated by an anti-Brexit Conservative in Clacton.

Handkerchief?

[sandyf]

3 hours ago, mommysboy said:

 

but when it was agreed that this was a once and for all binding vote (as I think it was)

Nothing like that can ever be agreed "once and for all". It is the right of every parliament to repeal any decision by a previous parliament, its how democracy works in the UK.

 

The reality of course is somewhat different, with the opposition party led by a closet brexiteer even a change of government is unlikely to resolve the issue.

[sandyf]

2 hours ago, mommysboy said:

Let's read some expert analysis on the subject of voiding/challenging Brexit.

 

https://www.ft.com/content/98a2c89a-37ef-11e8-8b98-2f31af407cc8

 

One door closes and another one opens, the ball is still up in the air.

 

Their argument will be heard by a High Court judge, who will decide whether there are grounds for a full review.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-uk-expats-eu-high-court-legal-challenge-referendum-campaign-spending-a8492641.html

[Stupooey]

31 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Handkerchief?

Very powerful counter-argument there. Or are you waving the white one?

[dunroaming]

On ‎8‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 11:13 AM, Lokie said:

Lol, I have five children ranging in age from 23 to 33 lets just say they do not talk politics with their dad, I know a bit flimsy but that is where i mostly base the political element on, my kids seemed to be taken in by Corbins we will do this that and the other in recent two years (I said to them where is all the money coming from to do Mr Corbins amazing things??)  prior to this I don't even think any of them had any interest in politics nore casting their votes. When I told one of my degree educated daughters the last labour govt left a not in the drawer saying 'sorry no money left' she thought I was making it up... 

 

I agree with you it will matter most to the younger generations but I honestly think the UK will be better off in the long run out of europe. I voted out not based on the rubbish that was in the headlines by both sides of the argument, I voted to leave as I really believe that we will be better off in say ten years as a country. That was the consensus yesterday with the group of good friends I was with (In Manchester UK) but yes ages between 53 to 70 all lucky enough to be early retired and all have children.

I went to Uni in Manchester but that is another story!  However like the majority of students at the time I was all "Power to the People".  In other words leaning well over to the left!  It is the standard position for the vast majority of university students, then and now.  But 73% of people under 24 voted to remain and they weren't all being influenced by Corbyn, who was never convincing as a remain campaigner anyway.

 

I live in Tory heartland (Raab is the local MP) and 80% of the residents here voted to remain.  In this area Labour usually comes a poor third in elections so I would say that Corbyn rarely gets a mention.

 

But I do have a vested interest as most of my business is done with Europe and the USA.  As a safety net I have opened a base in Europe so I can seamlessly move my business there if May continues to screw up Brexit.  But for me it doesn't matter that much.  It does matter for my son though who is still going through the education system in Britain.  I am always drumming into him that the world is his oyster and it is important to keep as many doors open as possible.

 

I think most of us voted in the referendum for what we thought was best for the country and those of us with children for what is best for them.  We are all Europeans and that will not change but to restrict our access to the European markets has to be a negative thing, at least in my opinion.

[mommysboy]

The proverbial elephant in the room that is being conveniently over looked on all sides is that there is one eminently sensible solution that seems entirely practicable and do-able at this juncture in time. Soft Brexit (Norway model) wouldn't need even a second vote, and would sail through Parliament, and Brussels.  There would be minimal disruption or economic cost.  It would be entirely reasonable to hold another referendum in say 10 years; this time much better thought out and with clear options.  

 

If the result was Brexit, then that would be a clear mandate for an unequivocal, and permanent withdrawal from the EU.

 

Now, I await howls of derision from Brexiteers and Remainers alike.

 

 

Edited August 16, 2018 by mommysboy

[Stupooey]

2 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

I went to Uni in Manchester but that is another story!  However like the majority of students at the time I was all "Power to the People".  In other words leaning well over to the left!  It is the standard position for the vast majority of university students, then and now.  But 73% of people under 24 voted to remain and they weren't all being influenced by Corbyn, who was never convincing as a remain campaigner anyway.

 

I live in Tory heartland (Raab is the local MP) and 80% of the residents here voted to remain.  In this area Labour usually comes a poor third in elections so I would say that Corbyn rarely gets a mention.

 

But I do have a vested interest as most of my business is done with Europe and the USA.  As a safety net I have opened a base in Europe so I can seamlessly move my business there if May continues to screw up Brexit.  But for me it doesn't matter that much.  It does matter for my son though who is still going through the education system in Britain.  I am always drumming into him that the world is his oyster and it is important to keep as many doors open as possible.

 

I think most of us voted in the referendum for what we thought was best for the country and those of us with children for what is best for them.  We are all Europeans and that will not change but to restrict our access to the European markets has to be a negative thing, at least in my opinion.

I am always surprised when Brexit supporters bring up the name of Corbyn along with horror stories about how he would wreck, or even bankrupt, the country. Of course if Britain was out of the EU this would be a possibility, as he would only have the very limited powers of the House of Lords to hold him back over a possible five year term. On the other hand, if Britain was still in Europe such policies would soon fall foul of the Maastricht Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact, and he would be pressurised into changing them.

[dunroaming]

1 hour ago, Stupooey said:

As I see it, the problems we see now are down to almost nobody thinking, up to the moment the result was declared, that Leave would win the Referendum. Certainly not the Government, who as we well know had made no contingency plans. Not even Farage, in many ways the catalyst for the vote, who was prepared to concede defeat on voting day. Because of this, no thought was given as to who should be allowed to vote, the same electoral roll being used as for General Elections. In view of the long-ter  effect of the result, should 16 year olds have been allowed to vote, as they were for example in the Scottish Referendum? How about the 700,000-odd UK citizens who have worked in the EU for more than 15 years, who would have to apply for work permits if the UK left and many of whom would then be forced to return? Arguably they are more affected by the result of the vote than UK residents, and you don't have to be Einstein (or even Lord Ashcroft) to know which way most of them would have voted. Cameron was so confident of a Remain vote that he promised to "implement your decision". But a decision must be decisive. Is 52-48 decisive? Would 50.01-49.99 have been decisive? In the real world, a referendum to make major changes to the Constitution of a body would require something like a 2:1majority. Even 60/40, or 50% of the electorate, would be difficult to argue against, but the problem with a referendum is that, unless it is seen to be decisive, it causes more problems than it solves, as we are currently witnessing.

As someone who is opposed to referenda per se (for a start they fly in the face of UK sovereignty, which rests with Parliament), I can hardly support a second (sorry, third - I nearly forgot 1975) one, but I do have a solution, albeit radical. I believe that the leaders of all the parties represented in Parliament who were opposed to Brexit (all except the DUP, I believe) should actually bite the bullet and show some leadership. Until now they have been too afraid to follow their convictions for fear of being labelled 'undemocratic' by their opponents. I believe they should issue a joint statement reversing the decision on the triggering of Article 50, on the basis that the referendum was not decisive. The re-negotiated terms would need to be implemented, though, and if necessary further negotiation addressing the concerns of Brexit supporters (many of whom appear to have voted on single issues rather than the complete package), using the referendum result as a bargaining tool, which could be implemented if sufficient progress was not made within, say, 2 years.

I realise that this might cause apoplexy amongst Leave voters, but like many others I am not convinced that the Referendum result truly reflected the wishes of the British people. For several reasons the result was skewed in favour of Leave, and nearly all the indicators since show a small majority in favour of Remain. Although the 2017 election was not run as an in-or-out decider, it was hardly an endorsement of the existing situation: for example, the sole UKIP MP was soundly defeated by an anti-Brexit Conservative in Clacton.

Well put together argument but as you will see from the usual Brexiteers on TV, they are not listening to anything that goes against there march towards a Brexit disaster.  But it's not just here, there are many in the UK who stick their fingers in their ears and just go "Blah! Blah! Blah!

[tebee]

1 minute ago, Stupooey said:

I am always surprised when Brexit supporters bring up the name of Corbyn along with horror stories about how he would wreck, or even bankrupt, the country. Of course if Britain was out of the EU this would be a possibility, as he would only have the very limited powers of the House of Lords to hold him back over a possible five year term. On the other hand, if Britain was still in Europe such policies would soon fall foul of the Maastricht Treaty and the Stability and Growth Pact, and he would be pressurised into changing them.

But Brexit has the real danger of not only handing him power without EU oversight, but with Henry 8th powers to do as he sees fit without any parliamentary oversight too  !

[Stupooey]

6 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

The proverbial elephant in the room that is being conveniently over looked on all sides is that there is one eminently sensible solution that seems entirely practicable and do-able at this juncture in time. Soft Brexit (Norway model) wouldn't need even a second vote, and would sail through Parliament, and Brussels.  There would be minimal disruption or economic cost.  It would be entirely reasonable to hold another referendum in say 10 years; this time much better thought out and with clear options.

 

 

The only problem is that it is a solution which pleases no-one. Remainers will say it takes us out of the EU, and Leavers that it was not what they voted for.

[mommysboy]

7 minutes ago, Stupooey said:

The only problem is that it is a solution which pleases no-one. Remainers will say it takes us out of the EU, and Leavers that it was not what they voted for.

I think if the options of :

 

1. Soft Brexit

2. Hard Brexit

 

were put to the people then there would be a 70% vote in favour of soft Brexit.  The hard core Brexiters, and hard core Remainers are a minority in my opinion.  The silent majority are a reasonable bunch: most realise that there is neither a mandate for hard Brexit, or to remain in the EU.

Edited August 16, 2018 by mommysboy

[dunroaming]

3 minutes ago, Stupooey said:

The only problem is that it is a solution which pleases no-one. Remainers will say it takes us out of the EU, and Leavers that it was not what they voted for.

It isn't going to be what the leavers voted for but they know a peoples vote on the final deal will reject Brexit (as it looks like it will be today).  In their world a bad deal is better than no deal and the blinkers are staying firmly in place.

[rixalex]

Even if there is no way to legally challenge Brexit, the mood in the country is changing as it becomes more and more obvious that the Brexit that was promised is just not possible - politicians  will find a way to abandon it when it becomes less politically painful to not deliver an outdated will of the people that to get the blame for delivering a disaster.
 
That day is fast approaching.... 

Remainers have been saying that the mood has changed and that people have changed their minds, right from straight after the referendum pretty much. I think it's true to say that almost everyone is fed up and frustrated with how things have progressed (or not progressed), but it's quiet a leap to therefore conclude that people want the 2016 decision overturned and for the country to return cap in hand to the EU. I think it's as likely, if not more so, that people simply want Bexit to be implemented and for the country to move on. Enough with the dithering.

I think you're right about the politicians though. Stall, delay and obstruct has the tactic of most of them from the start. Nothing they'd like more than to keep kicking it into the long grass until everyone forgets the referendum ever happened.

Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[mommysboy]

4 minutes ago, dunroaming said:

It isn't going to be what the leavers voted for but they know a peoples vote on the final deal will reject Brexit (as it looks like it will be today).  In their world a bad deal is better than no deal and the blinkers are staying firmly in place.

In all honesty, I would say to any dissenting Remainers that really they have no mandate whatsoever to remain in the EU since they lost the referendum.  And I would say to dissenting Brexiteers that they are getting what their rather slender, snapshot in time victory merits.

[Stupooey]

20 minutes ago, rixalex said:

Remainers have been saying that the mood has changed and that people have changed their minds, right from straight after the referendum pretty much. I think it's true to say that almost everyone is fed up and frustrated with how things have progressed (or not progressed), but it's quiet a leap to therefore conclude that people want the 2016 decision overturned and for the country to return cap in hand to the EU. I think it's as likely, if not more so, that people simply want Bexit to be implemented and for the country to move on. Enough with the dithering.

I think you're right about the politicians though. Stall, delay and obstruct has the tactic of most of them from the start. Nothing they'd like more than to keep kicking it into the long grass until everyone forgets the referendum ever happened.

Sent from my SM-G610F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

I'm not sure they have changed their minds. Because nobody expected this result, many people admitted after the referendum that they had voted Leave purely as an anti-Government statement, a decision they regretted immediately afterwards.

In addition, because of the pre-referendum opinion poll figures, many people, particularly Remainers (surveys since have all shown that most non-voters say they would have voted Remain, often by a ratio of about 2 to 1) did not bother to vote because the result seemed a foregone conclusion.

Incidentally, there is a very good reason the pollsters got it so wrong, but when I mentioned it in a previous thread it was pooh-poohed, even though it made absolute sense.

[brewsterbudgen]

The proverbial elephant in the room that is being conveniently over looked on all sides is that there is one eminently sensible solution that seems entirely practicable and do-able at this juncture in time. Soft Brexit (Norway model) wouldn't need even a second vote, and would sail through Parliament, and Brussels.  There would be minimal disruption or economic cost.  It would be entirely reasonable to hold another referendum in say 10 years; this time much better thought out and with clear options.  
 
If the result was Brexit, then that would be a clear mandate for an unequivocal, and permanent withdrawal from the EU.
 
Now, I await howls of derision from Brexiteers and Remainers alike.
 
 

I'm a Remainer, but I could live with this. I doubt any hardline Brexiteers could though.

I think we will inexorably move towards something like this; or an extension of leaving, to give time for a more reasonable government to be elected.

In any case, a hard Brexit won't be allowed to happen.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app