17 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

As you point out, he same argument applies to GEs. - but you miss the point that those who didn't vote (a far larger proportion than in the referendum) and those that voted for the party that lost - accepted the result and didn't try to get it changed after the event.

Not correct. I would have done the same in 2016 - being uninformed of the most likely consequences - but unless hell freezes over, I wouldn't necessarily accept it in 2018, particularly as Theresa May has botched up everything she touches relating to Brexit negotiations and who should be given the task of building a hard border in Ireland contrary to the Good Friday agreement which will eventually bring down her government, I trust.  

1 hour ago, tebee said:

No it's not - we have a representative democracy precisely because we  realize most people don't understand the complexities of political negotiations and it's unfair to ask people to make life changing decisions about things they don't understand . It is however fair to ask their opinions. 

 

This is why British referendums are alway advisory.

 

So not following the  vote, because things have arisen that were not clear when the people voted, is precisely how British democracy is supposed to work. 

But would I be correct in thinking you would be in favour of another vote to get your own way?

The sheer nastiness of many of the remainers on this thread is the thing that really hits me as a neutral observer, and a non-remainer, non-leaver. And the second thing that strikes me is the number of comments from non-Brit non-EU citizens who evidently have little knowledge of the EU or the UK, and no personal stake in the outcome, other than trolling the forum. They can usually be distinguished by their vacuous asinine comments on this and other threads: they know who they are, and we know who they are.

 

Someone asked me how can I be a non-remainer, non-leaver. It's simple, I'm an expat who wasn't offered a vote. Given that this is a Thai-based forum I had assumed that most other British forum members weren't offered a vote either.

 

And even if I had been offered a vote, I'm still not sure which way I would have voted.

 

> Remain for short term security.

> Remain for short term national economic benefit.

> Remain because I am a committed European, even if I think the EU is full of holes.

> Leave for self-determination as a nation.

> Leave for the reasons Tony Benn was talking about in the 1970s and 80s, let's call it "sovereignty".

> Leave because of what I see to be major unresolved issues regarding the future of the EU and its bureaucracy.

 

The long-term economic consequences of the UK inside or outside the EU (assuming there is a long-term EU) are not predictable.

 

I have no personal vested interest in the outcome one way or the other. A weak pound would actually benefit me, if I spent more time and money in the UK, but I'm not planning to.

 

Personal travel within the EU will not be affected for me. Business travel within the EU will not be affected for me. Working across the EU for professionals will hardly be affected. Settlement for retirees within the EU will not be affected for people who can afford to.

 

And the referendum finished a while back anyway as I recall. It would be a constitutional, legal. political, and operational nightmare to try and stage a second referendum, despite the wishful thinking of the people on this forum who voted to stay in the EU.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 minute ago, vogie said:

But would I be correct in thinking you would be in favour of another vote to get your own way?

 

And then I would demand another to get my way and so on ad finitum.

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

 

 

 

I've no idea why you think the majority of MPs "understand" the complexities any better than the ordinary, fairly intelligent voter.

 

 

They may not, but the way our democracy works is  they have access to experts and advisors who  can explain to them these complexities - the general public does not have access to this sort of experience. 

 

Of course this all breaks down when like the current government, you prefer to rely on  dogma rather than those derided experts !

5 minutes ago, Stupooey said:

Logically the length of the wait should be proportional to the size of the win, on the - admittedly hypothetical - basis that people will change their minds at a consistent rate. In this case the wait would be (52-48)/(67- 33) x 41 = 4 years 10 months. Another referendum in April 2011 then.

(Just being flippant, I'm anti-referendum full stop, although it might have to take one to correct one as happened in Ireland in 2008/09).

Sorry to be pedantic, but presumably when you said "Another referendum in April 2011 then." - you meant April 2021?

 

Not that it matters, as I have no problem with a political party 'standing' on the platform to re-join the eu at the next GE.  The Lib. Dems. did this at the last GE, and lost badly.

40 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

As you point out, he same argument applies to GEs. - but you miss the point that those who didn't vote (a far larger proportion than in the referendum) and those that voted for the party that lost - accepted the result and didn't try to get it changed after the event.

 

15 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

Not correct. I would have done the same in 2016 - being uninformed of the most likely consequences - but unless hell freezes over, I wouldn't necessarily accept it in 2018, particularly as Theresa May has botched up everything she touches relating to Brexit negotiations and who should be given the task of building a hard border in Ireland contrary to the Good Friday agreement which will eventually bring down her government, I trust.  

Hang on a minute - what do you mean by  "I would have done the same in 2016 - being uninformed of the most likely consequences"?

 

So you didn't vote?  Why?

 

Presumably you (like me) weren't sure of the 'best' way to vote, having problems with both uk and eu politicians/bureaucrats - or, you were unable to vote and will, therefore be unable to vote in any future referendum.

9 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

And then I would demand another to get my way and so on ad finitum.

The way to change something that causes you pain is to act. If you believe that the pain will lessen, the action will be carried out. That's how change at a personal level is effected.

 

As you have aptly demonstrated, the issue many people have on this topic is that their beliefs are so deeply entrenched, that any change to those beliefs would cause them more pain, and so they stay in one mindset. 

 

Even to the extent of posting a view where posters can agree, which gives them pleasure, and so reaffirms that their beliefs are true.

 

I am also guilty of that, however I realise it.

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, tebee said:

No it's not - we have a representative democracy precisely because we  realize most people don't understand the complexities of political negotiations and it's unfair to ask people to make life changing decisions about things they don't understand . It is however fair to ask their opinions. 

 

This is why British referendums are alway advisory.

 

So not following the  vote, because things have arisen that were not clear when the people voted, is precisely how British democracy is supposed to work. 

 

17 minutes ago, vogie said:

But would I be correct in thinking you would be in favour of another vote to get your own way?

More interestingly, would tebee have supported another vote if 'remain' had won the referendum - now it's been made clear that the remain argument was at least as flawed/inaccurate as the leave campaign?  e.g. Armageddon didn't happen as a result/Osborne's promised punishment budget etc. etc.

 

The whole campaign on both sides was (and still is) based on biased opinion.....

3 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

Hang on a minute - what do you mean by  "I would have done the same in 2016 - being uninformed of the most likely consequences"?

 

So you didn't vote?  Why?

 

Presumably you (like me) weren't sure of the 'best' way to vote, having problems with both uk and eu politicians/bureaucrats - or, you were unable to vote and will, therefore be unable to vote in any future referendum.

I was out of the UK at that time, immersed in relationship issues, and missed the electoral time-limit to vote. To be candid, I take a very dim view of any political party who, IMO, are only out for personal gain and power - and when in the UK at election times I'd rather vote for the Green or Raving Looney party, which adhere to my bias towards resolving environmental issues.

 

If I was eligible, having resided abroad  - non EU - since 2009 on a fixed UK pension albeit still paying UK taxes,  and was offered a vote in the next few months I would vote to remain in the EU because it would cause me least pain - presumably because the pound would strengthen. 

 

2 hours ago, citybiker said:

 

Failure to respect is also failure to allow democracy to continue.

Only remainers & anti Brexit campaigners believe the vote doesn’t have to be respected, so 17 M made a stupid decision?

Bizarre & utter ridiculous statement to make.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

True.

 

I don't believe in democracy anymore- I mean if it can bring this about then what's the worth of it?

 

I would say there is a big chance we are heading for a socialist government, which will be some consolation to people like me.

2 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

True.

 

I don't believe in democracy anymore- I mean if it can bring this about then what's the worth of it?

 

I would say there is a big chance we are heading for a socialist government, which will be some consolation to people like me.

Entirely off topic, but do you honestly think the labour party is any more trustworthy than the tories?

 

The blair govts. proved that they were as bad as the tories - which is when I stopped voting ☹️.

29 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

I was out of the UK at that time, immersed in relationship issues, and missed the electoral time-limit to vote. To be candid, I take a very dim view of any political party who, IMO, are only out for personal gain and power - and when in the UK at election times I'd rather vote for the Green or Raving Looney party, which adhere to my bias towards resolving environmental issues.

 

If I was eligible, having resided abroad  - non EU - since 2009 on a fixed UK pension albeit still paying UK taxes,  and was offered a vote in the next few months I would vote to remain in the EU because it would cause me least pain - presumably because the pound would strengthen. 

 

Fair enough, but I left the uk in '06 and was still eligible to vote.

 

Unfortunately all the political parties and politicians "are only out for personal gain and power" IMO. 

 

Like you, I did consider the Green party, but the result of their policies would only make things even worse for those 'at the bottom of the pile' as far as I could make out..  i.e. Probably better for the planet, but worse for the poorest in relatively wealthy countries.

 

And even more off topic, I can see a good case for compulsory voting - as long as deliberately 'spoiled' ballot papers are shown as part of the results!

 

6 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

The blair govts. proved that they were as bad as the tories 

The Blair government proved that the Labour Party had become Tories ?

 

All Blair did for the most part was fine tune Thatcherism. And Brown was Blair's Lady in Waiting, much like Hillary waiting for Bill to get off the potty!

1 hour ago, My Thai Life said:

 

 

Someone asked me how can I be a non-remainer, non-leaver. It's simple, I'm an expat who wasn't offered a vote. Given that this is a Thai-based forum I had assumed that most other British forum members weren't offered a vote either.

 

 

 

 

 

As the person who posed the question, being ineligible to vote shouldn't preclude anyone from having an opinion on the matter, particularly for people directly affected by the result. I personally was eligible to vote, having been on the UK electoral register within the last 15 years (as I suspect most British forum members have been, although I am not an expert on TV demographics). I personally was eligible to vote, but chose not to as I felt it was morally wrong for someone of my age (over 65), who was unlikely to return to live in the UK, to help decide the long-term future of the country. However I have many relatives and friends there who are having to suffer the consequences of the result, so I am not ashamed of holding and sharing fairly strong opinions (and, more importantly, suggesting possible solutions), whilst at the same time realising that the views of a few TV posters don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.

 

PS I hope I'm not included in your 'nasty' people. I'm very nice really.

4 hours ago, vogie said:

And these fractures need to be repaired, but they won't be repaired by dwelling on the past, the government has an extremely hard job to do, no more so than Mrs May. And there lies the problem if only half of the government are backing her and only half the country is backing her, she is between the devil and the deep blue sea, she is a remainer at heart after all.

At the end of the day the majority of the country voted to leave the EU and that must be respected, we know that the minority are not happy with this, but there again Mrs May appears to be trying to please everybody, and it is very apparent she is pleasing no-one at the moment.

Sandy I respect your opinions, but leavers have their reasons to leave, just as the remainers have their reasons to stay, and the views of both are very different, all of which have been discussed on numerous occasions on the various brexit threads.

It would appear that the remainers like to blame the UK for everything, I have never read a post where the remainers put any onus on the EU, if the EU had been run fairer and remained a trading partner rather than a machine that wants to control all of Europe I very much doubt that the UK would be leaving. 

Yes both sides have their reasons but not all of them valid, I know for a fact that my son and his wife voted to leave because her mother said so, how many others voted in the same way because they did not want to go against those around them. I accept that same applied on the other side of the fence. The country ended up in a major constitutional crisis based on a small margin of unknown validity.

I would be one of the first to acknowledge that the EU is far from perfect but overall is the lesser of two evils.

One thing that cannot be disputed is that from day one TM has tried to undermine the integrity of the EU. Here we are 2 years down the road and she has finally put a plan in front of the EU, a plan which wants the EU to breach their own laws, what sort of mentality is that.

If I hadn't been a remainer from day one I certainly would be one now.

1 minute ago, Stupooey said:

As the person who posed the question, being ineligible to vote shouldn't preclude anyone from having an opinion on the matter, particularly for people directly affected by the result. I personally was eligible to vote, having been on the UK electoral register within the last 15 years (as I suspect most British forum members have been, although I am not an expert on TV demographics). I personally was eligible to vote, but chose not to as I felt it was morally wrong for someone of my age (over 65), who was unlikely to return to live in the UK, to help decide the long-term future of the country. However I have many relatives and friends there who are having to suffer the consequences of the result, so I am not ashamed of holding and sharing fairly strong opinions (and, more importantly, suggesting possible solutions), whilst at the same time realising that the views of a few TV posters don't amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world.

 

 

 

So, morally wrong to vote..............but not morally wrong to give your opinion.

 

 

Don't get that..

 

 

1 hour ago, vogie said:

But would I be correct in thinking you would be in favour of another vote to get your own way?

That statement appears to follow the misconception that another vote would be exactly the same. If the vote was different, like how to leave the EU rather than if to leave the EU, then the idea of "get your own way" does not come into it.

 

There is often references to sporting events, correct me if I am wrong but isn't there usually "rounds" in sporting events, would it be so out of the question to have a brexit second round vote. With some more eliminations could there be a final round?

3 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

The EU depends for its existence on less than a handful of real payers and players, and the UK was one of those.

 

Wrong, the UK was never a real payer or player, more opt outs than a second hand car salesman.

3 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

This forum is obviously blessed with a large number of remainers with MBAs in international trade and finance.

 

It's a shame they never published their wisdom before the referendum. That would have been the time to influence the outcome.

What on earth makes you think that anything said on this forum would have influenced the outcome. Had you been around at the time you may have benefited from some of the wisdom.

And yes before you ask, I did go back to the UK and vote.

 

41 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

 

 

41 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

The Blair government proved that the Labour Party had become Tories ?

 

All Blair did for the most part was fine tune Thatcherism. And Brown was Blair's Lady in Waiting, much like Hillary waiting for Bill to get off the potty!

Of course the main difference between Blair and Thatcher is that Blair wanted the UK to be fully involved in Europe, whereas Thatcher wanted continual opt-outs. The irony of this, of course, is that Thatcher's destruction of the UK's manufacturing base has left the country in a far less resilient state to cope with the results of Brexit.

 

Irony does seem to be an overriding feature of the referendum result, as illustrated by the fact that East Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, which had the highest Leave percentage vote, has a higher proportion of its exports sold to other EU countries than any other voting area.

 

https://metro.co.uk/2016/06/25/regions-with-the-biggest-leave-votes-are-most-economically-dependent-on-the-eu-5966531/

28 minutes ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

 

So, morally wrong to vote..............but not morally wrong to give your opinion.

 

 

Don't get that..

 

 

So you're saying that anyone who abstains from voting in a debate has no right to contribute to the argument? I may be old and decrepit, but I'm still allowed an opinion, aren't I?

27 minutes ago, sandyf said:

That statement appears to follow the misconception that another vote would be exactly the same. If the vote was different, like how to leave the EU rather than if to leave the EU, then the idea of "get your own way" does not come into it.

 

There is often references to sporting events, correct me if I am wrong but isn't there usually "rounds" in sporting events, would it be so out of the question to have a brexit second round vote. With some more eliminations could there be a final round?

This was a once in a lifetime referendum and to quote the government, "This is your decision, the government will implement what you decide" there were no quarter final, no semi final and no replays ever mentioned to the best of my knowledge.

25 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Wrong, the UK was never a real payer or player, more opt outs than a second hand car salesman.

And a bunch of ukip MEPs riding the EU gravy train.

3 minutes ago, vogie said:

This was a once in a lifetime referendum and to quote the government, "This is your decision, the government will implement what you decide" there were no quarter final, no semi final and no replays ever mentioned to the best of my knowledge.

Again you are talking about the same thing . If the question is different, once in a lifetime does not come into it.

13 minutes ago, Stupooey said:

Of course the main difference between Blair and Thatcher is that Blair wanted the UK to be fully involved in Europe, whereas Thatcher wanted continual opt-outs. The irony of this, of course, is that Thatcher's destruction of the UK's manufacturing base has left the country in a far less resilient state to cope with the results of Brexit

Excellent points. But what did Blair do to re-invest in UK manufacturing or the skills necessary for it? This is not a rhetorical question - I was working internationally for much of the Blair regime, so I don't know what he did domestically; actually his Iraq "policy" was making my personal survival more difficut in the Middle East, but that's a different story. I've lost count of the number of Arab colleagues who described Blair as the "antichrist"; and there's me thinking he's just an overgrown schoolboy.

 

As you rightly highlight, there has never been any continuity of approach by successive UK governments towards the EU. 

 

Without the EU, we'll be able to ping-pong from nationalisation of key industries to a casino economy under successive regimes. Won't that be fun!

 

 

 

 

 

 

41 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Yes both sides have their reasons but not all of them valid, I know for a fact that my son and his wife voted to leave because her mother said so, how many others voted in the same way because they did not want to go against those around them. I accept that same applied on the other side of the fence. The country ended up in a major constitutional crisis based on a small margin of unknown validity.

I would be one of the first to acknowledge that the EU is far from perfect but overall is the lesser of two evils.

One thing that cannot be disputed is that from day one TM has tried to undermine the integrity of the EU. Here we are 2 years down the road and she has finally put a plan in front of the EU, a plan which wants the EU to breach their own laws, what sort of mentality is that.

If I hadn't been a remainer from day one I certainly would be one now.

And this is the most depressing part of any conversation ☹️.

 

There really are a large number (a majority) who are incapable of thinking for themselves - and instead rely on whatever they are told by others ☹️.

 

Which is one of the reasons why we have ended up with endless:-

 

1) useless, wasteful, expensive etc.  uk govts.

 

2) even more wasteful, expensive etc. etc. eu govts....

2 hours ago, stephenterry said:

The way to change something that causes you pain is to act. If you believe that the pain will lessen, the action will be carried out. That's how change at a personal level is effected.

 

As you have aptly demonstrated, the issue many people have on this topic is that their beliefs are so deeply entrenched, that any change to those beliefs would cause them more pain, and so they stay in one mindset. 

 

Even to the extent of posting a view where posters can agree, which gives them pleasure, and so reaffirms that their beliefs are true.

 

I am also guilty of that, however I realise it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Could you try to explain that in English please.

13 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

Could you try to explain that in English please.

It's just typical obfuscation.

1 hour ago, My Thai Life said:

Excellent points. But what did Blair do to re-invest in UK manufacturing or the skills necessary for it? This is not a rhetorical question - I was working internationally for much of the Blair regime, so I don't know what he did domestically; actually his Iraq "policy" was making my personal survival more difficut in the Middle East, but that's a different story. I've lost count of the number of Arab colleagues who described Blair as the "antichrist"; and there's me thinking he's just an overgrown schoolboy.

 

As you rightly highlight, there has never been any continuity of approach by successive UK governments towards the EU. 

 

Without the EU, we'll be able to ping-pong from nationalisation of key industries to a casino economy under successive regimes. Won't that be fun!

 

 

 

 

 

 

I was not trying to defend Blair, least of all his involvement in Iraq, but I do believe that if all PMs since 1973 had shown the same commitment to Europe as he did then the EU would have been moulded more to the UK's liking and there would have been no reason for a referendum.