France's Macron says EU door remains open to UK

[vogie]

5 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

The only way to know is to ask them

They have been asked, but some people chose not to believe them.

 

1. There is still not much Bregret

There is still little sign of any “Bregret”. There is a media appetite for a narrative of the public changing their mind and some newspaper stories based on open-access voodoo polls or cherry-picking individual polls, but the broad picture is consistent: the vast majority of people still think the way they voted in June 2016 was correct.

[nauseus]

10 hours ago, lamyai3 said:

Botched because it was never meant to take place in the first place, it was just a tactic by Cameron to placate members of his own party. And botched in that it's widely agreed that the public really knew nothing about the substance of what they voted for (and aren't that much wiser a full year later. You must have heard the phrase "Brexit with no plan"? 

 

The tabloids ran articles in a ratio of 2:1 favouring leave. Everything from rulings about toasters and vacuum cleaners to the Queen supporting it. There was a barrage of misdirection and misinformation. As to the BBC and similar outlets, they themselves created a lot of the problem by indicating right up to the point the results were being announced that it would almost certainly be a remain vote.

 

Your third comment is plain irresponsible, the public was completely misinformed about what Brexit meant and where the results were headed. Effectively, the only propaganda given to the younger generation was nothing to worry about here.

 

Regarding the government, why is it not in their interests (as well as the public) to hold a second, informed referendum now more is known about what it means? 

 

As to bad news, you've obviously had your head buried in the sand (or maybe the Daily Mail). Here's an example being discussed right now in another thread, London is the world's biggest financial centre, and looks set to lose 100,000 jobs, and a £1.5 trillion industry - how can this be anything other than a disaster? 

.

You conveniently miss out a lot of factors:

NO 1 - no complaints that a referendum was to take place before the event! 

NO 2 - like I said there was misinformation given by both sides but project fear was one sided. 9M spent on remain leaflets by govt?? 

NO 3 - don't blame me for the content of the so-called education (syllabus) of the students and their apathy! 

NO 4 - to say people"know what it means" is insulting and is the same as saying that they are ignorant. DC pledged to respect the result. 

NO 5 - this is all speculation and propaganda. The longer this drags  on then there more there will be of it.

 

 

 

[Orac]

They have been asked, but some people chose not to believe them.

 

1. There is still not much Bregret

There is still little sign of any “Bregret”. There is a media appetite for a narrative of the public changing their mind and some newspaper stories based on open-access voodoo polls or cherry-picking individual polls, but the broad picture is consistent: the vast majority of people still think the way they voted in June 2016 was correct.

 

An interesting piece but a bit dated now. This was from YouGov on 29th March - 2 weeks before TM called the election and, if newspaper reports were correct, around the time she decided herself to call it so perhaps had some influence over the decision. Since the election polls at the time were predicting a Tory landslide it is not really the best proof to indicate the true feeling of "the people" at present, just a shame there isn't a way to clear this up!

[vogie]

1 minute ago, Orac said:

 

An interesting piece but a bit dated now. This was from YouGov on 29th March - 2 weeks before TM called the election and, if newspaper reports were correct, around the time she decided herself to call it so perhaps had some influence over the decision. Since the election polls at the time were predicting a Tory landslide at the time it is not really the best proof to indicate the true feeling of "the people" at present, just a shame there isn't a way to clear this up!

 

I don't really want to rain on your parade Orac, but enthusiasm for brexit is even greater today.

[lamyai3]

3 hours ago, nontabury said:

Can we have another General election, as I don't think the electorate understood the financial implications of Corbyns manifesto, and more importantly I did't agree how the election panned out. 

Absolutely we can, it's written into the constitution. A bad government can be dissolved or voted out at the appropriate time, unlike this shipwreck in the making. 

 

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, vogie said:

They have been asked, but some people chose not to believe them.

 

1. There is still not much Bregret

There is still little sign of any “Bregret”. There is a media appetite for a narrative of the public changing their mind and some newspaper stories based on open-access voodoo polls or cherry-picking individual polls, but the broad picture is consistent: the vast majority of people still think the way they voted in June 2016 was correct.

Except for the election ?

[vogie]

2 minutes ago, Grouse said:

Except for the election ?

Bregrets, I've had a few, but then again, too few to mention.

I thought I'd made it clear, it has nothing to with the election.

To live a life that's free, and may I say without correction.

We are leaving, we're getting out, we're following T May.

[rixalex]

15 hours ago, lamyai3 said:

Given the above and the bad news that keeps unfolding subsequent to the referendum, why is everyone so scared of a second vote, before negotiations start?

So before negotiations even start, we are going to have another referendum just to check that people still feel the same as they did a year ago. And if they do, we will surely need another referendum after negotiations have finished just to check that people are happy with how the negotiations went. And if they are, we'll surely need another referendum after we leave the EU just to check that people are happy outside the EU and don't want to return.

[Orac]

So before negotiations even start, we are going to have another referendum just to check that people still feel the same as they did a year ago. And if they do, we will surely need another referendum after negotiations have finished just to check that people are happy with how the negotiations went. And if they are, we'll surely need another referendum after we leave the EU just to check that people are happy outside the EU and don't want to return.

I think that would be pointless since what brexit could actually mean is still up in the air and subject to much exaggeration from both sides.

What I would find reasonable is for people to be given a say after negotiations have taken place once people know what they are voting for and a better idea of what it will actually cost us as a nation, possibly a three way choice of deal, no deal or remain.

I would also like to see TM try and involve the opposition in the brexit talks in some way to try and dilute the party politics influence over the whole thing in some way which could hopefully avoid the potential debacle of her coming unstuck over the next few months and having to call another election.

[nontabury]

11 minutes ago, Orac said:

 

I think that would be pointless since what brexit could actually mean is still up in the air and subject to much exaggeration from both sides.

What I would find reasonable is for people to be given a say after negotiations have taken place once people know what they are voting for and a better idea of what it will actually cost us as a nation, possibly a three way choice of deal, no deal or remain.

I would also like to see TM try and involve the opposition in the brexit talks in some way to try and dilute the party politics influence over the whole thing in some way which could hopefully avoid the potential debacle of her coming unstuck over the next few months and having to call another election.

 

Regarding the opposition being part of the negotiation team. I can only guess if they are of the same thought as some of the Remoaners here on T.V.

Which  side would they be negotiating on.

[rixalex]

14 minutes ago, Orac said:

 

I think that would be pointless since what brexit could actually mean is still up in the air and subject to much exaggeration from both sides.

What I would find reasonable is for people to be given a say after negotiations have taken place once people know what they are voting for and a better idea of what it will actually cost us as a nation, possibly a three way choice of deal, no deal or remain.

I would also like to see TM try and involve the opposition in the brexit talks in some way to try and dilute the party politics influence over the whole thing in some way which could hopefully avoid the potential debacle of her coming unstuck over the next few months and having to call another election.

Having a referendum after the negotiations will completely undermine Britain's position in those negotiations, because the EU will know full well that they can afford to play hardball without any repercussions. They'll have our negotiators over a barrel essentially.

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, rixalex said:

Having a referendum after the negotiations will completely undermine Britain's position in those negotiations, because the EU will know full well that they can afford to play hardball without any repercussions. They'll have our negotiators over a barrel essentially.

 

 

Do you realize what it is you just said? That if it comes to a hard Brexit, the people of the UK would rather remain in the EU. Quite a concession on your part.

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, nontabury said:

Regarding the opposition being part of the negotiation team. I can only guess if they are of the same thought as some of the Remoaners here on T.V.

Which  side would they be negotiating on.

Why, the side of the British people, of course. 

You left yourself wide open to my admittedly juvenile repartee.

[Grouse]

2 hours ago, rixalex said:

So before negotiations even start, we are going to have another referendum just to check that people still feel the same as they did a year ago. And if they do, we will surely need another referendum after negotiations have finished just to check that people are happy with how the negotiations went. And if they are, we'll surely need another referendum after we leave the EU just to check that people are happy outside the EU and don't want to return.

I note your ironic tone, but why not? Keep making sure everyone is on the bus. Nothing wrong with that.

[Grouse]

1 hour ago, nontabury said:

Regarding the opposition being part of the negotiation team. I can only guess if they are of the same thought as some of the Remoaners here on T.V.

Which  side would they be negotiating on.

It's not a matter of taking sides. I have said right from the start that it is not a zero sum game. Sit down and discuss the issues. See what accommodation can be reached.

[ilostmypassword]

19 hours ago, nauseus said:

The step was taken and it was called the referendum! It was not a movie so there was never to be a sequel! 

Really? Was it called the Last Non-Binding Referendum Ever". I must have missed that.

[lamyai3]

3 hours ago, rixalex said:

So before negotiations even start, we are going to have another referendum just to check that people still feel the same as they did a year ago. And if they do, we will surely need another referendum after negotiations have finished just to check that people are happy with how the negotiations went. And if they are, we'll surely need another referendum after we leave the EU just to check that people are happy outside the EU and don't want to return.

Of course before negotiations start, a referendum which would give the public a far clearer picture of what they are voting for, which was completely missing in the original referendum. If a new referendum resulted in the repeating of a leave vote, not only would I accept the result, I'd eat my hat for good measure. 

[lamyai3]

5 hours ago, vogie said:

I don't really want to rain on your parade Orac, but enthusiasm for brexit is even greater today.

A more recent yougov study:

 

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/world/2017/04/27/yougov-britons-regret-brexit-decision/

Edited June 15, 2017 by lamyai3

[stevenl]

5 hours ago, vogie said:

I don't really want to rain on your parade Orac, but enthusiasm for brexit is even greater today.

And you base that opinion on which survey? I think you're wrong, based on what I read, especially for a hard brexit.

[ilostmypassword]

If this kind of thing keeps up, I suspect lots of citizens in the UK will change their minds about Brexit.

Retail sales tank as Brexit hits the pocket of regular Brits

 UK retail sales had a terrible month in May, as the impact of inflation on the pocket of the average Brit begins to intensify, data from the Office for National Statistics out on Thursday shows.

Retail sales fell by 1.2% compared to the month of April, while on a year-to-year basis, sales were up by 0.9% against May 2016. 

Those numbers were both significantly lower than the forecasts of economists, who had predicted 1.7% annual growth, and a monthly fall of just 0.8%.

http://www.businessinsider.com/british-retail-sales-for-may-2017-6

[nauseus]

3 hours ago, Orac said:

tter idea of what it will actually cost us as a nation,

 

2 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Do you realize what it is you just said? That if it comes to a hard Brexit, the people of the UK would rather remain in the EU. Quite a concession on your part.

Er..no Orac did not say that at all. That would be the interpretation of someone like Verhofstadt.

[nauseus]

Just now, ilostmypassword said:

If this kind of thing keeps up, I suspect lots of citizens in the UK will change their minds about Brexit.

Retail sales tank as Brexit hits the pocket of regular Brits

 UK retail sales had a terrible month in May, as the impact of inflation on the pocket of the average Brit begins to intensify, data from the Office for National Statistics out on Thursday shows.

Retail sales fell by 1.2% compared to the month of April, while on a year-to-year basis, sales were up by 0.9% against May 2016. 

Those numbers were both significantly lower than the forecasts of economists, who had predicted 1.7% annual growth, and a monthly fall of just 0.8%.

http://www.businessinsider.com/british-retail-sales-for-may-2017-6

It's all due to interference from the remoaners.

[ilostmypassword]

2 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Er..no Orac did not say that at all. That would be the interpretation of someone like Verhofstadt.

I agree. Nor did I say that he had. I was replying to Rixalex who wrote:

Having a referendum after the negotiations will completely undermine Britain's position in those negotiations, because the EU will know full well that they can afford to play hardball without any repercussions. They'll have our negotiators over a barrel essentially.

[nauseus]

53 minutes ago, lamyai3 said:

Of course before negotiations start, a referendum which would give the public a far clearer picture of what they are voting for, which was completely missing in the original referendum. If a new referendum resulted in the repeating of a leave vote, not only would I accept the result, I'd eat my hat for good measure. 

Well at least you admitted that you don't accept the first one! Maybe because the vote was for out?

This all adds to the interference from undemocratic moaners.

Put some jam in your hat - it will taste better.

 

 

[nauseus]

1 minute ago, ilostmypassword said:

I agree. Nor did I say that he had. I was replying to Rixalex who wrote:

Having a referendum after the negotiations will completely undermine Britain's position in those negotiations, because the EU will know full well that they can afford to play hardball without any repercussions. They'll have our negotiators over a barrel essentially.

Rivalex then, same difference. Your interpretation is wrong. 

[nauseus]

1 hour ago, ilostmypassword said:

Really? Was it called the Last Non-Binding Referendum Ever". I must have missed that.

The 2016 referendum was intended as a one-off and you know that.  EOS.

[vogie]

23 minutes ago, stevenl said:

And you base that opinion on which survey? I think you're wrong, based on what I read, especially for a hard brexit.

You can believe what you want to believe, At the end of the day if an agreement is not met by all parties, there is a good chance of an hard brexit, even an EU spokesperson has stated this.

[vogie]

39 minutes ago, lamyai3 said:

A more recent yougov study:

 

http://www.freemalaysiatoday.com/category/world/2017/04/27/yougov-britons-regret-brexit-decision/

Thanks for that, tomorrow there will be another, very hard to keep up sometimes, but having said that, there's hardly a gnats hair between them, hardly conclusive. Did it say that more people still prefer the hard brexit?

Edited June 15, 2017 by vogie

[ilostmypassword]

21 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

I agree. Nor did I say that he had. I was replying to Rixalex who wrote:

Having a referendum after the negotiations will completely undermine Britain's position in those negotiations, because the EU will know full well that they can afford to play hardball without any repercussions. They'll have our negotiators over a barrel essentially.

16 minutes ago, nauseus said:

Rivalex then, same difference. Your interpretation is wrong. 

Very trenchant analysis. Do you think you're the referee on this thread? Just make a ruling without an explanation?

Let me lay it out for you.

Rixalex wrote having a referendum after negotiations would allow the EU to play hardball. I guess we first have to establish what hardball means. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that it means offering only very harsh terms to the UK. So why by this reasoning, would having a referendum after only harsh terms were proposed put UK negotiators over a barrel? Because it would make it easy for them to say no?  Having someone over a barrel is hard to reconcile with any kind of ease. So, it must mean that it would make things difficult for them.  Difficult in that the majority of the electorate wouldn't be pleased with either accepting harsh terms or having a hard Brexit.. And on account of that they would  be very unhappy with their negotiators. Which means that such an outcome, even in the absence of a referendum would mean that the electorate would be very unhappy with it. 

 

[nauseus]

14 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Very trenchant analysis. Do you think you're the referee on this thread? Just make a ruling without an explanation?

Let me lay it out for you.

Rixalex wrote having a referendum after negotiations would allow the EU to play hardball. I guess we first have to establish what hardball means. I don't think it's unreasonable to say that it means offering only very harsh terms to the UK. So why by this reasoning, would having a referendum after only harsh terms were proposed put UK negotiators over a barrel? Because it would make it easy for them to say no?  Having someone over a barrel is hard to reconcile with any kind of ease. So, it must mean that it would make things difficult for them.  Difficult in that the majority of the electorate wouldn't be pleased with either accepting harsh terms or having a hard Brexit.. And on account of that they would  be very unhappy with their negotiators. Which means that such an outcome, even in the absence of a referendum would mean that the electorate would be very unhappy with it. 

 

So you're not ha[[y with that then?