And what have they seen exactly?
1 Like
Not embarrassed but ashamed by the Brexiters destroying our international reputation as a trustworthy, honest and worthwhile ally
We are disgraced
Those wanting to leave the EU in the rest of Europe are a small minority and the rest are looking forward to a life of increased prosperity and security as part of the EU while despising us for betraying alliances and commitments
2 Likes
De Gaulle knew the British would not make good Europeans. That little bit of water between us has seems to have made us so different (or individual). Anyway we eventually went in and mistake or not, that’s the history.
I think the vote to leave should have only been respected if a higher percentage of the population had voted for it. For example a 60% vote in favour of leaving. This might have allowed a margin of error for voters who hadn’t really thought about the benefits or drawbacks of leaving. I’m sure some will have voted on either side of the divide not having fully studied the implications.
This wouldn’t stop the disquiet because we’d still be in the EU when a lot of people wanted to come out. However, it would have been more decisive. The percentage of remain/stay was too marginal for the change to be made in my opinion.
Another point is if there should have been a referendum at all? Politicians are paid to understand this sort of decision better than the general population. That’s what we vote them in for anyway. To study, understand and vote on matters on our behalf. Maybe it should always have been a parliamentary decision.
1 Like
Well the poll that is shared in the opening post will be news across Europe. As has been the issues the UK is having exporting, and with immigration, and with inflation. They will have known about the costs to each of their own countries to prepare for Brexit and read about how the UK itself was not ready for Brexit (still isn’t as last tranche of checks on food stuffs is not in place). So they will have first hand knowledge that Brexit was going to be difficult, costly and with a doubtful benefit. This most recent poll will have confirmed their own doubts as they can see that British people themselves are now very doubtful that Brexit is working or beneficial. Brexit has been a great advert for remaining in the EU.
1 Like
PR maybe or a simple transferable vote.
I agree that there is a real need to overhaul the UK’s poor first-past-the-post system, which fails the country and voters on so many levels. There’s also an irony that the 2011 referendum on changing the voting mechanism in the UK was so very different from the 2016 Brexit referendum. In 2011 the poll gave a very specific future model of voting (AV). This of course meant that people who were doubtful of AV as model (but in favour of change) ended up voting the same way as people who did not want any change. That is, a referendum rigged against voting for change. The 2016 Brexit vote was the opposite as the ‘out’ option gave no details of what ‘out’ would specifically mean. Thus those in favour of a moderate, prudent exit (say a Norway model) voted alongside those who would have been happy to see a complete or a no deal exit - and everyone in between. That is, rigged in favour of voting for change.
Rigged referendums. What’s the point in having a representative democracy if those who are elected to represent us decide we have vote on key things but they then go and fix the outcome?
2 Likes
There is no such thing as “Cake and Eat it” some folks who voted “Out” expected nothing more than just not to notice any change, rhetoric would not have influenced this group of folks.
1 Like
Disagree with your post but respectfully acknowledge your views.
Mrs T would have been apoplectic as those who voted to remain still are, whereas those who voted to leave would probably have resigned themselves to useless politicians who had no contingency for dealing with EU aka EEC which we joined today in 1973…
Sat 25 Jun 2016
From the very start UK was never going to have it’s own way.
[Quote]
There was a general consensus that we should join, but exactly on what terms was unclear.
Heath knew the EU would evolve towards a political union, and wanted to make certain the UK contributed to the way it was shaped. There was a realisation by the negotiators that we were setting out a direction of travel, and making certain that we had the right stops on the journey – but we didn’t have great arguments about the ultimate destination.
[Unquote]
So if I understand this correctly, you are saying that there was a reasonably big group of people who voted for Brexit and didn’t expect any change from Brexit to affect them? Their day to day lives would not be impacted or changed by Brexit. Its difficult to understand why they voted at all then. What were they actually voting for?
Having questioned that, in fact I think your observation is correct. There were, there still are, people who do not see any way that Brexit will directly affect them. Their vote was, perhaps, a pro-Britain vote or something less than tangible. Clearly they also gave no consideration for those who would be directly impacted by Brexit. Ta.
Because they were pissed off going round in circles, and having been bombarded with substanceless claim and counter claim!
1 Like
Mine hasn’t (so far)
That’s OK, I don’t mind at all. I’m a big believer in giving the opinion/feelings on a topic and leaving it at that. Try not to counter other people’s views very often …or even post about serious matters at all. Don’t know why I did today …and I would always be respectful of your opinions. 
2 Likes
Why No vote happened.
Ignore the fact from this speech, that we had a written constitution which nobody in UK had any hand in shaping. The Treaty of Rome. His words.
I’m not sure I understand that logic. Because some were fed up of the claims and counter claims they voted for Brexit? I don’t get that.
That is because you were not of that number, you don’t actually think the Tories were that popular at that time do you?
Will never vote Conservative again.
I agree, I think the 1975 vote in favour of remaining in the Common Market was 60:40, for such an important vote a similar margin should have been set. The 48:52 vote was far too close for such a major event.
Other countries have high bars set for such important decisions (USA - 75% required to impeach a President, Australia - double majority to change the constitution) A simple majority is just not good enough.
Many may wonder if the vote to remain had won the referendum by the same narrow margin 48: 53, we would not be having this debate. Leave voters would have accepted defeat.
2 Likes
I suspect that isn’t true. I think they would be clamouring for another vote (think Scottish independence which had a bigger margin), a close margin in a simple majority vote satisfies nobody.
1 Like
As an answer to my question that response is lacking, I’m sorry to say. I stated “I don’t get that” and your reply was, effectively, “that’s because you don’t get that”. It is good to gain agreement but in this instance I fear there has been no progress in explanation or understanding.