Merged Now What?

[cullennz]

A second referendum isn't going to happen

The first was too close to annoy that many people

 

[Francesca R]

It's not at all clear to me that a second one would not produce a bigger leave margin

 

[uke2se]

I have never made such a statement. You are altering the conversation.

True, I apologize. You said it was their 'mandate' which is equally wrong. A mandate for polling the population was what Cameron gave to election officials. What the Brexiters got was a mandate from the electorate to replace the EU with their ideas of a replacement system. Too bad they didn't have any.

It really isn't.

Sure is.

It wasn't their job.

Sure as hell was.

 

[Belz...]

True, I apologize. You said it was their 'mandate' which is equally wrong.

No, that is, again, not at all what I said. How about you go back and read my post in context?

Sure is.

I'm sure you'll somehow prove this.

Sure as hell was.

Utter nonsense. The job of the Brexit campaign was to campaign for the electorate to choose to leave the EU, and that's it. You are adding a criticism about something that wasn't part of their mandate at all.

 

[Francesca R]

I'm sure you'll somehow prove this.

I don't know what the economy "breaking" means. It is very likely contracting and will experience recession as a very significant number of economic agents (any allocator of scarce capital, whether asset owner or advisor, corporation setting strategy or business allocating capital) push the pause button. How much of a contraction is guesswork as it usually is.

 

[Lothian]

The job of the Brexit campaign was to campaign for the electorate to choose to leave the EU, and that's it.

If that was the case there would be no need to be honest in their campaigning, they could make anything up knowing they would not have to stick to the promise afterwards..... Oh.

 

[uke2se]

No, that is, again, not at all what I said. How about you go back and read my post in context?

This is the entirety of your post. The hilited part is the context of your assertion:

Ignoring it in favour of a different poll doesn't sound very democratic, either. Should they hold referendums until they get the result you agree with?



Of course they didn't. That's because their mandate was just to poll the population. Now it's time to make a plan.

Why would it be good or ballsy to ignore the result of a popular referendum? "Oops, we didn't expect that result so we'll ignore it"?

How are you not saying that the Brexiters had a mandate to poll the population?

I'm sure you'll somehow prove this.

Economic downturn caused by Brexit vote. It's in the news.

Utter nonsense. The job of the Brexit campaign was to campaign for the electorate to choose to leave the EU, and that's it. You are adding a criticism about something that wasn't part of their mandate at all.

Well, in that case they weren't doing their jobs, because they did tell tall tales about how the post-EU UK would be. Turns out that's all they were. Tall tales.

 

[uke2se]

If that was the case there would be no need to be honest in their campaigning, they could make anything up knowing they would not have to stick to the promise afterwards..... Oh.

Kind of sickening if that was the case. Thankfully it wasn't, and they are being taken to task for their many lies.

 

[angrysoba]

"a heinous oversight". You're not French.

Indeed. If Brexit was worth anything it was to avoid overlooking each other's anuses.

 

[MikeG]

"a heinous oversight". You're not French.........

I chopped another word out and didn't edit completely.

 

[MikeG]

You called my list incomplete when I asked what else there was. I simply wanted you to answer the question. I'd say both of your examples can be neatly lumped into "economic" via trade. As such, I presume that my list was fairly complete.

No, they can't. The first in particular is about the consequences on the lives of people in the third world. It is not an economic argument at all. I couldn't give a toss about the economics of it. It's entirely about fairness and compassion.

 

[MikeG]

True, I apologize. You said it was their 'mandate' which is equally wrong. A mandate for polling the population was what Cameron gave to election officials. What the Brexiters got was a mandate from the electorate to replace the EU with their ideas of a replacement system. Too bad they didn't have any..

For a start, the question on the ballot paper wasn't about a replacement system for the EU. It was whether or not we should remain or leave the EU. So your question is a false premise. Then, just to make a point, you answered your own false premise wrongly. It isn't as though the members of the Leave campaign don't have ideas about the post Brexit system. They do. It's just that, being a cross-party campaign group rather than a political party, they didn't have just one answer. Obviously.

 

[uke2se]

No, they can't. The first in particular is about the consequences on the lives of people in the third world. It is not an economic argument at all. I couldn't give a toss about the economics of it. It's entirely about fairness and compassion.

Are you saying that you voted to leave the EU because you find EU tarifs to be unfair to third-world countries? How do you expect that to change when you leave?

 

[MikeG]

......because they did tell tall tales about how the post-EU UK would be. Turns out that's all they were. Tall tales.

Interesting that you can tell this just a week or so after the vote, and whilst we're still in the EU. Oh, and you forgot to mention the tall tales the remain side told. Why would that be?

 

[uke2se]

For a start, the question on the ballot paper wasn't about a replacement system for the EU. It was whether or not we should remain or leave the EU. So your question is a false premise. Then, just to make a point, you answered your own false premise wrongly. It isn't as though the members of the Leave campaign don't have ideas about the post Brexit system. They do. It's just that, being a cross-party campaign group rather than a political party, they didn't have just one answer. Obviously.

It sure was about a replacement system. They wanted to exchange the EU for a UK outside the EU.

I know they do have ideas about the post Brexit system. Dumb ideas, showed as such by now.

 

[Ambrosia]

It is normal for any referendum which has such fundamental ramifications for the constitutional validity of a state to require more than a simple majority in order to reach a threshold of something like two thirds of the voters.

I'd have liked there to be a much larger majority, but there wasn't. It could easily have gone 52/48 the other way.

frivolous voters ruin their lives.

Those people should be given the opportunity to vote in a second referendum, which can be run without the bald lies which so distorted the discussion
undemocratic situation

Keep on preaching Doom.

The chance of a 2nd referendum is basically nil.

We *might* get an early General Election and if we do the Lib Dems are pledged to campaign on a "Do Not Leave The EU" pledge.

I think on balance another vote would probably be a good thing, it is a major decision. But Scotland leaving the UK a while back was also a major decision, and that was also a close vote, (55/45). We haven't had another referendum there, should we keep having referendums on Scottish independence until one side hits 66%??

 

[uke2se]

Interesting that you can tell this just a week or so after the vote, and whilst we're still in the EU. Oh, and you forgot to mention the tall tales the remain side told. Why would that be?

It's your job to list the remain lies if you think you can. Then we can compare magnitude and numbers. Should be a fun excersice.

The reason we can tell that 'Leave' spouted lies already is that many of the lies were caught way before the referendum, and some have by now been admitted as such. Think7ng about speding 350 mil on the NHS.

 

[MikeG]

Are you saying that you voted to leave the EU

No, I haven't said how I voted.

because you find EU tarifs to be unfair to third-world countries?

I didn't mention tariffs.

Were I to have voted to leave the EU this would have been my own personal number one issue. Is that a problem for you? Did you expect me to consult you first?

How do you expect that to change when you leave?

It would help in the long term in the demise of the CAP, and other intentional and unintentional barriers to trade with the third world (Africa in particular).

 

[cullennz]

Coulda, shoulda, woulda doesn't really cut it now. What is done is done. Another referendum won't happen.

It's either Cameron maning up and veto or an early election with one of the big players campaigning on vetoing

 

[MikeG]

It's your job to list the remain lies if you think you can........

Really? I don't remember signing up for that.