Japan not best pleased by Brexit

As a result, referendums in the United Kingdom cannot be constitutionally binding, although they will usually have a persuasive political effect.
Click to expand...
They're only for guidance as to the mood of the people. And with just over half of just over half of the total population (ie just over a quarter of the total) voting leave it should have been noted and then a proper plan for leaving should have been drawn up with actual facts about any benefits (rather than promises that will be broken) presented for a better informed 2nd referendum. Although plenty of people were clear on the ramifications and were ignored because apparently experts don't know what they're talking about :confused:
 
Last edited:
All the debate over the binding/non-binding nature of the referendum and lack of any kind of plan in the result of a leave victory is entirely the fault of the Tory government who called it and simply expected remain would win. They didn't think we'd ever even get to the point of having these discussions because they thought it would just be a case of "Right, we're staying, back to business as usual". Blame Cameron and Osbourne, but of course we can't actually hold them to account because they refused to deal with the problem they created and threw in the towel, proving like most politicians, they were never interested in serving their country, only themselves.

The turnout for the referendum was 72%, that's higher than every Westminster election since 1992 (and if we're going off population, the last time I looked children didn't get to vote, thankfully - Enough adult voters have the minds of children without adding any more). I've said it before and I'll say it again but regardless of the legal niggles I think ignoring this vote could have far more disastrous consequences for the country than actually leaving the EU.

One of the criticisms people had of the EU was that they kept making people vote until they voted the way they wanted or just ignored the vote anyway - A second referendum, presuming it results in a remain victory, is going to do nothing but whip the people who want to leave into an even greater frenzy at the sense of injustice that their democratically expressed wishes were overturned by a global elite. And frankly if it does happen, that will be exactly what has happened. I don't see how it could be interpreted any other way.

Who will retain any faith we actually have democracy in this country any more after that, or believe that our leaders listen to their people? I don't think it's necessarily real, but the illusion of democracy is basically what keeps our society together. Once that's shattered what do we have? Do people think the leave voters will just shut up and go home (because that's totally what the remain voters did when leave won) or will they get even louder and more belligerent - and potentially more extreme?

Leaving the EU but staying in the single market will make everybody grumble a bit, but they'll put up with it because everybody gets kinda what they want. Crafting compromises where nobody actually gets what they want but they're not so put out they riot in the streets about it - Now that's politics.
 
Last edited:
All fair points. I do hope we get to that compromise at the end of your post, but I have no faith in (most) politicians, see your first paragraph.
 
ayase said:
A second referendum,
Click to expand...

If we had a second referendum, and remain won instead. Wouldn't that just be democracy showing that the people don't want to go through with their previous decision?

I don't see how it defies democracy to have another vote in a democratic way. If the people truly want to leave the results would be the same as last time.
 
Lambadelta said:
If we had a second referendum, and remain won instead. Wouldn't that just be democracy showing that the people don't want to go through with their previous decision?
Click to expand...
Can we have another General Election? Maybe people have changed their minds since last June.

I think there's a sensible point to be made about frequency. We've had two referendums on membership of the EU/EEC in the UK and the length of time between them was 40 years. I see no problem having another referendum on whether to rejoin the EU in say, ten-to-twenty years time (at which point unless the EU has gone very badly wrong - which it might if it also fails to listen to the people - I think we'll definitely vote to go back in, since probably half the elderly people who voted leave will be dead) but the idea of having one like, two-to-three years after the last one... The only reason I can see for it is because the side that lost wants a do-over. And that's coming from someone who voted (albeit a pretty nonplussed) remain.
 
ayase said:
Can we have another General Election? Maybe people have changed their minds since last June.

I think there's a sensible point to be made about frequency. We've had two referendums on membership of the EU/EEC in the UK and the length of time between them was 40 years. I see no problem having another referendum on whether to rejoin the EU in say, ten-to-twenty years time (at which point unless the EU has gone very badly wrong - which it might if it also fails to listen to the people - I think we'll definitely vote to go back in, since probably half the elderly people who voted leave will be dead) but the idea of having one like, two-to-three years after the last one... The only reason I can see for it is because the side that lost wants a do-over. And that's coming from someone who voted (albeit a pretty nonplussed) remain.
Click to expand...

It just worries me when things like "what is the EU" are the top googled things on the day of the referendum. I honestly don't believe such a decision should of been left in the hands of uninformed/misinformed masses, but instead left to the people who the general public voted for instead, and who understand the mechanics of the whole process.

Well we'll see in a few years time what this does to the country.
 
Lambadelta said:
It just worries me when things like "what is the EU" are the top googled things on the day of the referendum. I honestly don't believe such a decision should of been left in the hands of uninformed/misinformed masses, but instead left to the people who the general public voted for instead, and who understand the mechanics of the whole process.
Click to expand...
Thing is, that’s true of every democratic election or vote, not just this referendum. Most ordinary people are not well informed about any aspect of government or policy. So you start down the route of “Why should ordinary people have this decision in their hands, they don’t know what they’re doing” and soon wind up at the door of esentially arguing for dictatorship of the people who (in your opinion) do know what they’re doing. That’s a whole different debate for another time, and I certainly think democracy does have its flaws (especially how money can buy you votes in terms of propaganda and individual politicans being in the pockets of the wealthy) but I think people need to recognise what they’re supporting.

If you think ordinary people don’t know what’s best for them, fair enough. That’s a position I can understand people taking. I’d just like people to be consistent in this belief rather than only adopting it relating to specific situations - After all, those same uninformed morons also elected the government who you’re saying should be making the decisions.
 
ayase said:
Can we have another General Election? Maybe people have changed their minds since last June.

I think there's a sensible point to be made about frequency. We've had two referendums on membership of the EU/EEC in the UK and the length of time between them was 40 years. I see no problem having another referendum on whether to rejoin the EU in say, ten-to-twenty years time (at which point unless the EU has gone very badly wrong - which it might if it also fails to listen to the people - I think we'll definitely vote to go back in, since probably half the elderly people who voted leave will be dead) but the idea of having one like, two-to-three years after the last one... The only reason I can see for it is because the side that lost wants a do-over. And that's coming from someone who voted (albeit a pretty nonplussed) remain.
Click to expand...

I don't really agree with this, so bear that in mind, but I believe the prevailing argument is that the picture both sides painted bears no resemblance to what we are actually getting. Whether or not people believed it, we were explicitly promised free market access, free movement, a tonne of money to the NHS and all the money we were going to receive in EU subsidies. It's clear we're not going to get that. Equally, Remain argued that leaving would unleash the devil's fury on the markets and businesses would run like Usain Bolt to escape, which also seemingly isn't happening.

Both sides were wrong on what can only be described as an epic scale, why would rely on such an ill-informed vote?
 
Buzz201 said:
I don't really agree with this, so bear that in mind, but I believe the prevailing argument is that the picture both sides painted bears no resemblance to what we are actually getting. Whether or not people believed it, we were explicitly promised free market access, free movement, a tonne of money to the NHS and all the money we were going to receive in EU subsidies. It's clear we're not going to get that. Equally, Remain argued that leaving would unleash the devil's fury on the markets and businesses would run like Usain Bolt to escape, which also seemingly isn't happening.
Click to expand...
Again, I think I'd question how that was substantially different to any other vote or election. Promising the Earth and then failing miserably to deliver and being the harbingers of doom if your opponents win is standard operating procedure. I think you could compile a fairly long list of candidates and parties who've stood on a platforms of radical change but ultimately changed very little and abandoned their election promises once in office (both the current and former US Presidents, for a start) and the scaremongering of the remain campaign wasn't really any different to say, the "New Labour New Danger" posters (the latter being a very good example of how trying to scare people into making a decision can be incredibly counter-productive, something the camp with Tony Blair actually on their side somehow failed spectacularly to realise).
 
ayase said:
Again, I think I'd question how that was substantially different to any other vote or election. Promising the Earth and then failing miserably to deliver and being the harbingers of doom if your opponents win is standard operating procedure. I think you could compile a fairly long list of candidates and parties who've stood on a platforms of radical change but ultimately changed very little and abandoned their election promises once in office (both the current and former US Presidents, for a start) and the scaremongering of the remain campaign wasn't really any different to say, the "New Labour New Danger" posters (the latter being a very good example of how trying to scare people into making a decision can be incredibly counter-productive, something the camp with Tony Blair actually on their side somehow failed spectacularly to realise).
Click to expand...
In the grand scheme of things, elections aren't important, there are balances, such as Constitutional Law, the High Court, MPs that don't belong to the governing party, the House of Lords, and we can indicate our displeasure to MPs should we change our mind. Under a traditional General Election vote, you don't set your opinion on things in stone for five years. People are perfectly entitled to request changes should they realise the manifesto was a mistake.

Is it right that every time somebody complains Brexit wasn't what they were sold they immediately get shouted down in a rage of "TRAITOR!" and "UNDEMOCRATIC!", is part of democracy not to have the ability to voice a change of opinion in the presence of new information?
 
Buzz201 said:
In the grand scheme of things, elections aren't important, there are balances, such as Constitutional Law, the High Court, MPs that don't belong to the governing party, the House of Lords, and we can indicate our displeasure to MPs should we change our mind. Under a traditional General Election vote, you don't set your opinion on things in stone for five years. People are perfectly entitled to request changes should they realise the manifesto was a mistake.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure the House of Lords Gravy-train of Nepotism really belongs in there with the others (their abolition was another thing New Labour failed to deliver and I certainly will shout "UNDEMOCRATIC" at them) but I see where you're coming from. I don't think other people shouldn't oppose the government, or Brexit, I've just been explaining why I personally think trying to overturn it is not a good idea. You can certainly (and in a free society people should) oppose the government no matter if people are shouting nasty names at you or not - But you can't actually get rid of them until the next election. At least not democratically.

So I feel it is with a referendum - People who opposed the UK's membership of the EEC/EU between the 1975 and 2016 referendums certainly did voice their opinions, but they knew they didn't have any way to actually make the government leave the EU without a referendum (anyone else remember ol' Jimmy Goldsmith and his VHS tapes?) and it was quite right that they shouldn't have - If lobbying just made the government change its policies and do what any significantly wealthy or powerful pressure group wanted we'd be in serious trouble. I think if the government now gave in to the wishes of people who want to remain even after a leave vote, or gave a do-over vote after only a couple of years when those who wanted to leave had been waiting a quarter Century or more for one, it would seem incredibly biased.
 
ayase said:
I'm not sure the House of Lords Gravy-train of Nepotism really belongs in there with the others (their abolition was another thing New Labour failed to deliver and I certainly will shout "UNDEMOCRATIC" at them) but I see where you're coming from. I don't think other people shouldn't oppose the government, or Brexit, I've just been explaining why I personally think trying to overturn it is not a good idea. You can certainly (and in a free society people should) oppose the government no matter if people are shouting nasty names at you or not - But you can't actually get rid of them until the next election. At least not democratically.

So I feel it is with a referendum - People who opposed the UK's membership of the EEC/EU between the 1975 and 2016 referendums certainly did voice their opinions, but they knew they didn't have any way to actually make the government leave the EU without a referendum (anyone else remember ol' Jimmy Goldsmith and his VHS tapes?) and it was quite right that they shouldn't have - If lobbying just made the government change its policies and do what any significantly wealthy or powerful pressure group wanted we'd be in serious trouble. I think if the government now gave in to the wishes of people who want to remain even after a leave vote, or gave a do-over vote after only a couple of years when those who wanted to leave had been waiting a quarter Century or more for one, it would seem incredibly biased.
Click to expand...
I think it's been said before they can ignore it. There is nothing legal in a referendum like that, but it's wise to follow it if over half the country votes towards something, otherwise you would have that country lose faith and interest in anything it's government does with the government having one agenda and it's people having an entirely different agenda
 
How can I downvote that to rock bottom? There's a number of things to conside. I've seen a few videos of older remainers, it's older people who've seen how things have gone since before joining the eec and what's happening to the eu now, and well not everyone who feels strongly about leaving is old. The "brexit generation" is also the last few generations who will live with the decision, my age and downwards. I dread to think people under 30 are dying en masse
 
Captaaainuniverse said:
if over half the country votes towards something
Click to expand...
It was just over half of the people who voted.
Which breaks down as just over a quarter said leave, just about a quarter said remain, under a quarter could vote but didn't and over a quarter couldn't vote (not registered, under age and EU citizens from other countries!).
brexit-chart.jpg
 
I think including people who legally cannot vote in that pie chart because they’re not British citizens or because they’re children (both perfectly fair I think - British citizens can’t vote in other countries’ elections either) is pretty dishonest (not of you personally D1tchd1gger but of whoever made it).

Technically speaking yeah, it wasn’t over half the people in the country. But it was over half the people who bothered to turn out to vote out of nearly three quarters of those eligible. And should we really care about the views of people who themselves cared so little they didn’t even bother to vote when they could? I think if we’re to infer anything about those people’s views it would be just that - they don’t care one way or the other.
 
Those 2 portions of the population are ironically the most likely to suffer from any bad ramifications (not arguing that children should vote, but that politicians taking the "advice" from the people that did vote should take the future into account before any action is taken).

gMCsxdX.gif


Commonwealth people could vote though (anecdotally I heard of a Kiwi that voted leave "for a laugh"! And British ex-pats (although if living in the EU it did affect them).

ayase said:
should we really care about the views of people who themselves cared so little they didn’t even bother to vote
Click to expand...
No, Labour only needed 32 votes in the neighbouring seat to get rid of a Tory. I know someone in said seat who didn't vote saying "it won't make a difference" :mad:
 
In general I'm amazed people here can be so chill when stories like this are breaking:

dWOJEQm.png


People keep talking about respecting democracy while ignoring this whole situation is removing our democracy and taking Britain to a very dark place.
 
Back
Top