UKH

Great show in London yesterday. 700,000 turn out for a second referendum. How much more impressive and persuasive would it have been if half that number were leave voters who now want the opportunity to change their mind.

But no. Hardly a leave voice to be heard. Either that’s poor marketing, or two years of relentless project fear campaigning from the Remain camp has hardly dented the support for leave.

Instead, it was the usual band of brothers and sisters blaming Tory Brexit and the cuts and saving the NHS. 

So there we have it. The guys who lost first time round, want the chance to reverse the result. How is that democratic? How is that listening to and honouring the wishes of the majority? How is that fair?  Imagine an FA cup team (say Norwich) winning on a disputed goal being forced to hold a replay because someone complained to the ref. That wouldn’t happen surely?

Don’t take my word. Ask man-of-the-people Gary Lineker who was at the march. You know Gary, he’s the BBC’s best paid TV star with a basic salary £1.7 million. Sadly, because of Tory austerity cuts, he now struggles to live off that income, which is why he was the only man to refuse to take a BBC pay cut https://bit.ly/2L84ofS.

No wonder he was protesting. Poor sausage. He could however get Patrick Stewart to bung him a few bob (net worth around $70 million), except he is a Yorkshireman. Perhaps Delia (net worth $36 million) could bake some cakes and get Baron Adonis to hold a raffle at a reunion rally of Blair’s Cool Britannia gang. 

Nothing about yesterday was inspiring. It would have been truly inspiring to find the national mood had changed, that a huge majority now wanted to stay in the European Union, but that, spectacularly, did not happen. It was just a love-in for a Remainer sect; but it was lovely day, the sun shone and it was a chance to dust off the banners, sing your favourite songs and chant your favourite slogans and feel good about yourselves. If you don’t get to reverse the vote, there is always the planet to save. 

I can see how it must boil your piss.

Being reminded that there are loads of people out there who earn more than you do.

The selfish greed I get.

What I don't get is how, in Little England, people who earn £100 an hour have manged to persuade people who earn £12 an hour that the trouble with this country is that the people earning £8 an hour an stealing all their money.

Hello again John.

I wonder what a Leave march would look like?

Angrier and more beige?

Less than a quarter of the UK population voted to leave.

And even fewer voted to remain.

..and only 1% were on the streets of London, depending on who's count you believe. Some of them were EU/other nationals too.

So based on the above two points, less than half the population voted on a fairly monumental decision. 

Surely now that we have a much clearer idea about the possible exit position and the ramifications of that, and the voters have some actual information to base a decision on, a second referendum is the logical choice.

Regardless of your politics and Brexit, it seems rather odd to see demonstrating towards environment goals as something to sneer at. Sounds rather like someone sitting in pool of their own shit and piss, and then bragging about it.

Leave Means Lies held a meeting in Harrogate, can't really call it a rally, not enough attendees but because farage was there, they got equal billing on the bbc.

It is democratic because we now know a lot more about the implications of leaving than we did in 2016. 

We were told the UK pays £350million a week to the EU. We now know it does not.

We were told that we would not have to pay anything to the EU when we leave. We now know we will have to make a payment.

We were told, for example, the NI/Ireland border would be easily sorted. Boris even cited the Norway and Sweden border of how simple it could be, because their border is much longer - shows what he knows. We now know it is going to be very complicated and it isn't even close to being agreed.

In 2016 we voted without knowing the implications. As I and some others have said it was similar to giving your consent for an operation and then have the surgeon come along later saying, "There are a number risks, which we didn't understand fully when you gave your consent to the operation, but I'm not going to let you consider these risks and we are going to go ahead with it anyway."

The only objection I have to the march of yesterday is that it should IMO been a march to call for a completely new referendum on remaining or leaving, not just the Brexit deal.

Dave 

It looked more like a bunch of grumpy pensioners on a day trip to Blackpool than a rally.

The marches are fairly irrelevant,  the actual fight will start when there is more clarity on how the negotiation will play out and businesses start triggering their Brexit contingency plans.    Everybody has them, nobody wants to use them but fairly soon there's not going to be a lot of choice.

Lighten up Jon, lighten up. The planet will survive. It's humankind that will be wiped out. No bad thing maybe. We haven't been here that long and it looks like we don't know how to do sustainable.  As the great man said - it's only a ride. Poor do if the remain sect can't take a poke in the ribs. I loved Tom's description of the Harrogate bash. Spot on. But a strange place to hold it, I thought, as Harrogate from memory was just one of three places in Yorkshire to vote remain. On that count, maybe the People's Vote rally should have been held in Rotherham or somewhere in Lincolnshire -- now that would have been worth going to..

Democracry has always been about regular votes. If only one people's vote is allowed arguably the original vote in the 70s should never have been challenged. As Paul Merton quipped in HIGNFY its really one all at the moment.

700, 000 is a huge number for any UK demonstration, the second largest ever and only 50, 000 below the Stop the War march in 2003 (and hundreds of thousands ahead of 3rd place). I never saw any numbers for the Harrogate march (must have gone down well in a town that voted Remain).

Agree. I mentioned earlier how odd it was they chose Harrogate -one of just three areas in Yorks to vote remain -- and suggested it might have been nice had the Remainer crowd held the march in Rotherham or Lincolnshire to show how much the leave lot had changed their minds.

I like Paul M. if he's right about one all, let's wait another 40 years for the next vote...that's fair surely.

I really don't like the idea of mob rule - and marches are that.

If we are to have referenda on big issues, lets do it digitally and have them all the time on issues like the death penalty, immigration, same sex marriage and see what happens.... I doubt it will be good for the body politic.

My gripe is that Remainers are sore losers, diss the leave voters and claim to know the future...the reality is on here is that they are as bilious, grumpy and rude (if not ruder) than the leave lot. 

This might be my last post. 

Couldn't agree more. One all. Keep the status quo and have another vote in 40 years.

Bet it's not...

John, I have never understood the Brexiteers suggestion that having a second referendum would somehow be 'undemocratic'. Surely it is more democratic? The more times you vote, the more democratic the option would be. 

If there was a new referendum and the result was 52% remain and 48% leave, wouldn't that suggest that more people now wanted to remain. Why would that not be a valid democratic result?

Obviously you can't have referenda every week, and I am not suggesting that, but I just don't get the logic behind another referendum being 'undemocratic'.

You say it yourself above - the remainers only "want the chance to reverse the result". They don't want to forcibly reverse the result. It doesn't seem an unreasonable suggestion to me and it is quite definitely very 'democratic'.

Alan

Nigel Farage appears to agree with you " "In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way." 2016

Did you really not know that *prior* to the referendum?   If so, you're likely the only one!   The validity of that figure was widely discussed at the time. 

The people pushing for a second referendum have been doing so since the days after the first.  They never accepted the result (they say so - its an invalid result due to lies, stupidity, ignorance, etc, etc).  It's the lack of acceptance of the original result - which hasn't even been implemented yet - that's the problem.

No they're not, you're maybe confusing a march with a riot.

The right to protest peacefully is an essential component of a healthy democracy, your attempt to dress it up as something else looks a lot like an effort to shift public opinion toward curtailing the right to protest against government policy, or is it just 'mob rule' when you disapprove? The current brexit shitshow looks a lot like the tyranny of the majority (indeed one which is probably now a minority!).

You're right it would be a proper mess, as brexit has turned out. In this instance by a series of mistakes and miscalculations parliament has tied its hands so it can no longer act in the national or public interest without going back to the public to conclude the process.

jk

But if the result had been 4% the other way, then another referendum would never have been permitted ever again.

You would not think it democratic if elections were annual with a Labour government in power, and every 40 years when a Conservative government was elected.

I don't know the future and neither do you - that's the issue.  It's a great big leap into the unknown that we simply don't need to risk.

As for being a sore loser, it isn't that I wouldn't accept a reasonable alternative that happens not to be my preference, it's that I passionately believe that this is a national act of self-harm to our own country and our European partners too.

The last referendum wasn't a vote for anything.  It was a narrow vote against the status quo.  My own view is that what amounts to a fundamental change to our constitution should require a 2/3 majority of the vote or 51% majority of the entire electorate (and that if it has legal force, rather than being advisory, this should be clearly stated at the time).

Now we need to vote for something.  And that must mean a choice between the final deal on offer, no deal, and seeing sense and staying in.  

Maybe, that is a different point though. 

I don't think there is any legislation suggesting that. I doubt we would now be talking about it for sure, but that would not have meant that it was off the table forever. What do you base that suggestion on?

Alan

That isn't true, we live in a democracy, it is imperfect but it is functional. Yes you would have had to re-build pressure for a new exit vote and yes that may have taken a couple of electoral cycles of UKIP driving a wedge into both big parties but that is exactly the pressure which yielded the 2016 vote. It can and no doubt will be applied again if we don't leave next March and probably even if we do to counter the huge pressure that will build to rejoin while we're still tightly enough aligned we can do so with relatively little additional pain.

No but then that is a daft comparison to the brexit situation.

You're acting as if you believe 'Leave' will lose a ratification referendum once the terms of our departure are known and our future options are crystalised. If that is the case given since your brexit is all about democracy wouldn't that be cause for celebration? If 'the people' don't want the brexit that is available they shouldn't have to suffer it.

jk

It was like having a General Election with two options:

1) Do you want the current government

2) Do you not want the current government

Alan

That it took 40 years of campaigning to achieve the referendum, even the creation of a new political party that grew large enough to threaten the others.

Feel free to go and start the UKEU party and work for another referendum in 40 years.

Why do you think the result isn't more widely accepted?

FWIW *IF* the leave camp could find a way to brexit without doing serious long term harm to our economy, I for one could have accepted the result. But it doesn't seem that they can.

It's the logic behind why having a new vote now is not democratic, it's not a different point.

It is widely accepted, it's just not accepted amongst those who were never going to accept it.  Some of those people have a huge amount of influence and are using that influence to try and overturn it.  It's not a surprise to me that they're doing so.

No, it wasn't.  The alternative to being in the EU is *not* being in the EU, we don't need to be in the EU for the state to function.  Our state takes over the roles the EU is currently playing.  This isn't at all comparable to not having anyone running the country.

It may be widely accepted but neither Brexiteers nor Remainers can possibly be certain that the majority would or would vote in a particular way in a second referendum.

The current situation is so divisive, the effects so important and at least clearer than they were at the first referendum that a second in/out referendum seems vital (though unlikely to happen partly due to a lack of brave enough politicians). We have frequent general elections and nobody assumes the same party will be reelected. One main reason for not wanting a vote is obviously a fear that the majority might not concur with one's own view.

Incidentally if there was a second vote for Brexit I think far more people, not all of course, would accept and support it even if they had been Remainers.

We did have a referendum on staying in the EU (edit: actually the EEC), 1970s I think. Will Scotland wait another 40 years after Brexit before another independence referendum....of course not.

Still doesn't really make sense though does it? Not accepting it would involve everyone, including the ones who voted for Brexit, completely ignoring the result and doing nothing to attempt to implement it. It is patently clear that a lot of effort is being made to try implement the result, in many cases, and one very notable case, by people who actually voted to remain. 

You are basing your assertion that the a new referendum would be undemocratic on the fact that it is only being asked for by one side. But, if the question is open, all results are still possible and the end result would be democratic.

Alan

This is a pedantic point but my question wasn't saying there should be no government, it was saying that we don't want the current one but we are not suggesting what should be in its place. We were voting for a negative, not an alternative.

Alan

I don't need to start another just as you don't have to start another UKIP, the machinery is built. Sadly this is the fight that will waste another decade unless we're faced with a greater cataclysm not of our making.

If we do choose to remain before the clock stops and it subsequently takes another 40 years to secure a leave vote it will not because our democracy is rigged but because this disastrously ill conceived process has been chastening.

I'd appreciate you addressing my point about how you view a ratification referendum, your apparent fear Leave will lose and that such a democratic choice would somehow be undemocratic. It's illogical. It looks a lot like what you really want is this process railroaded through parliament without pause, not because it is the will of the people but because you're afraid it now isn't.

jk

But loathe as I am to agree with John , there's little value in a second vote - perhaps it should be best of three, or best of five.  The damage is done.  The country will be utterly divided on this for a long time, and as the original OP demonstrates there's plenty of real dislike for the other side.

Easiest solution would be to divide the country.

How long do you think that acceptance will weather the loss of manufacturing jobs, the failure of farms, the under staffing of the NHS, deepening austerity, the loss of visa-free travel, soaring commodity prices, sinking pension values, attacks on workers' rights and food standards, motorways clogged with queuing wagons? Will you hold your head high in five years time and proudly declare 'I voted brexit!'. I doubt it.

Anyway, if you genuinely believe we as an electorate have accepted the vote to leave what have you to fear in testing that assertion against what 'leave' actually looks like with a ratification referendum?

If you think we'll vote to leave, good, we should legitimise the decision that will shape our children's and grandchildren's world with a positive informed choice. You've nothing to fear if you're right and May secures a good deal for Britain. But if you call yourself a democrat and you even suspect we might not choose what is actually on offer in the cold light of day then whatever your personal views it is surely right to see that tested.

jk

There is no point in re-running the 2016 vote, there is merit in us voting *for* something defined and deliverable.

Damage is done, how much damage is still very much to play for.

I think that's now likely, I just hope (without belief) it can be done without bloodshed.

jk

Until recently there were three major pro-EU parties I could vote for.

LibDems collapsed after being shafted by the coalition, the Conservatives seem be in thrall to a vocal anti-EU minority and the Labour party is currently led by a maverick Bennite despite having a long history of  pro-EU internationalism and huge majority of Remainers in the PLP.    

That was true the day after the referendum.  It's true the day after any vote.  So?

The divisiveness as far as I'm concerned is being pushed by those who refuse to accept the result.  Are you suggesting that a second referendum would remove division?  I'd say it would most likely exacerbate it.

It's fair to say that's going to be one reason, sure.  Fear of losing is why people like Clegg who'd once supported the idea of a referendum changed their minds.  It's not the main reason though, the main reason is that there are no good reasons *to* have a new vote (that you don't like the result is not a good reason).  There are lots of good reasons not to (impractical, divisive, etc).

How doesn't it make sense?  Every effort is being and has been made by those people (like say Kier Starmer, or Anna Soubry - and if May's deal is effectively remaining then May too) to stop the result being implemented.

I am basing it on the fact that one side (who want remain, who always wanted remain and who do not consider the result as legitimate) are pushing for it, and that their reasoning for it is that they do not consider the first result valid.  You're not countering that.

I understood, my point was that the two situations are not comparable.  If you vote out the government and don't vote in a new one you don't have a government.  If we leave the EU we just aren't in the EU, a new arrangement is not required.

Yes, I will.  The rest of your assertions I don't agree with - Are you going to hold your head high and say "I voted for totalitarianism and no democracy!"?.

Weeks of more divisiveness, damage to the negotiating position of the government.  Leave looks like not being in the EU, it wasn't a vote on the particular deal that would be agreed afterwards, I don't think we should have referendums on every new trade deal signed.

That's the daftest argument I've ever heard.  Should I, as a democrat, ask for a new vote any time my views align with the majority that wins the vote?  We'll have a new vote for a new government in due course in line with our democratic system, I'm very much happy with that.

The way I see it, part of having a free society is to have the freedom to make bad decisions. (not that I think leaving the EU is necessarily a bad decision but that is beside the point here.)  But on balance, let's say it is, being that it seems to be the majority view on here. Is it really a democracy if the people are given a choice but if they make the 'wrong' choice it's then overruled by those who claim to know better, even if they're right? Because right now it seems to be a case of "sorry you picked wrong, why don't you have another go?" 

We voted to leave the EU, and set out on our own path and that is what should now happen. As for what the future holds for the UK after we leave, no one knows but for better or worse, we voted to leave and we must stick to it.  If after a couple of decades, life in the UK has got gradually and significantly worse and the people are miserable and public demand for rejoining the EU has steadily grown then a time may come when it's appropriate to hold another vote. But before that happens, the choice made in this vote has to be given time to run its course.

It doesn't make sense in that it doesn't have any impact on the democratic validity of a second referendum. That is where we started this and you have still not made any point that suggests that a second referendum would somehow not be democratic.

Well I don't think the result wasn't valid, and I am sure many other remainers would agree. I just think that, now we have a better idea of what Brexit will look like, it is worth asking the question again. How is that not democratic?

Alan

I don't imagine for one minute you would have accepted a narrow result the other way as final.  Nigel Farage (above) was at least honest about this.  Insisting that one vote you personally find favourable is the final say on that matter and all related matters is the antithesis of being a democrat.

But it wouldn't be over-ruled by anyone who claimed to know better, it would only be over-ruled if the majority voted to remain. It isn't, "sorry, you picked wrong, have another go". It is, "in the light of the current negotiated deal, do you ('everyone') still think it is in the best interests of the country to leave the EU?"

In what way is that undemocratic?

Alan

PS. Championing Brexit by suggesting we need the right to make bad decisions is one of the best daft pro-Brexit arguments I have heard so far!

I think it does.  The reason for doing something does inform whether it's democratic (e.g. if the reason is because you didn't like the previous result and so you want to go again, that's not democratic).  If you don't think the reasons matter then of course I won't be able to convince you.  What do you think makes something democratic?  Just having a vote?

Leaving the EU isn't equal to the deal that is reached with the EU.

Imagine all you like, I'd have accepted it, just like I accept the results of elections.  I thought we'd lost on the day and I said on here something like "oh well, it's all done now".

... but the deal that is (or isn't) reached with the EU is almost certainly a major factor in many people's assessment of the merits of leaving the EU.

Let's make sure people are still happy with their choice, once the practical implications are known. It could shut those pesky Remoaners up for decades.

Because the first vote was based on incorrect information and now that the full extent of the false promises and lies have been exposed people have the right to change their minds - honouring that right is true Democracy. Blocking that right is most certainly NOT Democracy.

I think plenty of argument has been presented that those asking for a second referendum are basing it on much more than that they just didn't like the original outcome - moving goalposts and all that.

However, there is still fundamentally nothing undemocratic about asking for a referendum even if it is just because you didn't like the result of the first as long as you do it properly and follow set procedures. I am not suggesting this as something to strive for, but if the vote is done properly with a reasonable question, then the reason for doing it doesn't undermine the democratic legitimacy of the end result.

You've lost me here.

Alan

If you mean that, it's frankly a bizarre approach to politics. 

How far do you take this one vote and it's over approach?  If hypothetically there was a vote 100:0 in favour of something but before implementation polls suggested a complete reversal of opinion to 0:100 against, would you still insist it had to happen and any second vote would be undemocratic?

No because I didn't.

The government doesn't have a negotiating position, it didn't when you voted for any one of a thousand different futures, it didn't when May triggered A50 without preparing a plan, understanding the consequences, preparing business and the public sector and managing public expectation. It is stumbling toward disaster trapped by poor choices, propelled by ineptitude and a handful of malevolent wreckers.

You clearly fear a ratification referendum would result in a vote to remain yet you contend such a democratic decision, a choice between defined deliverable futures would would be undemocratic. That better, we should instead press on with or without public support.

If you want a brexit that sticks it has to be one the electorate chooses, not that is thrust upon them by charlatans. That will be unpicked in no time. How do you guarantee they deliver on their promises? Hold them to account!

jk

There are lots of good reasons to have a new vote.

a. The fact that what leaving the EU would mean was never specified in the first referendum reframing a three way issue Hard Brexit/EEA/Remain as a two way issue.

b. The way Brexiteers in the Tory party redefined 'Leave the EU' to exclude an EEA option staying in the single market and customs union in contradiction to what was said during the referendum and the views of Cameron who stated he would remain PM whatever the result.

c. The rampant lying, cheating and dodgy financing of the leave campaign.

d. The exclusion of EU citizens from voting while other immigrant groups more sympathetic to leave were allowed to vote.

e. The fact that the negotiations have been a complete disaster and the actual outcome is pretty much as predicted by the Remain campaign.

f. The fact that the demographics have changed since 2016 and calculations now predict a small majority for remain if the 2016 referendum was held again based simply on older voters who were predominantly Leave dying and younger voters who are predominantly Remain joining the electorate.

g. The fact that the Leavers arguments about millions of new muslim immigrants if we stayed in the EU based on the Syrian refugee crisis at the time of the first referendum and lies about Turkey joining the EU have been proved to be invalid.

h. If we have a new vote and decide to stay in the EU or something like the EEA we can avoid the complete economic havoc which is certain to occur in the first few years of a hard Brexit.   The 'we decided to shoot ourselves in the foot so we have to go ahead and do it' argument is moronic.

That isn't what a ratification referendum does. If 'the people' still want a known, defined and deliverable version of brexit they're welcome to it, if they don't then they're not being over ruled by anyone but themselves.

Even if it turns out it's going to cost hundreds of thousands of jobs, people's homes, perhaps their lives? Where do you draw the line, at what point would you turn back from this course deeming it not worth the pain?

What's special about a couple of decades, if public opinion is valid then, why not today, or in a year or three?

jk

"Remainers are sore losers"

Look, this ain't a football match nore a crikit match neither!

The vote wasn't asked for by Remainers.  I had no option but to vote but get this, it's not a game - it's a war over what we want and there ain't no such thing as giving up "as a good loser" when there is so much at steak! (not that I've had one for a long time)

Let me rephrase the question: why do you think in the 2 years since the referendum most people who voted remain have not changed their minds?

I don't recall the option on my voting slip being "a defined, deliverable Brexit", we voted to either stay in or leave the EU, that was all.

The vote was simply saying do you want the  UK to carry on the path we're on now, the nature of which we know about right now but as to where it'll lead us, no one really knows but some of the possibilities are not ones some people will like. Or do you want to take off our constraints, and walk our own path, make our own way in the world? It may be difficult, there is no guarantee of success but at least we get to make our own choices. Many people chose the latter and I doubt anyone really thought leaving would be guaranteed prosperity but they were willing to take a chance because they didn't like what they had.  

There is no realistic point where I'd say we should turn back, we made a choice, for better or worse we must now carry it out otherwise it undermines our right to choose in the first place and nothing is worse than that. Besides, although I expect some short-term disruption during the change as business adapts. I still don't see any reason to forecast doom for the UK post-Brexit. 

Because firstly it can't be valid yet because brexit hasn't happened yet. The choice was made, so the change must happen. Once the change happens then we can see how things play out, and in my view to do that will take 15 to 20 years.
 

Think of a general election, where the party you oppose wins. We don't then take a couple of years with the old party still in power while it's opponents spell out all the doom and gloom "what if's" about the party "the people" voted for if they actually took office until we decide just to stick with what we know even if it's not that great.

Thankfully that doesn't happen because power is changed within a day or two. Unfortunately, with the EU it takes (at least) two years so it allows time for those who wanted to remain to try and change things before they even happen. You should consider it a done deal the instant the vote was count was confirmed. The die is cast, it's just, in this case, it takes a long time to roll before you see the result. 

Strange.  Here was me thinking we have regular elections to see if people have changed their minds.

And I don’t agree with your characterisation of my position.

I knew there wasn’t an agreed deal when I voted.  

That's a bit vague.  You said you didn't understand the reasons people think it's undemocratic, I've explained my reasons.

If Cameron had called another referendum the next day, and kept doing so until he got the result he wanted, and then not called any more that would have followed the procedures, and it'd have been undemocratic for exactly the same reason.

The vote was not on the deal with the EU, it was on leaving.

Who knows.  For many of them they simply do not understand the other side's reasons and will not make any effort to do so, many have good reasons for their decision (as they see things) and just didn't accept the other side's case.  Either way, it doesn't matter.  Just like it doesn't matter that most Labour voters won't have changed their minds and would now vote Tory.

No it wouldn't, it would have simply been impractical.

That's life.  That was known when the vote was made.

This is a lie.  It was repeatedly argued that making our own trade deals - only possible outside the customs union and single market - was a good reason to leave.

And the lying, cheating and dodgy financing of the remain campaign?

Changing the demos to get the result that you want is of course highly democratic.

We didn't vote on this, we voted to leave and took the risk that we wouldn't get what we wanted in the negotiations.  Which of course are not over.

Presumably on this basis we should have new votes on all issues daily?

This is made up nonsense.

Right, you don't accept the result because you don't like the decision.

You think that holding votes until you get the result you desire would be democratic?

You're way behind the times, Farage was on Newsnight the other day and apparently 52-48 is now decisive.  At least Evan Davis nailed him on his pre-referendum statements about staying in the EEA / Efta.  Surprise, surprise he didn't get a straight answer out of the gobshite.  

I think holding a sequence of votes on the same broad question if there is reasonable reason to think public views have changes is democratic.  In fact I think not doing is undemocratic. 

I also think making radical irreversible changes on the basis of tiny majorities is reckless and undemocratic. Much better would be a threshold of a %age of the electorate or voters, say 60%, to separate signal from noise.  This is a common approach elsewhere.

It's highly disingenuous to claim that there were no implied outcomes of a Brexit vote. We spent months listening to politicians and other charlatans selling possibilities and getting voters excited about how much better everyone's lives could and would be. Almost all of this sales guff has been proved to be an impossible ideal (or, to Remainers, not even an ideal at all). Now the snake oil salesmen are reduced to claiming it won't be a total disaster, or that in 50 years it might recover to current levels. That's why the People's Vote is important, because as long as we only have a result based on implied outcomes we now know to be impossible, the genuine strength of support for the reality of what Brexit actually entails is unknown.

So, in light of subsequent developments, he reconsidered and changed his mind?

That sounds like a good option to offer voters too.

My example was that he called a new vote the next day and then just kept calling them until he got the result he wanted.  You don't think that's undemocratic?

What makes something democratic to you?

But not before the thing they voted for has been implemented and run its course. As I said above, we voted, leave we should leave the EU. If having left and tried to make a go of it we decided being outside the EU wasn't worth it (which would take a couple of decades to conclude, by all means, we can have another vote.

You don't vote in a general election, then on results night decide oh no we don't actually want that winning party in power, let's hold off and re-run the election again tomorrow hoping for a different outcome. You wait five years, let the people decide if they liked that parties rule or not then vote again.

As John said in the original post, this 'people march' thing would have carried much more weight if it had been made up of a significant number of leave voters having realised the horror of what they were all duped into voting for and are begging for forgiveness and for the exit processes to be halted. But it wasn't, it was just remain voters who didn't want to leave in the first place, complaining about how much they still don't want to leave.   

Great, I'm with you, Norway it is then. 

What if it turns out by leaving they are guaranteed pain, the loss of their income, a rise in the cost of living. Should they just suffer that for your hope that their pain is a price worth paying or should they be asked if that is actually what they want?

Wow, that is insane. Thanks for clearing up where you're coming from though, it helps.

Don't be ridiculous, we're free to choose to press on or change our minds at any point as the available information changes. There is nothing at all undemocratic in that, there is however in pretending otherwise in order to effect change that no longer has public support.

This isn't a general election and this isn't a period of scaremongering and what ifs, the party that delivered the referendum has been in power since it, they have since been elected with a weak mandate to deliver it and they have been working to do so. In the terms of your example we've had a couple of years of the new government and it is not looking like they can deliver on their overblown pledges, they need to do better or they'll be gone and their changes undone in the next cycle. Brexit isn't however an election, it is massive constitutional reform with huge economic and security implications. It is also naturally a multi-stage process. It is entirely reasonable that as our options decrease and our future path becomes clearer with the conclusion of each stage we review our position and that public and or parliamentary consent is sought. Through a series of mistakes parliament has tied its hands so it cannot discharge its duty without further reference to the electorate. We may decide to press on, turn back or pursue another option.

The one option that it appear the public might actually support (that parliament probably can't and that isn't advocated by any party) is essentially EEA membership as for Norway and Iceland, this resolves the issues in Ireland, does not drop a grenade into our economy and positions us outside the EU as per your simplistic vote. It's pointless but it is the only position few enough people hate to bring pragmatic leavers and reluctant remainers together in sufficient numbers.

jk

'made up of a significant number of leave voters having realised the horror of what they were all duped into voting for'

You can't know that there WASN'T a significant proportion of such people there.

And at a rough guess, any Brexiteers living in N Ireland; or working for Airbus; or working for Honda; or Jaguar Rover; or Unilever; or any UK based airline; or anyone working in the food industry; is SERIOUSLY reconsidering their position right now. 

My characterisation of your position? I assumed you voted leave, are you telling me you didn't? I doubt you will be crowing about it when the reality sinks in, and people are suffering, we're being mugged.

Yes and what if you *hate* the terms we agree to leave on, they're nothing like what you've been lead to believe you were getting? You're happy to just suck it up, too proud to do anything else?

What if we get full EEA membership, that's outside the EU, would you be quietly satisfied with that? Out means out after all, it doesn't mean anything else and that's all you voted for.

What if we don't reach a deal of any kind, talks just break down during the implementation phase and time runs out, there is economic armagedon, the ports gridlock, aircraft grounded, banks close, multinational businesses will by that point have already have pulled the trigger on their relocation plans. Will you just sit back with your food parcel and say 'I voted brexit, out means out!'.

Bollocks you will but if you don't take control of this, make May bring you what you were sold there is a real risk this could happen.

jk

Changing the demos to get the result that you want is of course highly democratic.

There are about 3.5 million UK Citizens living overseas for more than 15 years who were not allowed to vote.  It has been a two-times manifesto promise of the Conservatives (2015 and 2017) to return the franchise to these people, many of whom will be the most affected by Brexit.

How democratic is that?

I don't accept the result because the process which led to it was deeply flawed,  I don't like the decision because it is a. moronic and b. damaging to my family and my business.   

Unless we head this off before Brexit happens we will get 6 months to a year of absolute economic chaos similar to that which Greece went through after which it will get reversed anyway.   I could do without the chaos. 

I'm not aware of any manifesto pledge - link?  I don't think people who left the country 15 years ago should get to vote.  I find it bizarre that I get a vote in US elections despite having left the US (age 1) over 30 years ago.

Not that this has any relation to what tom_in_edinburgh said - he said that we should let EU citizens who are not UK citizens vote, quite clearly because he reckons they'd vote to remain and that's the result he wants.  Highly democratic, of course.

Your assertions about what will happen are not what I think, I did not make my decision based on your understanding of the world.  Absolutely I voted leave, I'm not hiding that.

Well I wouldn't vote for May again.  What's your point?

If we don't actually leave the EU then obviously I would not be happy with the result, no.

Armageddon!?  Your made up nonsense isn't truth.

If in ten years I've changed my mind then I might well vote to join the EU in a future vote.  I could be wrong, of course.  I don't think I am.

I don't think you'd be at all happy with May bringing me what I was sold.  Practically I have to rely on MPs doing this, of course.

The until he wanted but isn't on I agree but that isn't relevant here.

There is no simple answer but broadly a combination of honest, open debate and media; strong institutions (education, government, regulators professional societies etc); rule of law; effective, representative government and so on.  It certainly isn't a single, unalterable event.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatnews/11539537/Expat-voting-rights-wh...

https://www.conservativesabroad.org/node/5136

You're entitled to your opinion, however the reason for not giving people the vote has been given that it's increased workload for the electoral system, rather than some constitutional principal.  Labour routinely oppose this on party political grounds that overseas voters are perceived to vote / donate more to the Conservative Party. 

Nearly. Personally I am genuinely fearful of the consequences of disorderly brexit. I have not heard any leaver yet give a credible indication as to how (for example) we would avoid 15 mile queues of lorries heading into Dover. We are looking at the very real prospect of food shortages and medicines running out and leave has not put forward any workable proposal to mitigate the risks, and until they can and do, I will be supporting remain.

The electorate for the referendum was fixed to exclude long term EU residents in the UK and UK citizens who have lived for a long time in the EU but include people from non-EU countries who might be sympathetic to Leave because Leavers have pull within the Tory party and Cameron thought he'd win anyway and didn't need to fight on the details.

EU citizens got to vote in the Scottish Independence referendum, they get to vote in EU parliament elections and they get to vote in local government elections.  They should get to vote in Westminster elections too but the Tories are scared of the consequences.

My question was if that happened would you still be crowing about wanting out whatever the cost? You might not believe there will be economic harm but that does rather fly in the face of just about every informed opinion. You're being told loud and clear by business, by banks, by think tanks, by the civil service, by foreign allies and even by the very government implementing it that there is no beneficial version of brexit, they all do harm to differing degrees but they all harm the most deprived regions the worst.

The EEA is outside the EU. You pretend otherwise but in so doing you're admitting brexit does not mean brexit, any old version of out would not do. So how are you going to hold May's government to account, to make sure this isn't what you end up with?

I'm not happy about any of this but I would like to make sure that those who will have to live with their decision really do know and understand what it is they're getting, if they still want it good for them, I'll start a new life elsewhere, if they don't then good for them and me because I'd quite like to stay.

jk

It's a bit like buying a house.  You live in a perfectly nice modern new build house with your extended family, yes the neighbors on the estate can be a bit sniffy sometimes but generally things are okay.  One day whilst walking through town you see your dream house advertised in a local estate agents window.  It's a Georgian mansion style place.  You go inside, the agent talks you into paying the house a visit and promises that despite being an older house, the solar panels on the roof will give you zero energy bills.  You visit and at first glance it really all seems great, the potential new neighbors even seem pleasant. 

You ask each family member what they want to do (except young Alistair - he's only 15 so is too young to have an opinion) and by a narrow margin, the family agree to move.  Grandpa is particularly keen to move as he has never liked the current new build and prefers his more traditional houses. 

You put in an offer, have this accepted and put your existing house up for sale.  The survey on the new house however throws up a whole unexpected catalogue of structural horrors, the solar panels will all need replacing and the searches reveal that there's a new three lane bypass to be built soon right at the bottom of the garden.  The potential new neighbors whom had seemed nice at first seem also seem to like playing loud drum 'n' bass well into the small hours.

Alistair is now 16 and in the middle of his GCSE coursework, whilst Grandpa, who was the keenest to move has sadly passed away.

What do you do?  Do you press on regardless - after all the family took a vote to move?  It would be undemocratic to reverse that decision surely?  Or once the facts are clear do you re-evaluate your position and possibly to decide to stay put?

That's  weasel worded. It was repeatedly argued that we could negotiate our own trade deals (which is a bit like saying starting a footy match with 9 players is an advantage but never mind that for now). It was not emphasised that we could only do this outside the customs union and single market, and the consequences of that.... there was lots of 'cake and eat it', lots of German carmakers and French winemakers demanding a good deal for the UK (always irrelevant).

There were too many contradictions in what was 'repeatedly' said for any side to claim what the 'true' Brexit is. If we end up with EEA membership or close, you can be content that it is what you voted for. If that doesn't suit start campaigning for a 2nd vote.

Nice analogy except that the members of the family that wanted to stay put kept telling everyone that the solar panels wouldn’t work and they had a report from a solar panel expert stating this as well as a report from a solicitor saying that a by-pass was going to be built which they waved around ineffectively before the vote.

Alan

16-17 year olds were also included in Scottish referendum.......haven't heard the logical reason for their exclusion from the later EU one.

If people are so sure Brexit is a good thing, why are they so shit scared of another vote, surely, if it was good for us before more people will be convinced so more people will vote for it?

I don't think that's fair and I don't think we will get anywhere with the Brexiteers who are now wavering (the sorts who thought a Norway-style Brexit was on the cards) by lumping them in with the truly moronic hard-Brexiteers (I lose all sympathy with that arm of the movement given they cannot muster a coherent case to support their argument no matter how much rope you give them).

Like it or not, 50% of the population support some version of Brexit and regardless of the way it was publicised would have likely reached that conclusion regardless.  Go back in time and eliminate the absolute lies, the result would probably not be that different.  Farage was right in both directions - a slim result would mean unfinished business. 

What is different now is we are nearing the point of having concrete evidence to support skepticism of Brexit.  That simply didn't exist before.  Projections, guess-work, best assumptions, yes.  But no hard evidence.

You have to accept the result.  52% voted not to remain.  You you can also argue the dynamics have now radically changed. 

It is clear there are three camps; - hard-Brexiteers who (surprisingly to me) view a Norway style Brexit as being a Remain, - Remainers who view a Norway style Brexit as being a Leave, - and a middle ground of Brexiteers who might swing either way. 

No matter which way you cut it (i) Remain as a single bloc has a majority, and (ii) to cure the divisions we need to find an accommodation with the middle-way Brexiteers.  Otherwise there is a real risk that they will fall to the Hard-Brexit side of the force and this problem becomes intractable.

I have yet to hear a single response to that whenever I have asked the question, except for whataboutery and evasion.

They know, we know, everyone knows why.  Hence why they have shifted to veiled threats to unrest if denied their choice.

Although in your analogy the old house is not the same either – the sniffy neighbours are now openly hostile for deserting them, and are determined to make you pay for all the aggro the move is causing whether you decide to stay or not!

Pragmatism reigns, we can almost certainly go back reputation dented but nothing more if we were to decide to before March. Behind closed doors I'm sure there'd be a chill and some favours called in but the EU will not be beligerant or punitive if Britain is willing to stay, it is the best solution all around and they know if it happens it'll be a knife edge decision.

Jk

That would put us out of step with other EU countries who only allow citizens to vote in national elections. 

I am all for staying in the EU but gerrymandering the electorate would not be very democratic. 

The historical convention is that there is a single voting age for any election/referendum. Contrary to your statement, it would be illogical to try to vary that age per electoral event. (And if you did want to vary it, why choose 16? Why not 15? Or, for that matter, 21? Etc. etc.)

The Scottish situation is/was different: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_age#Scotland

The snag with your extra bit of analogy is that it's absolutely untrue. 100% untrue. Particularly the idea that they want to hurt us if we decide to stay. The neighbours having been doing all they can to make us stay, and have said, time and again, they would welcome us back. We, meanwhile, have been daubing rude slogans all over their front gate telling everyone what shits they are.

Fair point and yes I did know that was not correct. While it was widely discussed at the time the Leave campaign. largely in the guise of Boris Johnson, continued to use it as a figure and I can imagine quite a few believed it. I know of some people who accepted it and nothing I said would change their mind.

Dave

Maybe it would - I don't know the electoral laws in all the nations of the EU but I still think giving EU citizens who have made a home in the UK a vote would be the right thing to do.

The 3 million EU citizens in the UK despite being highly productive are treated with contempt by government because they have no vote in Westminster elections.  Less well integrated immigrant groups which cluster together in specific constituencies and are allowed to vote in Westminster elections get far more attention because they can influence elections.

A few million relatively young, relatively well educated, largely non-religious voters with experience of modern democratic systems would be a very useful influx of wisdom into the UK electorate.

Nobody would call it gerrymandering when women were given the vote but it almost certainly influenced elections in favour of the party who made the change.   It's the same principle: if the system can be made fairer by including a constituency which is presently ignored it should be.

I was on the march... it was very good natured and yes, the sun did shine, it was a lovely day, topped up my tan as well... we were pretty near the front and the only time we saw any trouble the whole day when the police had to get involved was when a particularly nasty group of 'leavers' started hurling abuse and missiles at those of us marching... says it all really…

Not even hurt us a tiny bit?

Wasn’t it was one of the Remain arguments at the referendum that there was no going back because of the difficulties of reapplying? – no rebates/vetos, and accepting Schengen, the Euro etc.  

It will be more difficult if we reapply, basically because they will have to treat us in the same way as others countries seeking membership, however that is different from us changing our mind and deciding not to leave in the first place. Although from a legal perspective, we may fast reaching a point where we have left, even if we haven't properly left. If we enter a transition period, that will mean we have left, even if to all intents and purposes we are benefitting from and subject to the rules of the EU.

Those are just the hard facts of the way all the agreements are set out. (Note that word 'agreement'. Another nasty word for some people, like 'truth'.) You might just as well complain, if you set off up the Indian Face, without adequate forethought or skill, that the climb 'wanted' to hurt you if you fall off.

Getting into Schengen and the Euro would be great.   It would make trips to Font less of a hassle for starters.

The UK appears to be unique (certainly within the EU) in allowing any non citizens to vote in national elections or constitutional referendums. The general case within the EU is that EU citizens may vote in local elections but only citizens of the state concerned can vote in national elections.

Allowing  a vote to  non British EU citizens (who would remain EU citizens whatever the outcome) to decide whether or not British citizens remained EU citizens would be a deliberate alteration of the electorate to achieve a desired result. 

Imagine for a moment that you sincerely wished to leave the EU, for whatever reason, would that alteration seem reasonable? 

The difference with the vote for women is that prior to that about 50% of British citizens were able to vote upon the fate of all British citizens. Full adult emancipation rectified an inequality.

I don't think it is reasonable that migrants from Germany have less rights than migrants from Pakistan or Somalia or Australia.  As Europeans living in Europe they had no reason to acquire British citizenship.  Then a bunch of dicks decide they want to turn the clock back 40 years and people who have been living here for 20 years have no right to have their views represented on a decision that will change their whole life.   

Nobody would dare rewrite the status of other immigrant groups like that: they'd be too scared.  

No representation for EU citizens but representation for people from Commonwealth countries is also an inequality - and one that suits the Leavers.

No more or less so than for example allowing UK resident commonwealth citizens to vote in the 2016 referendum.

FWIW I think the rules for a ratification referendum should be the same as for the first to head off this kind of bellyaching in the hope a decisive result either way could settle the issue down for a while. Unfortunately that still leaves millions of people most intimately effected by this decision without a say in their future but that die is cast.

jk

Oh come on, that's ridiculous!  It's quite clear that the climb is quite uncaring and that gravity and the ground will be conspiring to punish and hurt you, lurking like vultures while you climb.

That's not designed to inflict pain. Those are the rules of application as they stand today. After March those are the rules we play by or have to negotiate around trading something else in exchange for exemptions if any are negotiable, Schengen likely would as it is a specific solution to a specific problem, one that isn't so relevant to the UK given Britain's lack of EU land border and pre-existing Schengen-like bilateral agreement with Eire. The rest of it... who knows, we'll be in a right mess if it comes to this.

Until 19th March we are a full member, we can stop the A50 on our existing terms. The remaining uncertainty is whether that needs 28 rubber stamps on the letter or just one. Soon we'll have the answer to that from the ECJ, no thanks to our contemptible excuse for a government.

jk

They did if they wished to vote in a British national election, as likewise would a German living in France or any other EU country. 

It is an inequality, the remedy is to fall in line with the rest of the EU (and probably the world) and only allow citizens to vote in national elections. Only citizens have nowhere else to go when stupid decisions are made. 

For avoidance of doubt I would like to see a federal Europe with the UK part of it. 

Sticking with existing rules is no more or less democratic than changing the rules to engineer a specific result?  Laughable.

Tom_in_edinburgh - the number of commonwealth voters was less than the difference between remain and leave, so it made no difference.  Commonwealth voters are also largely not white, or Irish, and non whites and Irish generally voted remain.  How it suits leave to include them I can’t imagine.  Expats though are largely Tory (as pointed out above) and Tories largely voted leave.

An EU citizen who has lived more than twenty years in the UK and has kids at school, a house, a career and their pension tied up in the UK doesn't have much of an option to leave either.

It's fundamentally unfair to people who have built their lives round the freedoms provided by the EU to unilaterally remove those rights and not even give them a vote when the decision is taken.   The only fair recompense for the loss of EU citizenship rights within the UK would be an unconditional offer of UK citizenship in addition to their EU citizenship.

Expats may prefer the Tories economic policies but it seems highly unlikely that they would be in favour of losing their EU freedom of movement rights.

I'd quite like to be compensated for the loss of my rights as an EU citizen too.

I wonder how I could raise this with the ECJ.

The vast majority of expats do not live in the EU, biggest single countries with expats are Australia, the US and Canada, in that order.  Can't imagine they're particularly bothered about free movement rights.

I said I think we should stick with the same rules as the 2016 referendum for any future referenda on related issues specifically to sidestep this kind of inane bellyaching.

My point is that the inclusion of UK resident Comonwealth citizens in the franchise was no more or less 'democratic' than the exclusion of UK resident EU citizens, these are choices we make for a variety of reasons, whether they have precedent or not is irrelevant. There is no logical reason to include one group but exclude the other, it was a political choice (necessity really). It was IMO wrong but there we go, we have to live with it as we may also have to live with the unfurling disaster of brexit.

jk

Yes but not unconditional. (serious criminal records for example) 

My comment and your response.  It is definitely less democratic to change who can vote in order to achieve a certain result rather than sticking with the existing franchise.  That's why it'd cause people to complain (what you called bellyaching), because it would be undemocratic.

If you want to talk about who ought to be allowed to vote in general then I'd say it should be just citizens, no one else, but that's a different topic and is not what was being talked about.  You're sidestepping the actual discussion.  There are/were good historical reasons to include one group but not the other, and they are the reasons that the situation is as it stands, but I'm sure you're aware of them.

"The UK appears to be unique (certainly within the EU) in allowing any non citizens to vote in national elections or constitutional referendums. The general case within the EU is that EU citizens may vote in local elections but only citizens of the state concerned can vote in national elections."

Also for EU elections according to my French voting card (& I did vote here in the last EU elections)

likewise for British citizens living elsewhere in the EU - I had no reason to apply for French nationality in the past but due to a vote in which I wasn't allowed to participate, my life is going to become a lot more complicated, at best.

Interesting point, do you kick the whole family out if the dad's a wrong 'un?

That is a reasonable point. How we deal with that I don't know but I have dealt with some seriously bad and violent people who currently get deported at the expiry of their sentence. Keeping them here seems bad for the country but may be a trade off we have to make. 

Same situation here regarding EU elections. If we followed the French example you would have had a vote in the Brexit referendum but not in a 'Frexit' one. 

This.

If we rely on our own population it'll take about twenty years.

Fortunately, I don't think those on the march are bothered by the scorn and abuse of little people such as yourself.

But where do you stop? There was a vote. A decision was made. Parliament elected to deliver that decision. A noisy minority don’t like the decision and demand a replay. That is what is undemocratic. It means there was no point in the first vote. I am less vexed by the idea of a referendum on accept or reject the deal. But not in undoing what was decided. 

This is a fallacious argument. If anything the remainer lies now far outstrip the leaver lies.

Thankfully 17 million had the wisdom to disagree with you Roger.

Those dicks will be your fellow countrymen and women. So much personal self interest in the remains here. The somewheres not much loved by the anywhere’s. 

It remains to be seen if it was wisdom, but that's democracy for you. Such is life.

... and now it is turning into a right mess, many things have changed, many things that were promised now don't appear to be true/accurate/possible.

It is such a weak argument - when do you stop. I agree that we shouldn't have referenda very often, in fact hardly ever since it misses the point of a parliamentary democracy, however in this case parliament is showing itself to be unable to produce a consensus decision after two years of debate. A second referendum is the only way the country is going to get a credible decision.

But it would only be undone if the majority voted remain on the second referendum. You (and Dixon) seem to always start from the assumption that 'leave' would lose a second referendum. Why is that?

Alan

What a load of rubbish. Tell me some of these remainer lies then.

Alan

I certainly do not.

That there would be a recession if we voted Leave. 

Tusk’s extravagant claim that leave would signal the end of western civilisation.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-eu-refere...

PIn reply to Alan James - Rockfax:

Or Cameron’s speech that it could mean war in Europe.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/05/08/cameron-...

scaremongrring or what? Massive lies. The bus figure was actually much closer to the truth. We are massively net contributors to the EU budget. When you take the rebate off that Lady Thatcher fought so hard it reduces a little. But it is still a big sum. Many leave voters have the view that in a time of austerity that money should 

… we haven't left yet... once we do there may well be a recession. Knowing many folk who work in 'The City'... most of the big London companies have already opened offices in France, Belgium and Holland. They are simply waiting to see what happens when we do actually leave next year... all the indications are they'll be off like a shot if they're not happy with whatever the outcome is...

… Interestingly James Dyson, a very vocal leaver, who banged on endlessly about how the UK needs to be more bullish about its manufacturing capability and how we should stand on our own two feet, has decided to make his new electric cars in Singapore as Singapore has a good trade deal with the EU making it easy for him to sell them, with minimum tariffs, back into the European market... oh how ironic; you couldn't make it up...!!!

Well, it certainly appears to be the end of civilised western politics 

former Tory mp and adviser to David Davies calls an 11 year old in hospital a ‘pathetic cretin’. 

So that’s what it’s come to. Tweeting abuse at children. I hope it’s all worth it. 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/oct/23/former-tory-mp-stewart-jac...

Dyson went to Singapore not because of EU but to be close to China his core market and Singapore has trade deal with China. Your point about not left yet is really not worthy of comment. You guys blame any bad news on Brexit ‘even though we haven’t left yet.’ I can confirm there will be a recession. There always are. The failure to deal with debt — now bigger than pre crash — is the real worry. EU unelected leaders are fools. Not that May is any better. 

The history of politics is littered with abusive language. Just read threads on here. Leave voters morons, cretins, stupid blah blah. Your comment had no relevance to Tusk comment. Project Fear fundamentally based on lies. 

Still a load of rubbish? Recession, end of western civilisation, war, and millions unemployed. Remainer. Porky. Pies. 

Just ban me Alan. Save us all the trouble! 

I think you know full well that you're personally responsible for a good proportion of the abusive language recently, which is a shame because you used to be more reasoned and less abusive. Difficult to take your occasional valid points as seriously any more, when we have to filter them from so much misleading rhetorical guff.

Yes, of course political discourse has always had a cutting edge 

but senior political figures posting abusive messages to sick 11 year olds?

You’re really not going to repudiate that? 

Be careful not to fall off that high horse John. 

I do. And I trust in good faith that you will repudiate the claim made on this site by a remoaner that 17 million people are ‘retards’ .... they are sensible people who made a political judgement  that a slightly smaller number of people disagreed with. Period. 

It only looks high from your perspective in the gutter, John

That could be considered abuse. But it’s more of your pointless inanity so ride off into the sunset there’s a good chap (forgive the pun). 

Almost as if he thinks there's something in the much sneered at gravity model eh. Still, Australia, they'll take the sting out of f*cking up our valuable ties to Europe in a decade or so if we still make anything they want by then.

Jk

Of course.

Bit of a difference though don’t you think? Anonymous adults calling each other names is pretty unedifying stuff; but a senior politician calling a child in a hospital bed a retard- Brexit is debasing our political culture and behaviour that would have been career ending only a few years ago now appears to be shrugged off or minimised with whataboutery. 

And if you can find anything similar from senior remain supporting figures, I’ll repudiate it without hesitation. 

I agree with all of that. Your contributions to these threads prove it.

A few of us Remainians can be a bit fruity with the old language, but to the best of my knowledge none of us have shot and stabbed a tiny woman and mother to death in the street while shouting the name of the political party that best represents our views just because we didn't like the cut of her political jib. Mind you I've been on holiday so am a bit behind with the news, so if Jayda Franzen has been attacked by some overeducated trilingual vegan shouting "Liberal Democrats!" then ignore my last comment, we're even.

Only if you're a snowflake - which I rather doubt you are - intent on pretending you haven't had a recent history of posting unpleasantries.

I'll happily drop this whole Brexit obsession as soon as we've had a meaningful (and legal this time) People's Vote. Then we'll both know the 'will of the people'. Until then it would be stupid for anyone to just shut up about the abyss we're staring into (but which a select few influential individuals stand to gain a lot from) and watch idly while it drags us all down.

I voted Remain and will say you do yourself no credit with remarks like that.

It's an appropriate response to John considering his style. I do appreciate your point, but I can live with it. 

He didn’t insult the child, as the guardian article says, he insulted the dad.

No vote on leave. Parliament vote on deal. The referendum was not illegal. You and your fellow remainer thugs will only shut up when you have got the decision you want. 

No but he reveals just how ugly and poisonous this so called debate has become. He’s s thoroughly nasty piece of work in my view. Discredit to remain. 

So that is a refusal to repudiate the remainer retard abuse on the leave voters. Shame on you. 

Reasoned as ever. 

You at least admit you are obsessed. That’s the first step on the road to treatment and cure. 

The voice of scotch nationalism: harsh, intolerant, deeply partisan, would turn Jockland into a wasteland. 

And no one has responded to the big three remainer lies quoted above. Interesting. 

Another remainer lie exposed this week -- namely that the unelected commission has no power over domestic budgets...this must be a fabrication then - it is from the Guardian.

Italy was presented with a three-week deadline to provide a revised financial plan, and the commission’s vice-president, Valdis Dombrovskis...... threatened to begin a procedure that could lead to the EU imposing fines on Italy unless the new government reconsiders. 

So, we help a fellow government out of debt by imposing punitive fines on them. Peace and stability. You'll be saying strong and stable next...And remind me who elected Vladis Dombrovkis....I don't remember his name being on the EU election ballot paper...

From the link "As a historian I fear Brexit could be the beginning of the destruction of not only the EU but also Western political civilisation in its entirety,"

A key word "edited" out by our spin doctor in chief. Remember kids, leave means lies.

… of course he did... how silly of me - China may well be one of his core markets but it will also mean, if the UK crashes out of the EU and falls back on WTO rules and tariffs, he will be able to import his shiny new cars into the European mainland without the tariffs he would face if he manufactured in the UK... its so hypocritical...

…. I  note also; that doyen of modern, forward looking Britain, Jacob Rees-Mogg (sic), another rabid Brexiteer, has moved many of the assets his investment firm owns to Dublin in recent months... no doubt there will be reasoned explanation for this that, of course, has nothing to do with the economic uncertainty caused by the EU referendum: a.k.a. lets save the Tory party...

I don't agree. What's that got to do with the referendum? If anything it strengthens my case. It seems that you are so obsessed that you are failing to read what others write.

He does read what others write, but rewrites it to suit his own agenda then responds with a few added and invented accusations of abuse while throwing in a few well placed if transparent provocations. (I think I might be the only person on any of these trolling threads who is guilty of responding to him using abusive language). Anyway it’s an old tactic, if you don’t have the ammunition to win an argument, attack your opponent’s integrity.

It’s been a very good introduction to a poisonous kind of  journalistm and how to create a totally false narrative, but has imho devalued the forums massively. There are leavers/agnostics such as Summo and BnB to name two who add much value to debates but for now the forum is being drowned out by tho noise which comes straight from the UKIP playbook. 

The recession: My personal take and I can only speak for myself was that a short and shallow recession related to the shock of a leave vote was a distinct possibility, not a certainty. We saw reduced growth, we saw growth relative to our peers collapse, we saw some job losses (my sister in law lost hers as a direct result of lost confidence causing a scaling back of the company she worked for) but we also saw stronger than expected global growth (not brexit related), we saw a big increase in QE keeping credit more available than might have been prudent in the long run and the slump in the value of the pound stimulated export sales which is fine for high value-added products and services or those sold from stock but it is a transient effect and it's impact on workers largely offset by inflation of imported goods and commodities.

This is all unrelated to the effect new tariff and non-tariff barriers, loss of direct investment, loss or regional development funding, loss of science funding and a decline in the attractiveness of British institutions and researchers will have on our economy upon leaving. All versions of brexit look set to cause nett harm in these areas, whether that will too be offset by the transient effects we benefited from before and those we have no control over (dumb luck)... we'll see but I'm not an optimist and I see no reason to take the risk.

War: Brexit is heightening tensions in Northern Ireland already, it looks set to reinvigorate the movement for reunification which is unlikely to be bloodless. As for war in Europe, I can only speak for myself so here's my take. Does brexit cause it? Directly and promptly, no. Does it make it more likely? Depends how we handle it and what the unforeseen consequences are. It certainly doesn't make it less likely and if it results in the disintegration of the EU as many brexiters believe they want then yes, the likely outcome in the short to medium term is small scale conflict between nations of the EU and on the edges as border, ethnic and economic tensions resulting from the collapse stoke the growth of nationalist movements. Resulting refugee flows would further heighten tensions in neighbouring regions risking contagion. Splitting Germany, France and Italy apart economically inevitably leaves Gremany justifiably feeling vulnerable on two geographically undefendable flanks squeezed between France and ultimately Russia to the east, forced to militarise. With an aggressive and unpredictable Russia in the mix we have a volatile mess of fear, militarisation and economic turmoil. In the past this has frequently resulted in war in Europe. The future isn't the past but this situation is while the EU holds together unthinkable.

Unemployment: Will rise if our economy contracts, this may be partially offset by the loss of workers who have retained their EU freedoms but that too will result in transient skills shortages (eg NHS) which will likely be plugged with incentivised immigration due to the lag between funding training and skilled staff numbers increasing being unacceptable. How much the economy weakens depends what deal May negotiates over the coming years but all credible forecasts for all available versions of brexit are for reduced growth or negative growth. These contractions are forecast to hit the most deprived regions hardest. Loss of revenue will trigger a deepening of austerity felt most acutely in those deprived regions where the safety net once provided by the state is most needed. By all means make a scholarly evidenced argument for those forecasts being wrong but I'm afraid I'll treat positive feelings and hope with the same regard I would a tea leaf reading.

Is that the three, I get confused?

You dress these up as if they are core tenets of the remain argument understood and presented by all remainers in exactly the same way but the fact is most remainers just see brexit reducing their rights and weakening their country in exchange for nothing of value comparable to that which we give up.

Edit: I've answered your question, now your turn John. How does brexit make my life better?

jk

Or just randomly attack anyone. Let's face it, the substance of the OP that started this is a claim that the march didn't contain any significant leave voices (how can he know?) and two irrelevant paragraphs attacking Gary Lineker, amongst others.

Alan

But you have been doing such sterling work for leave in this regard, with this being another whopper to add to the mountain.

You've only confirmed that all three claims are untrue -- 

god I sent you the bloody link... it is still a wild and unsubstantiated claim......end of western political civilisation then ...was he right, is he right or is he just shroud waving.

It is not worth the bother with you guys...

Yeah, silence the man. He is a cretin, moron and retard...

But let's see a bus emblazoned

End of western political civilisation

Recession imminent

A world at war 

All three big whopping lies. I appreciate JK taking time to deal with them in turn but it only proves they are unsubstantiated foresasts design to frighten the voters...and those you cant frighten you bully

So just how many leave voters were there. Look at the banners, the names of the supporting groups, the political leaders..of there were leave converters the Remain gang did a good job at hiding them.. if the random attacks offend either ban me, or tell the remainer crowd to stop using the same tactics against those they clearly hate..so the sarcasm wasn’t random but deliberate to show the remainers have rich and powerful backers, celebrity influencers, and unelected figures elevated by patronage. The language I’m using is to mirror the tone of the debate if that is what it is..on this site. If you don’t like what you see in the mirror, that’s not my fault. Your response, in the plural, is to smash the mirror. You lost the vote. The people decided. 700k rent a mob on the streets is not democracy and has no political legitimacy. Maybe Tusk was on to something. The Remain side lie day in day out. But they can’t and won’t admit it. 

If you can't spot the difference between the end of civilisation and the end of political civilisation then maybe don't bother posting.

I've demonstrated that the most simplistic presentation of those claims can be presented as such if the context in which they are considered is unreasonably restricted. Which isn't the same thing.

Predictably you've declined to address my question and reverted to accusing me of bullying. If you feel I'm bullying you I would strongly encourage you to 'report abuse' with the button at the bottom of the thread.

jk

“700k rent a mob on the street is not democracy and has no political legitimacy”

This is the sort of disgusting language I would expect from the very worst of the tabloids, but more importantly if shows your complete lack of understanding of modern democracy.

In your head it seems, we haven’t moved on from Peterloo.

Carlsberg don't do irony, but if they did...

Wow! That must be the biggest riot in UK history! I'm guessing they left a trail of destruction or London was a sea of flames. Let's check what the Met Police said.

"No significant arrests"

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/no-significant-arrests-made-after-th...

Do you believe in a "democracy" without the right to peacefully disagree?

No, me too.

I didn't start taking the piss until he made a series of spectactularly ignorant and grossly offensive remarks about Scotland. They really only illustrated once again that UKIP is misnamed in that their only allegiance is to themselves and they don't actually give a phuq about the UK or anyone else for that matter. I don't regard him ss typical, just part of the lunatic fringe.

I only respond because I feel it's better that he waste his time on this forum where he is doing a sterling job in hardening opinion against Brexit than give him the time to spread his poisonous and ignorant views elsewhere.

That is not disgusting language.

IMaybe he holds these views, maybe not, I have my doubts.  I think he is trying to provoke me, or any other offended ‘Jock’ into an angry response, preferably using a similarly bigoted anti-English slur to bolster his argument that remainians and pro-Indy ‘scotch’ are a bad lot, not for the benefit of ukc spats but for dissemination through his professional media voice.

That doesn’t mean he isn’t a massive arsehole as well though.

er, none, that was the point wasn't it? I wouldn't expect someone who had voted leave and changed their mind to be carrying a banner supporting leave, however I bet there were some there.

Do you really think that remainers are motivated by hate? I think most are actually motivated by love of their country, and openness to other cultures and nationalities. What we fear is the restrictive mentality and closed reactionary assumptions that is at the heart of much of the leave campaign's rhetoric.

Which the leave campaign have as well, only on this thread the only ones who get criticised are the likes of Dyson and Rees-Mogg for their hypocritical behaviour, not just for being rich, which is what your complaint against Gary Lineker appears to be.

Not really. The response is pretty consistently to counter your arguments with substantive arguments of our own. I don't see any mirror smashing going on here. I admit that the odds are stacked against you since yours is one of only two voices, and I admire that, but you would do better to tackle the issues with substantive statements rather than sweeping generalisations and characterisations.

Again your point is undermined by using the language 'rent a mob' when it quite obviously wasn't a 'mob' and no-one was being 'rented' to be there.

You still haven't answered my question about why you assume that a second referendum would be lost by the leave campaign.

Alan

The framing of peaceful political protest as illegitimate is both wrong and deeply chilling.

The characterisation of 700k anti-brexit protesters as rented, paid or paid for actors is both utterly ridiculous and reminiscent of surprisingly effective US alt-right efforts to undermine legitimate protest, for example see the Sandy Hook conspiracies.

The characterisation of peaceful protesters as a mob with connotations of violent disorder is dishonest.

John picks his words carefully, this is his job. If his language isn't setting alarm bells ringing about the journey you and your fellow travellers are on with brexit then you're sleepwalking.

jk

"Another remainer lie exposed this week -- namely that the unelected commission has no power over domestic budgets...this must be a fabrication then - it is from the Guardian.

Italy was presented with a three-week deadline to provide a revised financial plan, and the commission’s vice-president, Valdis Dombrovskis...... threatened to begin a procedure that could lead to the EU imposing fines on Italy unless the new government reconsiders. "

Besides the assertion of that "lie" being a classic Brexit strawman (the Commission can work on a mandate from it's member states and from Parliament). In this particular 'interference' Italy signed up to the rules of the Euro zone, whereas the UK did not.

I'm no fan of EU democracy but there are middle postions eg.

https://fullfact.org/europe/eu-facts-behind-claims-democracy/?gclid=Cj0KCQj...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_deficit_in_the_European_Union

Even in the Guardian... (at the bottom of this article after they explain the democratic mandate of the Commission):

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jun/13/is-the-eu-undemocratic-refere...

Democracy means nothing if the right to protest and dissent is not allowed. It is only oppressive regimes, scared of freedom of expression, which prevent peaceful protests. Whether you agree with the aims of the protesters, you should, if you have any respect for democracy, allow their right to present their case. 

It actually is. Calling 700k peaceful, friendly marchers a "rent-a-mob" and claiming they are undemocratic and have "no political legitimacy" may not have the crude "vulgarity" of swear words, but it is in fact much more vulgar in its dismissal of the legitimate concerns and laudable conduct of a huge number of people.

Of course it's not really john's fault, he just chooses not to think for himself. But we hear this sort of language all the time from our elected officials now, and it is deeply degrading for our democracy.

https://twitter.com/Jacob_Rees_Mogg/status/1053665653280911360

I don't think anyone has said that they should be allowed to do as they wish.  Just like the people who were protesting the result in Bristol, or outside Parliament, days after should be allowed to do as they wish.  They should expect to be ignored though, and they should expect to be called names.

Amazing that given the apparent strength of feeling, and the 16million odd remain voters, that they didn't field anything close to that number.  It's almost as if a small minority are still obsessed and will do anything to change the result while the majority have moved on.

Common misportrayal, I think the greatest volume, and most strident anger is generally displayed by the remain side. This chap elucidates the "hate" directed at, not by, the leavers:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=R9T4dGAxtO0&t=145s

“700k rent a mob on the street is not democracy and has no political legitimacy” Does not do that.

"rent a mob" is a commonly used phrase. It does not necessarily mean they were paid. Obviously John does not think they were. So why not deal with the points he is making,  rather than deliberately misinterpret ?

You are being dishonest. There was no intended suggestion of violent disorder.

In fact, are you Pat Condell?:-

youtube.com/watch?v=Nh11RYjheUY&

Not an insult, I'm a genuine admirer.

In reply to Alan James - UKC and UKH:

700000/16000000 = >20%?  Think you might want to check your maths.

I'd like you to expand on that and try to justify those assertions please Thomas. They don't fit with my understanding of British values but perhaps as an outsider I'm missing something.

It was the second biggest protest march in British history. If you're clinging to the fact there weren't 16M+ there to kid yourself opposition to brexit is not strong and widespread then you've a shock coming. You're not daft, I don't believe you actually believe that.

jk

You must therefore believe that less than a million people in the UK were opposed to the Iraq war in 2003, so Blair's decision to go ahead will, in your eyes, have had overwhelming public support?

The word “mob” implies violent disorder, though I suspect you know this.

What are you looking for?  Do you think that protests against results straight after they've come in should be listened to, as opposed to the actual result?  There will always be people strongly unhappy with any result, they should always be ignored as outliers.

The opposition from certain people, such as yourself, is fervent and strong, the result of the referendum didn't change or affect your views on what ought to happen.  There are many many people who agree with you.  They aren't a majority.  The majority accept the result as a democratic decision.

That doesn't follow at all.  A majority were probably uncertain.  As I recall at the time polls showed support for the war overall.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015/06/03/remembering-iraq/

Seems I recall correctly.

As I said, for all his ranting John chooses his words carefully:

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/mob : A mob is a large, disorganized, and often violent crowd of people.

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/illegitimate : Illegitimate is used to describe activities and institutions that are not in accordance with the law or with accepted standards of what is right.

I trust we both understand the definition of rent.

Whether or not John actually believes this these are the corrosive rhetorical tools he has chosen to undermine this protest. You're willing to look away from that, to overlook the danger inherent in this becoming an acceptable way of describing then through acceptance of that, considering, legitimate political protest. I'm not.

jk

Why on earth should they be expected to be called names? Is that how low we have fallen, that disagreements can only be addressed with insults? Is that really what we have to look forward to? Healthy democracies thrive on dissent and disagreement. 

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/mob : A mob is a large, disorganized, and often violent crowd of people.

Well if you're now using polls as justification, perhaps you'd like to review the overwhelming poll evidence for majority Remain support right now.

Can't have it both ways.

The day after a vote we've already had all the argument, everyone has had their chance to have their say and then we have the result.  You lose, you accept it and come back next time.  If you want to be a sore loser then fine, go ahead, but you are just a sore loser, you're not some moral campaigner whose argument needs to be heard.

I note you fail to answer my question. Please try again. Why should dissenters expect to be called names? 

"the danger inherent in this becoming an acceptable way of describing"  What nonsense.

So you are going to attack the words rather than the meaning.

As opposed to? No. In conjunction with a very close advisory referendum being used to railroad massive and harmful constitutional change through parliament? Yes.

As I said, I'd like you to expand on and justify your assertions, help me understand your reasoning so I'm not just left thinking you're wrong. I might be left understanding why I think you're wrong, you might convince me you're right, depends on the quality of your argument.

Half the electorate described as outliers... this is how disaster happens.

No, my views from the outset were that in the event of a Leave vote we should plan then negotiate our departure then vote for a defined and deliverable future outside the EU if that reality is what we choose.

Which begs the question why are you so damned desperate not to actually ask them what they want? I actually agree with your statement (I hesitate to say 'you' since you give every impression of believing we would actually now vote to remain), I think Leave can win but only by getting their heads out of their asses and delivering a minimum harm settlement for the electorate, not little England for a handful of wreckers and nationalists on the fringes of the Conservative party. Holding your government to account is very much in your interest, at the moment we are both being sold down the river.

jk

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2018/09/12/how-public-feel-about-brexit-options/

Yougov says 3% in favour of remain - not that the result should be overturned, but that if the vote were held today 3% in favour of remain.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/06/23/yougov-day-poll/

Yougov on the day poll in 2016 shows 4% in favour of remain.

What a stonking majority for remain that is, what an utterly clear demonstration of a move in your favour...whoops no that's a 1% shift away from remain.

The poll for the Iraq war showed a huge majority in favour of it.  Not that I was, but that's what the polls showed at the time.

Because they're being sore losers.

https://www.marketing-partners.com/conversations2/changing-minds-frames-mat...

How we talk about things changes how we think about them. John's choice of language and your uncritical acceptance of it has consequences.

I can only know what he says so I'll stick to addressing that.

jk

Why are you so scared of another vote? Surly if it's so great, it'll fly through, now everyone knows what the benefits are for all of us.

Standard loaded questions from you.

See reply above.

Half the electorate is your imagination, half the electorate did not vote remain, half the electorate do not think like you.

As per usual, you're not responding to what I say you're responding to a straw man.

Scroll up for the answer.

Loaded? I politely asked you to expand on an opinion you offered FFS.

They near as damnit did. No, of course they don't all think alike, just as leave voters don't. If they did you wouldn't be desperately scrabbling to delegitimise the campaign for a ratification referendum.

Erm. I'm responding to your assertion that 'People's Vote' campaigners should be insulted and ignored which I don't think is much of a straw man given at 12:30 you wrote:

If you do not actually believe this, if it was a hot-headed outburst you're not actually willing to defend then fair enough.

jk

"being used to railroad massive and harmful constitutional change through parliament?"  Massive and harmful are *not* loaded terms?  You're kidding right?  I'd call it a beneficial and necessary constitutional change, personally.

I've given above reasons why I don't think there should be a new referendum.  Your emotional and loaded responses really aren't worth replying to.

I said that they should be ignored, and that they should *expect* to be called names.

I'll leave it there.

Massive is an understatement. Harmful is from the government's own impact assessments.

Loaded or not that statement wasn't part of the question I asked, I asked you to expand on why you feel political protesters should be ignored and insulted.

I can assure you I'm quite calm. I don't recall seeing your answer, perhaps please once more for me?

You'll have to forgive me for not being able to get a fag paper between what you said and what appears to be your defence of it.

jk

With all due respect, over the last two and a half years the assembled forces of Brexit (especially but not limited to politicians) have squandered any goodwill, any desire for me to listen to their arguments or see their point of view. They've not once attempted to extend an olive leaf to us. They've sneered, gloated and completely dismissed my legitimate concerns about everything I stand to lose. They've alternately called me a loser, a remoaner, an anti-democratic, a traitor, an enemy of the people, an elitist, a snowflake, a citizen of nowhere. They've blamed me for the government's mess, told me I ought to be exiled, or just pretended I and 16.1 million others don't exist.

They've been the sorest bunch of winners imaginable.

Mainly because they have no idea what they've won - dogs chasing cars.

Is that really the best you can offer? I despair.

Well articulated, thanks!

I don't see anywhere in that document where it says 3% are in favour of remain. 

The most interesting thing in the report is the slope of the graph measuring how many people think Brexit was a mistake and how it has changed with time and specifically how fast it has been going up in the last couple of months.   The nearer we get to Brexit the more things that have just been plans and contingencies will start becoming realities, the scarier it is going to get and the faster that line will move.

Your quite slanderous aunt you?   Rent a mob?   God I've been receiving extremely polite and cordial emails for months about action on the streets by this lot - If asking people to add their view to a "Brexitometer" or sampling people's thoughts on the streets of Cumbria is rentamob what does that make you ?- a delinquent rapist (just to pull a non sequitur out of the air as you)

what is a sore loser - someone in a team sport? I suppose that defines all Leavers as sore losers from the 1960s onwards up till 2016?????

Your comprehension skills seem to be in need of some work. Try reading the report you link to and see if you can spot your mistake. 

With all due respect in return for over a decade those who wanted to leave were smeared and attacked (with no complaints from the other side) and nothing changed following the referendum.  Remainers simply carried on, the views of the voters didn't change their opinions a jot.  No, most strong leavers haven't tried to generate goodwill, but neither have the other side.  It's highly hypocritical to complain about the other side when you are no better.  Teresa May has tried.

Personally, I'll keep trying to be polite, but I'm not going to complain about people being rude to those who are endlessly rude to them, and I'm not going to apologise for the actions of others.

- Harry Jarvis - Apologies, you're right it's 3% think we shouldn't leave.  John Arran claimed that the polls showed overwhelming support for remain, they don't, they basically match the polls from the time of the referendum.  Note that remainer politeness there, really trying hard to win hearts and minds aren't you.

No, it's not even that. The question whether we should leave or stay wasn't even asked. Do try again. 

John Arran claimed nothing of the sort. He noted there is "overwhelming poll evidence for majority Remain support", which is entirely true and utterly different from your twisted reinterpretation.

But feel free to continue misrepresenting. It adds so much credibility to your posts.

Can you point to that support then?  The yougov link was the first thing on google, and (yes, Harry Jarvis it's not exactly the same question - notable politeness from you again, following your whinging about the other side's rudeness) it doesn't show overwhelming evidence of support for remain.  It shows margin of error in favour of remain, less of a margin than there was on the day we voted to leave.

The page you linked shows broadly a 3 percentage point difference between those who think we were right and those who think we were wrong to vote to leave as of 2018. What is arguably more important than the small difference is the divergent trend.

John's statement about overwhelming polling could be read two ways but the way which makes sense to anyone familiar with the poll results is that the overwhelming majority of polls now show a small surplus of support for remain. Again, the differences are small but the trend is clear.

I'd still appreciate you explaining why you're afraid to trust the electorate to decide their future once it is better defined? If brexit is good for us as we were told surely we will vote for it, if it isn't then brexit hasn't been taken away from the people, it has been rejected by them in the cold light of day. I'd be resigned to either outcome, as someone with qualifications and shallow roots brexit does me less harm that some.

jk

Maybe you need to read my last post again, since your link, by your own admission, is itself an example of majority Remain support. An overwhelming proportion of such polls paint a similar picture.

Edit: Just to make it even clearer if for some reason you're still struggling, the adjective 'overwhelming' very clearly applied to the poll evidence and not to the Remain support. That's just simple grammar.

Yet more misrepresentation. Or given the repeated evidence, poor comprehension skills. What I was complaining about previously was the assertion that those protesting against Brexit should expect to be called names. I have no difficulty with robust language in the correct place, but we are in a sorry state where insults are to be expected simply for expressing a fairly mainstream opinion. 

Really? Where? I'm not aware of this, possibly because the issue of EU membership never figured highly on my political radar before 2015, and I would never have thought to insult people with Eurosceptic opinions. Can you expand on what you mean?

For starters, why should the result of the referendum change my opinion? There's no duty to follow the viewpoint of the majority.

It's also a bit of a generalisation. You can't possibly know how the opinions of remainers have changed. Actually, my views on democracy and it's interpretation in this country, and my views of the EU, have evolved since the referendum. Nothing has changed my view that Brexit will be bad for this country, because nobody has made a single coherent argument to explain otherwise. In fact, my view against Brexit has hardened, having witnessed the way in which Brexit has been pursued and the rhetoric of those driving it.

With the caveat that there is far too much nastiness being thrown around by all sides on social media, which poisons discourse and divides societies, and which isn't just a symptom of Brexit...

1) First up, do you not think that it is incumbent for the winning side to be gracious and extend the hand of friendship and attempt to generate goodwill? That's not justifying any insults from my side, but...

2) Being honest, has there really been the same outpouring of vitriol from the remain side directed at ordinary leave voters? When I say I've been called a traitor, an elitist, a loser, an anti-democrat, as bad as jihadists, this has been by influential politicians with a far-reaching platform. Can you show me examples of influential remain-supporting politicians pouring the same vitriol at ordinary leave voters?

You called us sore losers. I wouldn't ask you to apologise for other people's words or actions, but I would appreciate if you stopped short of justifying it, as you have in this thread.

You aren't my enemy. By and large, we probably want the same things for our country, but we have a difference of opinion as to how to achieve that. But we win or lose together. If Brexit is a great success, it'll benefit us both. If, as I believe likely, it's an utter disaster that f*cks things up for me, you won't be exempt from its ravages purely because you "won".

So please, support my democratic right to peacefully protest for the second referendum required to either give Brexit democratic legitimacy or reject it, even if you don't entirely agree with me.

People do support your democratic right to peacefully protest for a second referendum. But reject your demands. The same as you would if the first result had been remain.

People who support those rights tend not to deliberately misrepresent those people as “rentamob” or state that they are “illegitimate”. Same applies to people who defend people who express those views.

May I ask why you don't support a second referendum? What is the democratic argument against it?

Again you refer to : “700k rent a mob on the street is not democracy and has no political legitimacy” Which means that it does, and should, not in any way change the political process, only attempt to change public opinion. Perhaps you misunderstood ?

Perhaps you are choosing not to understand 

Understand what ?

Does not is debatable where by debatable what I mean is nonsense.

I'm more interested in why you think protest *should* not influence politics. Do you think we would yet have universal suffrage if that were the case?

jk

Democracy

Whatever you intended that to mean, "what I mean is nonsense." is correct.

As always, you claim I said something I didn't.  I commented on "is not democracy and has no political legitimacy” Our political system has nothing written into law for it to be changed by people going on a march.  It has no political legitimacy, nor would it be democratic. It can only change public opinion. Any subsequent changes are down to the normal democratic process.

A single word does not make a point. So if you have a point make it.  I cannot guess your thoughts. 

?

But affecting public opinion or the perception of opinion is precisely why we march, because that feeds back into policy. I don't think anyone was suggesting that marches should automatically change policy or write legislation.

Of course I don't think that's what john meant at all when he said that the march has no political legitimacy. He was, of course, entirely wrong.

Anyone who backs the view that peaceful process isn’t part of legitimate democratic discourse either doesn’t understand modern constitutional democracy or chooses not to understand it for other reasons. Choosing to misrepresent it a an attempt at mob rule or stating that it is not legitimate is doing exactly that.

Remember I have only disagreed with your interpretation of the phrase “700k rent a mob on the street is not democracy and has no political legitimacy”.  I have actually claimed it does not mean marches are illegitimate or an attempt at mob rule as you seem to think it does. But no. Not only are you insistent that this is what it means. But you claim that I think that too.  Marches are a legitimate way to influence public opinion.

I’m glad that you support peaceful demonstration as part of healthy democracy. However, your interpretation of the statement that you defended being consistent with that is ludicrous.

I don't think so.  Perhaps John Yates would care to tell us his intention.

John answering a direct question would be a first.

That’s odd. I’m sure I have you directions to Orgreave when you were lost. I’ll attempt a direct answer. Peaceful protest and the right of lawful assembly are an emerging integral aspect of a liberal democracy. It is not, however, a substitute for it. My view on the People’s March is that it was entirely unpersuasive of the need for a second referendum; particularly one on the in or out question. It would have been a much more powerful event had it been 700k former leave voters who, to follow the Remain argument, had seen they had been misled. This was clearly not the case. What we had was a group of passionate Remain campaign ers who want to overturn the decision made by a majority of their fellow citizens two years earlier. That to me is what is undemocratic. The objective now should be to put into effect that decision as the two major parties fought the last election on. My rent a mob comment was a pejorative; in keeping with the invective used on this site. However, it would be accurate to say that decision making based on numbers who take to the streets would be close to mob rule, and a great distance from liberal democracy. I doubt this is sufficient an answer to satisfy Graeme. 

You are a fool. I used a shorthand. But gave the link to the article. So clearly no intention to deceive. Had I missed out key words such as ‘does not mean the end’ then you would have point. But the reality is that Tusk a prominent commission official, a remainer, is claiming Brexit could mean the end of Western European political civilisation. That is an extraordinary claim and one without foundation. In short, a lie. As are the claims by the then Prime Minister, and more latterly Baron Adonis, that Brexit could mean war ( I abbreviate but that is their messsge). I also think that the recession and job losses scare  was also either misleading or more deliberately calculated to deceive. My point is that leave have no monopoly on the manipulation of information to suit their ends. You just lack the integrity to admit it. 

Well you thought wrong. I pretty much agree with all of your second paragraph. Your claim to clairvoyance in the last par I would however challenge. But you knew that didn’t you? ????

I don’t need a button to handle a bulky. But thanks for the strong advice. 

Thank you John. By your definition of where the AMRC and Orgreave are relative to each other then I live in the Gleadless Valley, which I am certain I do not as my street borders Meersbrook Park. I doubt that this is a sufficient answer to satisfy John but it is a factual answer. 

Your comments about mob rule and democracy are in line with your normal BS so don't need an answer.

Thank you for your spiteful comments about my business and the Depot. Once again I am thankful that my knowledge of Sheffield geography is greater than yours so I will sleep easy once they open.

I did hear something about that March.

A relatively few folk from London of a a huge population that are against Brexit, marched, not really a news story .

Now if a previously Leave part of the country had marched to remain - that would be news. 

I’ve said several times I support the right to protest.  I don’t really see any point trying to argue about who’s worse or when it started (off hand fruitcakes and looneys was 2008 I think, Cameron?).  I do think it’s your side by far, but it’s subjective of course.

And that’s the problem.  We voted to leave but the division has remained between leave/remain.  Your side is still your side.  You’re not trying to change the detail of the deal you’re trying to stop us leaving.  A demand for a referendum before we agree to a big deal, fine, although I don’t support that.  Arguments about the detail of a new deal, same.  A demand to reroll - which is not new, is not prompted by events since the vote, but is just a lack of acceptance of that vote - is not.  We are in this together, and remainers aren’t contributing.

I don’t, of course know your mind.  As said though, people who marched the day after and have been resolute ever since are sore losers.  As to whether you offer the hand of friendship, depends whether the other guy has slapped it down and is calling foul and asking for a rematch - and is still doing that two years later.

The ongoing division is because of what happened after the referendum.  Cameron should have done what he said he would do and stay on as Prime Minister whatever the result.  He should have said there is only a narrow majority for leave, some of those voting leave wanted a soft Brexit into the EEA so what we are going to do is a soft Brexit and leave the EU but stay in the single market and customs union. 

 That would have respected the referendum result, the negotiations with the EU would have been easy and business would have been happy.   Remainers would have accepted it as a reasonable compromise.   

Well, that's me told

My point is that leave have no monopoly on the manipulation of information to suit their ends. You just lack the integrity to admit it. 

Wrong on too many levels to answer on a phone, but it does get perilously close to admitting the leave campaign was built on lies. Odd because you leave bots normally follow the trump playbook and double down

A familiar whine from brexiters, always someone else's fault. You've no plan, no proposals, but we are supposed to get behind brexit. Why not lead by example, use the overwhelming desire for brexit and show us the sunny uplands we're heading for.

do you think the Birmingham 6 were sore losers? 

But remainers are contributing. They are, repeatedly, asking practical questions about the consequences of leaving the EU - single market, customs union, loss of a significant workforce, damage to scientific research, and much more. These are real issues which need to be dealt with. Hardline leavers would have us believe these things are less important than regaining an element of sovereignty. It could be argued that it is the leavers, particularly the very hardline ideologues such as Rees-Mogg and Paterson, who are not contributing, and who are turning a deaf ear to anyone raising any practical difficulties. 

By repeatedly asking the questions, remainers are forcing the Government to at least make some efforts to address the issues. It should, of course, be noted that many of these issues were raised at the time of the referendum and were brushed aside by leavers, leaving us in the hopeless situation of there being no agreed plan for the exit. This lack of planning is entirely the responsibility of the leavers. 

Ok, I'll simplify in case anyone else misunderstood: Your assertion is nonsense, protest does influence politics.

David, I quoted you word for word and responded to that.

You say protest should not influence politics. That's your opinion, you stated it, I quoted it so we were both clear what was being discussed. I disagree but that's fine.

Now that leads me to the question, if protest should not influence politics (as you believe should be the case) do you think we would today have universal suffrage?

Or for that matter to give the question an outdoors theme, access to the hills and crags?

Or is it just protest you disagree with that should be ignored? Fair enough, we're only human.

I thought I had been clear but perhaps I wasn't, anyway, looking forward to your answer.

jk

Black is white.

Lies are truth.

Horseshit is horseshit.

jk

Do you feel I'm bullying you?

jk

The other side of the ThomasCoin is that Brexiters are contributing nothing to prevent this shit from happening.

You continue to imagine I said things. 

Where did I state this ?   Where did you quote it ?

I'm not aware of giving any opinion on this thread apart from "Marches are a legitimate way to influence public opinion." I have only commented on the meaning of the line from John Yates.  “700k rent a mob on the street is not democracy and has no political legitimacy” Not my opinions.

Oh for goodness sake

17:46 Wed:

Relevant text emboldened, this represents your interpretation of a statement offered in its defence. I presume you believe what you're claiming.

John has been quite clear, his statement is clearly worded, unambiguous and wrong. You on the other hand seem to be all over the place in its defence.

What is the point of political protest influencing public opinion if not to alter the political climate and the decisions of our representatives?

jk

Wasn't Cameron referring to UKIP? Not the average Eurosceptic voter. My point is, let's rise above it, and ditch the language about 'losers'.

Yes. And? As I've said, I have not seen a single thing that has convinced me that anything positive will come out of Brexit.

That's my prerogative.

It's not a rerun of the referendum. It's a vote on the deal. Remaining in the EU should be the default option because that is our current situation, so it must be an choice on the ballot.

Do you really think this isn't prompted by events since the vote? Since the ref, we've seen:

- The utter lack of planning from either side involved in the referendum

- Cameron's departure, followed by a new government which subsequently threw away its majority

- The triggering of Article 50 without any forward planning except May's ridiculous red lines

- The revelations of overspending and sinister tactics by the leave campaigns

- The intractability of the Irish border problem, which barely got a mention during the campaign

- The distancing of pretty much every key Brexit campaigner from everything they said during the referendum campaign

I'd say all of that, combined with the very narrow result, is more than enough reason for a rethink. Even if it had been plain sailing, it would still be democratic to expect the government to ask the electorate to ratify whatever deal it returns with.

Yes I am. I'm marching for what I believe in, and will campaign and canvas if it comes to a second referendum.

However, if you're going to wheel out the jaded, mindless argument that I'm not "getting behind" Brexit, then I don't think there's any point us discussing things any further.

I went to a rally the day after the vote. Actually it was more of a vigil, people spontaneously coming together to share their sense of shock and worry and the sudden loss of identity. There wasn't any feeling of anger there, except perhaps reserved for Johnson and Farage. The message from the speakers was of unity and goodwill however. It wasn't what I'd call a political rally, there was no intention to change minds or policy on that day.

The rallies and marches since then have been to express opposition to the way the government has been handling things, and more recently to push for a new referendum.

The hand of friendship was never offered, not once, excepting some empty platitudes from May about the country "coming together" and "national interest". The government has been blind to the need to compromise. Had the government announced that it would seek an EEA-type Brexit, one which would reflect the referendum result, then you might find that my attitude would be very different.