EU Referendum - how did you vote ?

Oakland2002 · All-time great

EU Referendum - how did you vote ?

Etienne · Club Coach

I think the lack of awareness is more an issue with the voters than the politicians.

Helen40 · Grand Slam Champion

That's undoubtedly true. That's their day job, most of us only take areal interest when we are giving the option to act ie vote. The trouble is they then often give a version of the truth.
I realise that it's partly their fault and partly down to the fact that most of the electorate only want the summary, and don't either know or care about every fact. The thing is that in this situation and many others, it leaves us ill informed and them unable to make good on their pledges.

Etienne · Club Coach

That's absolutely right, and (along with the reasons Oakland gave) why referenda are such a bad idea. It's not the public's fault if an extremely grey area is presented as a black and white choice - it's the fault of the idiot who chose to force them to make that choice.

blob · All-time great

Ah! What the heck. Time for the bi-annual rant.

It's always the fault of the electorate. We get the governance we deserve.
We don't pay attention more than 5% of the time, and think that casting a vote once every four or five years is our part of the process.

We vote over and over for candidates that promise the world and claim solutions to the problems of time immemorial, and all whilst cutting taxes, and never providing detailed evidence for their claims, or substantially costing anything.
They fail over and over again, generation after generation. Yet still, our magical thinking in selecting our representatives persists.
Spend £350 million a week... Change You Can Believe In... Make America Great Again
We vote for the types of people that would reduce government to these sorts of banal platitudes and impossible promises.

We were so sloth like as an electorate in the referendum that we didn't even collectively demand that all these questions about the process, and the exact detail, time frame and mechanisms involved were asked during the campaign. We couldn't even be bothered to understand what, in fact, we were voting for, or about. We did what we always do, focus on to a couple of broad strokes - immigration, loss of sovereignty - and, basically, go on instinct; our received opinions.

We're instantly wearied by discussion of the political ramifications of the issues that shape our lives, but have infinite fascination for Kardashians or, for example, tennis, even.

Referenda aren't the problem. Swiss democracy worked for quite a while as a marginal improvement, even with countless referenda. It has suffered in the era of personal enablement - essentially the age of the mobile phone, where anything distracting from the personal agenda, second-to-second, is an imposition. You can correlate the decline in the efficacy of the Swiss model pretty exactly with the rise of mobile phones and social media. It's we, the people, entitled to our say, and absolutely sure of our (anecdotal) opinions.

I over-simplify: only because debating all the minutiae of it is utterly pointless

Luckily enough Brexit could prove irrelevant, as Mr. Trump now looks almost certain to win the American Presidency, and after that the global institutions that have kept the world mostly at peace, and with increasing global prosperity and standards of existence for the last 70 years (see the WHO, UN, OECD, pretty much anyone who curates global statistics), will be trampled down to be replaced with... something. The era of the modern bully is beginning
Hold on tight! Scream if you want to get off! No one will be listening.

indiana · Tennis legend

I suspect you overestimate Mr Trump's election chances and underestimate how robust many of the internal and external institutions are to the limited individual powers of a US president even if that is Trump, which alarmingly it still possibly could be.

blob · All-time great

indiana wrote:
I suspect you overestimate Mr Drumpf's election chances and underestimate how robust many of the internal and external institutions are to the limited individual powers of a US president even if that is Drumpf, which alarmingly it still possibly could be.

Dr. Jones, I can understand why you might suggest that, but about 85% of my work over the last 18 months has been for RCP. I'm pretty well up on the US election and all that
It's probable I could tell you more about the campaign mangers of Martin O'Malley, Jim Gilmore or Jill Stein than you could tell me about either Mrs. Clinton or Mr. Trump.

Bob in Spain · Tennis legend

Well, yesterday's high court ruling has really thrown the cat among the pigeons, hasn't it. I have heard so much tripe on TV today resulting from that decision. The first thing I heard was a Brexiteer on Sky News saying that the ruling was an insult to the British people, but not a surprise given that the three high court judges were (a) All Men, (b) All over 70 and (c) Two of them went to private school. I mean, come on.

My understanding is that they have simply made a judgement on the legal process without making any comment or judgement on the pros and cons of the decision. I do believe that we should follow the correct due process, otherwise we set a dangerous precedent that we can ignore the law as and when it suits us.

The government has stated its intention to fight today's ruling through the courts. I do not agree with this either. It will simply slow the process down and I think they will fail anyway. From what I have heard, the case was pretty cut and dried from a legal perspective.

Now I should state here, that despite being a Remainer, I accept that the people have spoken and in my opinion, we should fully respect the result of the referendum and get on with it. The calls today for a snap general election are in my opinion pointless. Let's be honest, they always come about when there is a change of PM in the middle of government term in office. It is simply a mechanism that people use to express their dislike for the current government. But Brexit is supposed to be a non-partisan process. MPs were allowed to campaign on either side leading up to the referendum. So would a change of government make any difference other than possibly putting Jeremy Corbin in charge of negotiations instead of Teresa May ?

Another option I heard today was from the Lib Dem leader, Tim Farron. He said we should negotiate a deal BEFORE we trigger Article 50. That way, if we couldn't get the right deal we could opt not to trigger it at all. Great in theory, but there is no way the EU would play ball. If we went to them and said, we are going to spend the next 2 years negotiating to leave the EU, but if we don't get what we want, we will stay, then the other 26 countries would just tell us to "get lost", or words to that effect. Firstly, why would they waste two years negotiating with someone who hasn't even made their mind up if they are really going to leave or not. They have far more important issues to focus on rather than wasting time with someone who is about to walk away anyway. Secondly, the Germans (and probably many others) want us to stay. They have said so publicly. So they would simply refuse all of our requests, assuming that would force us to back down. So that approach is plain stupid.

Others are proposing that we trigger Article 50, negotiate the best deal we can and then have another vote. That won't work either. Triggering article 50 means we are leaving, not that we are going to leave if we get the right deal. Let's assume that the deal is a bad one. The people recognize this and vote to reverse the decision and stay in the EU. THIS CAN'T HAPPEN. The only way the process could be reversed is if the European Parliament votes to allow this. So now we are in a position where Europe decides whether we are leaving or staying and NOT the British people. So much for taking back control of our own sovereignty.

Personally, I think that the government should follow the courts instructions and vote on the ruling in parliament - and woe betide any MP who votes against the will of the people. I am reasonably confident that most MPs would vote to support the decision of the referendum. They would be too fearful of their job security to vote otherwise. My fear with this approach however is the House of Lords, who don't have to worry about the voters opinions. They could spend years blocking the process.

Quite simply, we are getting ourselves into a right royal mess. The only thing that is certain, is that the uncertainty is growing. Nobody knows what on earth is going to happen. I have so many questions and sadly no suitable answers.

My final gripe on this rant is for the TV presenters when they talk to Remainers. I understand they have to play devil's advocate at times, but to say to those remainers, "you predicted financial disasters, recessions and far worse AND YOU HAVE BEEN PROVED WRONG" is just stupid. Brexit hasn't even started yet. The doom merchants may well be proved right in the long term, or maybe they wont. We simply don't know yet. NOTHING has been proved either way yet.

To use a football analogy, we are all trying to determine how the result of Brexit has affected us. In truth, all that has happened so far is that we have published the team sheet. We haven't even selected a date or a venue for the match yet, so how on earth can we determine the effects of the result.

Watch this space - with trepidation.

-- Edited by Bob in Spain on Friday 4th of November 2016 10:30:19 PM

paulisi · Tennis legend

The MPs will vote in favour. The parliamentary debate will put a lot of pressure on the government to reveal their strategy. However I am a firm believer that the government should not show their hand before discussion, otherwise we will be worse off in negotiation.(unless they say they want everything, free trade and strict immigration and we know they will not get that and will have to compromise)

vohor · Grand Slam Champion

My view is that Parliament was duly consulted....when it decided to hold the referendum. Having done that it is, in my view, duty bound to carry through on the outcome. I would have been saying the same, with regret, even if the outcome had been different. The question in the referendum was clear as was the outcome.

I may be surprised but I doubt that the Supreme Court will overturn the High Court decision in this instance.

I believe it is in the country's interest for this hugely important issue to be resolved as soon as possible and that a general election should be called at once with Theresa May seeking a mandate to trigger Article 50 at the time of her choosing; candidates who support Theresa May's position will win by a landslide.

Etienne · Club Coach

MPs were consuoted prior and voted to make the referendum advisory. This was a conscious decision - other referenda have been binding, like the AV one.
A small majority does want Brexit, so Brexit must happen (the only way I can see this not happening is if a second referendum is held on the terms of exit), but there was no majority on the terms of that so Parliamentary sovereignty must deal with that.

I can't see that parliament will vote not to invoke Article 50, but the need to pass it will hopefully mean it's done on a more sensible basis than the lunacy of "give up everything as long as we can have (nominal) control over immigration" that was being proposed at the Tory Conference.

blob · All-time great

[A corresondent] wrote:
I suspect you overestimate Mr Drumpf's election chances and underestimate how robust many of the internal and external institutions are to the limited individual powers of a US president even if that is Drumpf, which alarmingly it still possibly could be.

Checks & Balances.

President Trump
Republican Congress
Republican Senate
Very Conservative Supreme Court
Majority of State Houses are Republican *
Vast Majority of State Governorships are Republican *

(* added in after original post)

Not since 1928 has any President had such a stacked deck in their favour, and, well, Calvin Coolidge wasn't an egomaniac surfing on a tsunami of personality cult adoration, and even he didn't have all that going for him.

My prediction:
Both Senate & Congress will be fawning.
Many of the members prevaricated, at best, in their support, and have a lot of grovelling to do to a man whose greatest pleasure comes from punishing, to his maximum capacity, those he believes have wronged him - any one who has ever disagreed with him.
All of those 'unloyal' members could easily face internal party challenges from Tea Party/More Right Wing Republican challengers to their seats, in the manner which has become frequent and familiar amongst the Republican base.
Additionally, the President will call out individual members of his own party if they dissent and encourage his followers to oust them, as he has done throughout his entire political career to date.
They will either shut up and go along, or, simply, lose their seats in recall elections or similar.

Which equates to free rein - for the first two years at the very least.
Schadenfreude - by making his opponents suffer as much as possible, whether or not it is the best course of action - will play a part in official policy.

Checks & Balances?

Strap in everyone, it's going to be an 'interesting' ride.

Edit - to add image and additional data in the bullet points

-- Edited by blob on Wednesday 9th of November 2016 08:27:46 AM

indiana · Tennis legend

Hmm, the correspondent concedes that he may have been less than 100% accurate in his previous article and that you may have a point or two

AliBlahBlah · All-time great

Blob, I fear you're right. I hope you're wrong.

As a silver lining, I know a lot of folks here are partial to the odd flutter, a cheeky £10 today on a Trump third term (yes, I do mean third, not second) might be a worthwhile punt.

Sim · County player

AliBlahBlah wrote:
Blob, I fear you're right. I hope you're wrong.

As a silver lining, I know a lot of folks here are partial to the odd flutter, a cheeky £10 today on a Trump third term (yes, I do mean third, not second) might be a worthwhile punt.

Not quite sure why you would bet on a third term for Trump? Even if the US changed their laws to allow this he is already the oldest president to take office. In 8 years time he will be 78.