Whilst this could possibly be included in the general thread, it is probably of sufficient interest to stand alone, rather than be lost in the Tsunami of personal vitriole.
Apologies if this has been provided previously, but I recall the question being asked, but cannot recall seeing an answer.
tinyurl.com/Brexitdemographic
(Whilst I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the figures, I can vouch for the poster and his reputation for providing good quality information).
I am pleased to see that it also supports my slightly TIC proposal (voiced elsewhere) that weighting should be given to IQ of the voter :)
|
|
When the old and poorly educated fall for a scam requesting their banking password, we call it a crime. When they fall for a scam requesting their vote, we call it democracy.
|
|
Fits with one I saw from an oldie on Facebook; I did it (out) for our boys in 39-45.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 4 Jul 16 at 07:50
|
Now add into the equation that 8 out of 10 over 50's voted while only 1 in 3 under 25's could be bothered and those figures look a bit different.
How many of those non voting under 25's are complaining loudly about the result now?
Pat
|
>> Now add into the equation that 8 out of 10 over 50's voted while only
>> 1 in 3 under 25's could be bothered and those figures look a bit different.
I've seen some doubt cast on that 1 in 3 figure Pat - which I think came from a polling company. Cannot remember where and I'm just about to go and collect caravan from repair so no time to look up.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Mon 4 Jul 16 at 08:22
|
>> How many of those non voting under 25's are complaining loudly about the result now?
So what? they got to see Coldplay and Adele at Glastonbury, didn't they?
Priorities, priorities...
|
Source is Lord Ashcroft polls, and there is more analysis here lordashcroftpolls.com/2016/06/how-the-united-kingdom-voted-and-why/#more-14746
He says it was based on a sample of 12,369 people
Last edited by: smokie on Mon 4 Jul 16 at 08:23
|
|
That tells you very little about the IQ of the voters, if anything. I take it you don't do this sort of analysis for a living.
|
Even you must recognise the correlation...
A majority (57%) of those with a university degree voted to remain, as did 64% of those with a higher degree and more than four in five (81%) of those still in full time education. Among those whose formal education ended at secondary school or earlier, a large majority voted to leave.
The AB social group (broadly speaking, professionals and managers) were the only social group among whom a majority voted to remain (57%). C1s divided fairly evenly; nearly two thirds of C2DEs (64%) voted to leave the EU.
|
>>nearly two thirds of C2DEs (64%) voted to leave the EU.
>>
>>
I wonder if they are the people who have suffered most from the UK / EU / political classes policies?
|
>> I wonder if they are the people who have suffered most from the UK / EU / political classes policies?
If you lose your job to someone who doesn't speak English and arrived with nothing more than a suitcase and a work ethic then it's entirely your own fault that you're suffering.
Last edited by: VxFan on Mon 4 Jul 16 at 10:08
|
|
I was thinking more of access to housing, schools, medical facilities, etc. Do your kids have to go to a school where most of the pupils are non English speakers?
|
>>Do your kids have to go to a school where most of the pupils are non English speakers?
Like this: The primary where pupils speak 42 different languages.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3672534/School-58-children-not-English-mother-tongue-refuses-use-term-British-fear-offending-migrants.html
|
A very salient point ON.
What the political classes never really grasped and aren't grasping now is that there is a very large portion of the population who fee that have been ignored by all the political parties. Moreover they feel that in the area that you mention, (and i would add housing) it is they who have lost out and indeed have little more to lose.
Now you may argue that in global terms even our poor are comparatively well off but of course people don't see things like that. They look about them and see company directors earning huge amounts of money, they see expensive apartments being built for the middle class financial workers, they see the roads crammed with Mercedes and BMWS.
Meanwhile their jobe become even more precarious, thier children can't get a decent house, the local primary is full of immigrants and it's almost impossible to see their GP and they see things only getting worse.
Now they suddenly get a referendum, an opportunity to kick the complacent politicians up the rear end and the they take that opportunity. Why is anyone surprised at the result? Just remember that these people outnumber the middle class elite by a huge margin. It's going to be very difficult if not impossible to restore the old status quo
|
>> Now they suddenly get a referendum, an opportunity to kick the complacent politicians up the
>> rear end and the they take that opportunity. Why is anyone surprised at the result?
>> Just remember that these people outnumber the middle class elite by a huge margin. It's
>> going to be very difficult if not impossible to restore the old status quo
>>
Add to that, imagine the groundswell of distrust IF the decision is made for Brexit Vote #2?
"What else are the politicians lying to us about?"
Democracy is all about accountability, after all, and if the shout 'we don't believe you! You lied last time!' goes up, then the powers-that-be have lost any madate to govern.
|
|
...and that is just the sort of simplistic statement that leads to votes such as we have had......
|
So does this meant that Scots are, on average, more intelligent than the rest of the UK? :-)
The trouble with all these is that they are based on polls as no statistics exist for how individuals actually voted, so you can trust these figures as much as you can trust any other poll.
For me that is very little at all.
|
>> I am pleased to see that it also supports my slightly TIC proposal (voiced elsewhere) that weighting should be given to IQ of the voter :)
There was a research conducted by academics (shown in BBC Horizon) which concluded that IQ rises with age.
Some OAPs were asked to sit for their GCSE and majority of them scored much better than their young age scores.
From my personal experience, I can confirm that split between leave and remain voters were kind of random. The actual votes are never linked to a person so we shall never get a real picture of true distribution.
My personal theory (not scientifically proven so please don't start rant on it) :o)
Remain = high IQ + low IQ + rich (irrespective of IQ)
Leave = moderate IQ + middle earner or poor (irrespective of IQ)
Now IQ alone does not tell the full story. Often EQ (Emotional Quotient or Emotional Intelligence) plays a bigger part. One can have high IQ but low EQ and vice versa.
|
>> From my personal experience, I can confirm that split between leave and remain
>> voters were kind of random.
This was the weird thing - people I expected to vehemently vote to remain were going for "Leave" even though they had no good reason.
|
Basically through genetics life can be unfair. If you are intelligent, hard working, etc. then there is a good chance regardless of where you were born you will have bettered yourself compared to your peers that were not so 'lucky'.
You might be working for a company or yourself and have a good salary, nice house, a few holidays a year, maybe a house overseas too. The less fortunate from the same town might be on benefits or in a low paid job. They feel hard done by - maybe they should. But the richer people have mostly worked for their money and lifestyle (apart from those that inherited it).
I come from a poor ex-mining town in South Wales. High unemployment and it would be fairly bleak to live there - I'm reminded of this when I visit family. So what did I do about it? I got good O levels, A levels, a BSc and then an MSc (both at a good university). Then I got a graduate job and worked my way up - got so far and thought I'm on a good salary and don't have to travel much at all so staid in the current role for a few years.
I have achieved this because I was intelligent and that's mostly down to genetics and then a good education. I was fortunate with the latter because I went to a Welsh school so had some of the better teachers who choose to teach in a Welsh school. I had to travel 20 miles to and then 20 miles from school every schooldays for 7 years. But it was worth it.
So going back to the referendum - I can see why many voted for leave. But what they don't get is they still won't have nice jobs, nice houses and nice cars. In fact their benefits will probably be cut.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Mon 4 Jul 16 at 10:26
|
>>I have achieved this because I was intelligent
Yes, we already know that...
|
Not sure you mean genetics, isn't that your cells etc, your physical make-up?
I'd say more to do with your family - your parents enthusiasm and encouragement to push and support you in the "right" direction. I'm sure it has always been so but some examples of parents that I've seen out and about really don't deserve the honour of parenthood, and I doubt their kids, by and large, would recognise that they are disadvantaged until it's too late. And the self centred parents wouldn't have provided the necessary guidance (and would be unable to provide any required financial support e.g. for uni).
|
|
Manners are more important that intelligence.
Last edited by: movilogo on Mon 4 Jul 16 at 11:48
|
My brother once owned/managed a company in one the Welsh valleys - it was an engineering/fabrication company. They struggled to recruit apprentices from the valley because they didn't want to work. The apprentecship would have led to real qualifications, e.g. welding. This went on for more than 10 years.
The location of the company was because of the Welsh Development funding received to set it up. The most frequent reason why the locals would not try for the jobs (always vacancies there and contractors always needed) was they could get almost as much on benefits so why work.
I'm glad I'm not anywhere near that area now.
|
>> This was the weird thing - people I expected to vehemently vote to remain were
>> going for "Leave" even though they had no good reason.
That's the bit I struggle with too. Almost a case of 'fancy a change'
|
>> This was the weird thing - people I expected to vehemently vote to remain were
>> going for "Leave" even though they had no good reason.
>>
Perhaps that's the clue to the result? Politicians made assumptions, and assumed that people who disagreed with them therefore had no good reason.
People generally see only the answers they want to see.
|
>>
>> Some OAPs were asked to sit for their GCSE and majority of them scored much
>> better than their young age scores.
>>
That's because GCSEs are much easier than the equivalent O levels that older people had to pass.
I've done modern GCSEs and A levels in the course of home-educating our three children, and the standards expected are shockingly low. I could scrape a pass in most of them without even bothering to learn anything, just using guesswork and common sense.
|
|
I was thought fairly although not very bright academically as a child. Always relied heavily on guesswork and common sense.
|
|
Guesswork and common sense have made a large part of what we call culture. Without them we would still be in the tees.
|
|
20 000 chimps in Hyde park marching for 'back to the trees'?
|
>> My personal theory (not scientifically proven so please don't start rant on it) :o)
>>
>> Remain = high IQ + low IQ + rich (irrespective of IQ)
>> Leave = moderate IQ + middle earner or poor (irrespective of IQ)
>>
>> Now IQ alone does not tell the full story. Often EQ (Emotional Quotient or Emotional
>> Intelligence) plays a bigger part. One can have high IQ but low EQ and vice
>> versa.
>>
It's an interesting theory...my very broad generalisation would be that I'm be inclined to think that the 'remains' were more likely to be the risk averse / most to lose middle earners (moderate IQ, or perhaps regardless of IQ) and the 'leaves" either those rich enough to take a very long term view (or be risk takers) or poor enough for it not to matter either way. I'm not sure IQ of itself has a huge part to play, certainly based on conversations I've had.. EQ could well be more relevant. Time for some more extremely broad generalisations, but on the whole those with lower than average EQ won't spend much time worrying about or thinking about others point of view, and the reverse for above average EQ.
|
Ducked out of the whole referendum debate... Politics vs economics is always better over a drink... But this is quite interesting and perhaps relevant to the OPs post...
www.perc.org.uk/project_posts/thoughts-on-the-sociology-of-brexit/
|
This is 18months old and a bit of an a*** to read. But quite interesting if you can be bothered.
www.comres.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/ITV_News_Index_6th_November_2014.pdf
|
It's not just politicians and joe public who often don't know what they're doing - it applies to top investment bankers too.
www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/brexit-vote-is-due-to-bad-education-in-uk-says-top-banker-a3287371.html
This chap blames the Brexit vote on ill educated Britons and says we need to improve the quality of education. He presumably hasn't looked at the demographic - apparently it's the older ones with the old style education that voted leave while the younger voters currently or recently in education who seemed to want to remain.
What is he on about ?
|
>> This chap blames the Brexit vote on ill educated Britons and says we need to
>> improve the quality of education.
Isn't he saying the same thing as others. People have been left behind by globalisation and social change and cannot see how the national 'lot' being worse affects them.
|
>> >>
>> Isn't he saying the same thing as others. People have been left behind by globalisation
>> and social change and cannot see how the national 'lot' being worse affects them.
>>
Welcome to the working class revolution, comrade.
Ain't pretty, is it?
|
>>Welcome to the working class revolution, comrade.
If by any chance there is another In/Out referendum to try to overturn the Brexit result, I'll wager there would be a revolution in this country, tovarich.
|
|
Unless there is a sizeable margin for leave then it should be status quo ante bellum…..
|
We will end with something like a Norwegian style agreement that more or less maintains the status quo but means that nominally we are not longer in the EU
Everyone will then be equally unhappy and life can go on much as before. It's the British way.
|
The French news magazine I picked up on the train is full of Brexit analysis, including a nice deconstruction of Euromyths propagated by Bozza and, it appears, a fair few in France too. One I'd forgotten was that bagpipes were to be banned for exceeding noise limits; I wonder if Nicola knows. (They're not, of course.)
Picked up a New Statesman on the Eurostar too. Saving it to read on the way home but its cover has a cartoon of Bozza, his head crammed against the left margin in order to leave room for his nose. You can probably guess the theme of the edition.
|
>> If by any chance there is another In/Out referendum to try to overturn the Brexit
>> result, I'll wager there would be a revolution in this country, tovarich.
OTOH the news on economy suggests project fear was anything but. Investment funds closed to withdrawals. Foreign investment off a cliff = imminent balance of payments crisis. Plunging Pound means petrol/diesel will soon be £1.20/l. Holidays abroad 15%+ more expensive.
By 2018 or even or autumn/Christmas coming the referendum might well look like a moment of midsummer madness lead by the now exposed liar in chief; Boris Johnson.
Want to be the politician who signs away 40+ years of (broadly successful) Europe focused economic strategy for a Micawberish gamble? Courtesy of fixed term parliaments, you'l be in power at the deepest bit of the consequent recession.
Worth a punt?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 6 Jul 16 at 22:07
|
While I wouldn't have chosen an 'out'' vote, the exchange rates have been as bad/worse in the not too distant past...
As recently as late 2007 It was $2.11 to £. Euro was €1.45 to £1
By January 2008 it was $1.35 to £1. Euro was €1.02 to £1
We survived that crash in the currency, which in % terms was far worse than this drop. and it's only 3 commercial property funds closed so far isn't it, a sector that was in poor shape before the vote.
Now it's definitely not all rosy, far from it, though in the case of the group I work for our € profits from overseas subs are worth more in £ :p. We are where we are, and doing nothing but wish we were somewhere else while the politicians sort (or don't...) it out is not going help matters, and neither is being excessively gloomy, IMO. And I say that as someone who's currently in the West Indies watching the £ go south against the dollar. Mojitos get more expensive every day ;)
Last edited by: PeterS on Wed 6 Jul 16 at 22:49
|
And I say that as someone who's currently in the
>> West Indies watching the £ go south against the dollar. Mojitos get more expensive every
>> day ;)
>>
Local 'swallows' are unhappy. as the rand/pound has taken a kicking.
Last month was R22.50. Now at R19.10.
The 'good life' takes a tumble fast.
|
>> We survived that crash in the currency, which in % terms was far worse than
>> this drop. and it's only 3 commercial property funds closed so far isn't it, a
>> sector that was in poor shape before the vote.
There isn't much wrong with the property funds except that they hold illiquid, unquoted investments. Under normal circumstances they hold a cash buffer to pay out redemptions, but clearly there is a limit to that. When they have to sell properties to return the cash then there has to be a delay, hence the funds are gated. They are also updating valuations.
It would be no different if the investors owned the properties directly. If they wanted their money back, they'd have to sell them, and if they fell in value while that was being undertaken it would reduce their payout.
I have only used closed ended funds for property - also not ideal but there is always a price you can sell at, if you want to.
|
OK, how's this for a scenario? I've been a little surprised that nobody more current in the political establishment than Tony Blair and Michael Heseltine has suggested blocking Article 50 in Parliament. On reflection, that probably makes sense; the Tories inflicted this referendum on us, so they have to pay lip service to respecting the outcome, however disastrous.
But, as Bromp suggests, it's getting much uglier, much sooner than even Remainers like me imagined - and we knew it would be bad. Reality is being given a chance to dawn on the borderline Bregretters, because it's more powerful and more likely to stick if they eventually reach their own conclusion that Leave is a mistake than if some 'Westminster elite' tells them Nursey isn't going to let them do something so silly.
That might take three months of banks packing up shop in London and manufacturers announcing that they're surveying sites in Slovakia instead of Sunderland, in which time nothing substantive will actually have happened between us and the EU. At some point the new government will judge that the monent is right and there is enough cross-party and public support for a climb-down, probably at first an offer of a re-run referendum, but in the expectation that nobody has the stomach to go through it all again, and a recognition in the Leave camp that their cat has irretrievably escaped its bag.
So, rather than spend years negotiating Norway Plus, we get to stay and (probably) get some help from France and Germany, who each see the UK as an important buffer against the other becoming too powerful.
|
Europe has no benefit by making the Brits suffer for a brexit vote .
It will also cost them money and jobs.The sticking point in my opinion is free movement of people.
Maybe something good will come out of it that London house prices will come down.I just can't see the Brits climbing down on this vote.I have listened to Verhofstadt, Juncker and Schultz.
They make Nigel Farage look genuine.
|
|
IMO it's all too late unfortunately, the damage is done and will be nigh impossible to undo. And anyway I haven't met many Outies who can be persuaded that they got it wrong (admittedly it's a very small sample but they remain absolutely convinced they were right and it will all correct itself within a few years.)
|
The view of someone who fits the demographic of a 'remain' voter, but who voted leave and has no regrets...
www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4177a07c-435e-11e6-9b66-0712b3873ae1.html
It's an FT link from Twitter - let's see if it works...if not try googling: I am young and I voted Leave — and there are no regrets ft.com
Last edited by: PeterS on Thu 7 Jul 16 at 10:05
|
. At some point the new government will
>> judge that the monent is right and there is enough cross-party and public support for
>> a climb-down, probably at first an offer of a re-run referendum, but in the expectation
>> that nobody has the stomach to go through it all again, and a recognition in
>> the Leave camp that their cat has irretrievably escaped its bag.
I know you want it to happen, but do you genuinely think it will happen?
|
I honestly don't know. But an advisory referendum that produced a small majority won with claims that were manifestly false seems like very shaky constitutional grounds for driving the country off a cliff. If the Leave campaign had sold the country a 2004 Ford Fiesta with those methods, a phone call to Trading Standards is all it would take to fix it.
This is so much bigger and so, so wrong that I can't just give up and let it happen, and nor should anyone else. As I said soon after we got the result, this is not a game; it's a business deal that has been stolen from us. It needs only one Leave voter in 25 (not the same as Outies; floating voters who were misled by the Outies) to wish they'd voted the other way for the Leave majority to disappear. There is strong evidence that this is happening as the impossibility of delivering Leave's promises becomes apparent. Where then is the constitutional justification for proceeding to the exit?
I also think our EU partners would jump at the opportunity to keep us in. The Germans think we're closer to their outlook than the French are; the French want us to keep Germany from becoming too dominant. All of them are looking at nasty rightwing minorities in their own countries and hoping they don't get any bigger. We may not get vastly improved terms, but then Leave voters - our own Pat being a prime example - never really bothered to understand the terms anyway. But that won't matter; there'll probably be something on offer to save face all round, and just avoiding a recession by staying in will save us enough money to take some action on the housing and social problems that are the real grievance behind all this.
|
I think that the time for that has passed. The talk of winning margins and turnout etc might well be interested but none of that was established before the vote. Maybe we should change the rules for any further votes, however this one should stand however much we disagree with the vote, i do understand your viewpoint though.
I wonder if there was this talk of changing the 'weight of the vote' and similar after the vote in 73?
|
It was 1975, and there was a 2:1 majority in favour of " "Do you think the UK should stay in the European Community (Common Market)?"
I don't recall a great protest, but it was a long time ago.
|
Being as C4P is a tad quiet today, I thought I'd offer this article up for your perusal.
"Anyone who contemplates therefore voting Yes in the referendum is confronted with the reality of the EU as a neoliberal club currently busy nailing the people of Greece to the cross of austerity.
Viewing the standoff between the Europhobes and the oligarchs of Brussels and Frankfurt one is reminded of Oscar Wilde’s description of fox hunting as the unspeakable in pursuit of the uneatable.
This article seeks to address this dilemma, arguing that there is a powerful internationalist case against the EU"
isj.org.uk/the-internationalist-case-against-the-european-union/
|
>> It was 1975, and there was a 2:1 majority in favour of " "Do you
>> think the UK should stay in the European Community (Common Market)?"
>>
>> I don't recall a great protest, but it was a long time ago.
>>
Ah right couldn't remember the exact year.
I think part of the protest now is that we are so interconnected, in half an hour you can have hundreds of people's opinions.
|
>>but then Leave voters - our own Pat being a prime example - never really bothered to understand the terms anyway<<
Now that's exactly the assumption that has caused such a 'shock' result that Remainers can't accept.
It has been said above that people have been amazed at just who of their friends voted Leave.
We understood far more than you gave us credit for and voted based on that understanding.
You think (know!) it's the wrong result but that is merely your opinion, not a proven fact, and who am I to know what your opinion is worth.......
....neither do you know my level of understanding.
The inability to put themselves in the shoes of others for a brief while to consider the whole picture has always been the fault of the present government, as well as Remainers.
It's called burying your head in the sand and pretending no-one exists other than your little circle.
This time it's come back and bitten them on the bum (ooops, sorry VX!)
Pat
|
Now that's exactly the assumption...
Hardly an assumption, Pat, you told us yourself that you didn't know the UK has agreements that protect it from the cost of Eurozone bailouts. And then you cited vague, emotional nonsense like 'dictats' [sic] and 'the cold, dead hand' and some stuff about borders, none of which Leave has any plans or ability to deliver. Those were your cited reasons for voting Leave and they're built on thin air.
But you're not my target group here. You're an emotional, find-someone-to-blame Leaver and were always going to vote that way, however much you insist you 'researched' the issues and 'weighed the pros and cons'. There are plenty like you - a vocal minority - and it was Cameron's vain attempt at appeasing them that landed us in this mess.
No, the ones that will swing this are the late-to-the-party thinkers, the ones who didn't really think it through, who voted Leave for trivial reasons or none at all, imagining Remain would win and life would go on. Now the scale of the disaster - and the mendacity and moral bankruptcy of the Leave campaign ('My work here is done', N.P.Farage) - is becoming clear, it will be hard to persuade all these that setting aside this result would be a subversion of democracy. I think they'd be pleased and relieved. And I bet it won't be hard to find a million of them.
|
>>But you're not my target group here. You're an emotional, find-someone-to-blame Leaver and were always going to vote that way, however much you insist you 'researched' the issues and 'weighed the pros and cons'. There are plenty like you - a vocal minority - and it was Cameron's vain attempt at appeasing them that landed us in this mess.
<<
You absolutely fail to see what you don't want to se, don't you.
You think I'm a small minority, but the figures ought to tell you differently.
The world hasn't come to an end, it won't come to an end.
It may well be a little bit harder for some, yet easier for others, in the near future, but in the long term our children will benefit.
BUT, as I said in the dedicated thread, I'm outa this discussion and I'm not about to watch you willy waving, or massage your ego, by allowing you to bait me in another thread.
I'm ambivalent, you're obsessed, so best we agree to differ and compare notes in five years time.
Pat
|
I didn't say 'small minority'. Ukip took one vote in eight at the 2015 general election, which gives some scale to the vocal out-at-any-cost minority I referred to. If we add half those who voted Tory we get to maybe 9-10m hard Outies. Combine two thirds of Labour voters, plus all for the Lib Dems and SNP and Greens, and you have about 11-12m firm Remainers. That leaves 11m in between, plus about 3m who didn't vote in the general election but did in the referendum, plus another 13m who didn't vote in either.
You can squeeze these estimates a little either way, of course, but any talk of a 'vast', 'overwhelming' or 'decisive' majority in favour of Leave, even on referendum day, is misleading. Since then, it's anyone's guess what the country really wants.
Last edited by: WillDeBeest on Thu 7 Jul 16 at 17:02
|
>>
>> there'll probably be something on offer to save face all round, and just avoiding a
>> recession by staying in will save us enough money to take some action on the
>> housing and social problems that are the real grievance behind all this.
>>
Sorry for the butchered quoting... I'm not sure that this is the real grievance at all, even if it is the most vocal. The most commonly heard objection to the EU in discussions I've had across a number of groups is the lack of transparency and the erosion of democracy. Many people feel disconnected from, and unable to influence, things that affect them. It's a view I have a degree of sympathy with - instinctively I'm against centralisation and certainly letting decisions be made locally is something that's encouraged in other walks of life. It's also not turned out that well for the Greeks!
I voted 'in' on economic grounds, but it certainly wasn't a clear cut decision for me. I'm reminded somewhat of the independence of the Irish Free State (70 years ago?). Absolutely wanted by the population, but they were almost certainly worse off for the first 40 years of it... But would anyone today in Ireland say they were wrong?
|
>> OK, how's this for a scenario? I've been a little surprised that nobody more current
>> in the political establishment than Tony Blair and Michael Heseltine has suggested blocking Article 50
>> in Parliament. On reflection, that probably makes sense; the Tories inflicted this referendum on us,
>> so they have to pay lip service to respecting the outcome, however disastrous.
>>
I don't think the Tories can do or say anything until the leadership is settled. Last thing they want to do is push party members into Andrea's arms.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Thu 7 Jul 16 at 17:34
|
If they do try and block Article 50 there will be a bigger turnout than ever before in the next general election and you won't like the result.
Have the agitators who can't accept the majority vote thought of this?
Better the devil you (think) you know than what could and would happen.
Pat
|
Are you sure, Pat? Seems more likely that the 17.4m for Leave is a high water mark, and that more than 50% of the electorate now consists of those who'd prefer to remain or who don't care either way. Hardly the recipe for revolution.
Bromp is right; time is being bided until the Tory crumblies have had their say on whether it's to be Tolerable Theresa or Awful Andrea - who currently commands about the same proportion of her MPs as Jeremy Corbyn does of his.
|
>> who'd prefer to remain or who don't care either way.<<
And your absolute proof of that is what?
Pat
|
Reasonable supposition given post-result evidence. Wouldn't you be more comfortable with absolute proof of majority support for a drastic - and potentially catastrophic - constitutional change? Or has your scrupulous weighing of the evidence satisfied you that we must throw the country off the roof to appease the wrath of the Decent People?
But if you need help with the maths, most of 17.4m would not be pleased with a non-Leave outcome; nearly all of 16.1m, plus all of the 13m who didn't vote at all, would be at worst indifferent. So pro-Leave in the country as a whole is at most 37% and seemingly falling.
Last edited by: WillDeBeest on Thu 7 Jul 16 at 18:08
|
>>Reasonable supposition given post-result evidence<<
Supposition is not proof.
>>But if you need help with the maths<<
Your attitude, and that of the staunch Remainers, who are desperately trying to get their own way despite it being the minority vote, is exactly what is making the electorate determined to see this through.
I really would have thought you, and others would have realised that.
Patronising doesn't begin to describe it.
....but it's working so well in our favour and keeping the determination going:)
Pat
|
|
Rules are rules, is that what you're telling us?
|
A democracy is exactly what it says on the tin.
It doesn't change when you don't like the result.
Pat
|
|
Good. Show us what it says on this tin (stupid expression anyway) and we can do that.
|
>> Good. Show us what it says on this tin (stupid expression anyway) and we can
>> do that.
>>
In a referendum? It's quite simple really, the side who get the most votes wins. Those who didn't vote had every opportunity to do so, and trying to second guess how they would have voted if they had bothered to get off their backsides is a waste of time. You may point to whatever opinion polls support your view, but as they were wrong on the result anyway (As they were with the general election) cuts no ice.
I'm afraid that trying to re-run the referendum on an internet forum to get the decision you wanted is a waste of time. The country voted out and that was that. Whether the whole thing was a good idea or not is something that should have been thought out beforehand.
|
|
Thanks RR. So just show me where it's all written down and agreed in advance that the referendum result is binding on Parliament, the country and the EU, no matter what, and I'll leave you all alone and find something more useful to do.
|
>> Thanks RR. So just show me where it's all written down and agreed in advance
>> that the referendum result is binding on Parliament, the country and the EU, no matter
>> what, and I'll leave you all alone and find something more useful to do.
>>
I never said it was binding. But to retain any credibility in Parliament the government would have to go to the country for a mandate to remain, whether that was with concessions from the EU or without. And that would probably lead to the Labour party being wiped out in their traditional working class seats, the Tories losing a considerable number of votes and UKIP holding the balance of power on votes picked up mainly from Labour but also the Conservatives.
To just go ahead and ignore the result of a referendum they themselves called would lead to widespread unrest in society.
|
To just go ahead and ignore the result of a referendum they themselves called would lead to widespread unrest in society.
An understatement, civil wars have started for less!
|
>> To just go ahead and ignore the result of a referendum they themselves called would
>> lead to widespread unrest in society.
>>
>> An understatement, civil wars have started for less!
Certainly so, in Liverpool!
|
This analysis of the polls indcates we were always 'out'...
blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/eu-referendum-polls/
It *is* the LSE, and it was written after the event. So you can support anything if you try ;)
|
“If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it.â€
― Mark Twain
|
The British Voted Leave.
We as a society have to respect that decision.
I did not, I Voted Remain.
I have no regrets on the decision I made.
|
Theresa May Voted Remain as well.
That decision she made has not affected her chance of becoming Prime Minister.
|
>>It doesn't change when you don't like the result.
"Farage told the Mirror: “In a 52-48 referendum this would be unfinished business by a long way. If the remain campaign win two-thirds to one-third that ends it.â€"
So its ok for the leavers to get a 52-48 vote and call it a done deal when the instigator of all of this wouldn't have accepted it if it went the other way?
You have to remember that 16 million people wanted to stay. What is the answer, split the country in to two halves like India and Pakistan or seek compromise?
|
>>You have to remember that 16 million people wanted to stay.<<
Not forgetting of course, that 17.2 million voted to leave.
Of those 16 million people the majority are happy to accept the will of the people who actually cared enough to vote, and get their backs behind making this work.
The ones who didn't vote don't count, as they obviously had their chance and blew it, so we can discount them altogether.
The minority who want to move the goal posts after the game has been played are the ones who are holding us back now.
If, as they will all tell us, they are proud of their country, proud of the democracy they live in and would do all they could to preserve it surely it's time to accept this?
Wasting time manipulating the maths, predicting doom and gloom for us all and generally causing political unrest are doing more harm to our country than any vote did.....but they can't see that.
They are the ones with most to lose on a personal basis, as PeterS said, and it is fear of that personal loss which is causing their panic.
You can ridicule me as many times as you like WdeB quoting my 'cold dead hands of Europe' remark. If you try a bit harder you may just manage to get a reference to it in all of your posts.
In your eyes I may be ignorant, I may be poor, I may well be uneducated by your standards and need a lesson on maths, but at least I voted for what I want for my country in the future after myself and my 'child' who is 50, are long gone.
It wasn't based on my personal circumstances or what I had to gain or lose.
It's at times like this I am so pleased I'm not paddling frantically upstream against the tide, in fear of a drop in my bank balance or lifestyle.
Pat
|
>>I voted for what I want for my country in the future after myself and my 'child' who is 50, are long gone.
>>It wasn't based on my personal circumstances or what I had to gain or lose.
Tis the same with us two - we have more to lose, with our state pensions possibly taking a hit (mine due next year) and our property value heading South in the not too distant future, but then we didn't vote "Leave" for any personal reasons, we voted "Leave" for the future of Great Britain.
|
Pat, if you keep parroting other people's tabloid nonsense like 'cold, dead hand' I'll keep calling it nonsense. Come up with an original thought and I'll assess it on its merits.
Until then, I resent your accusation that I'm acting and arguing out of self-interest. Our EU membership benefits everyone economically because the country's economy is bigger than it could be outside. I have some insight into this because of the job I do, but my choice of work is partly driven by my world view, not the other way round.
As I've stated here several times, my principal reason for supporting the EU is that it's our best guarantee against the wars that fragmented European states found reasons to fight for centuries before 1945, but have avoided since. Territorial and other claims against neighbours - of the mind that set the non-EU Balkans alight - are much harder to make against economic and political allies; look at the huge pro-EU majority in Gibraltar for the value of that.
In fact, you may remember dear old Roger ridiculing me as a 'global village one world idealist' or something similar. So perhaps you'd like to have a word with him on the secret oldie network on which all the important decisions are made, and decide whether you're accusing me of wanting the best outcome for too many people or too few.
|
I entirely (I think) understand your point of view WdB but I think you need to tone it down if you really want to develop a case for deviating from the referendum result that will fly.
First, the premise of your argument seems to be that it is self-evidently wrong to leave the EU - phrases such as "throwing the country off the roof" and "driving over a cliff" for example.
To me, and many others, that is anything but clear.
You simply can't base your argument on that as a given. Whether those you oppose are rational, irrational, emotional or religious in their position they simply won't accept it without question.
I am very uncomfortable about the 52-48 result. In no way can that be described as a "clear mandate". For practical purposes it is an even split, and I would say that whichever way it went. Farage can't help being right occasionally, and he was right about that when he said such a result in favour of Remain would not put the matter to bed.
I always thought that either course was workable and I still do. The point is that we will make different choices according to the opportunities and constraints we face, just as all businesses will do what they think they have to do to mitigate and prosper in whatever new circumstances obtain.
Whichever way the government (if we have one) decides to go from here it needs to secure the support of the people, and that has to be in the plan. What form it should take I don't know, but simply recruiting all their business pals with their own vested interests to tell us what to think won't do it - one hopes they have learned that much.
It won't be enough IMO just to say either of "we have taken into account the referendum result but we believe the UK's interest is better served by remaining, with the rider that we will seek further adjustments in the rules" or "we will leave the EU in accordance with the will of [52% of] the people".
|
It seems to me politically impossible to ignore he views of the referendum and unless there was a huge and obvious turnaround in public opinion we are going to leave.
Where the debate should now switch it's as to what sort of BREXIT we want. A soft version or a hard one and I suspect that is where the debate in the Conservative party is going. For what it's worth my own view is that we will end up with the soft version. As sort of super Norwegian model with some token control of migration thrown in as a sweetener.
Nobody will be entirely happy with the result but we will be out of the EU with much the same trade relationships if we were in so hopefully the compromise will be acceptable to both sides.
|
First, the premise of your argument seems to be that it is self-evidently wrong to leave the EU...
...To me, and many others, that is anything but clear.
It may not have been so before the referendum - although the warnings mocked as 'Project Fear' we're pretty unanimous - but it's hard to see now how we'll get where the Outies want us to be without becoming significantly poorer first. Someone mentioned Ireland as an example of a country that had been glad to endure hardship to go it alone - but their independence was from true political repression, with internment and torture, not from imaginary rules about bagpipes and cucumbers.
|
...I think the FT have you sussed, Pat. ;-)
(use Google to search for "Brexcuses", or, because it is behind a paywall, the content is as follows:)
As the UK moves steadily towards its date with Brexit one can already sense the efforts of the Leave campaigners trying to dodge blame for any of the shocks ahead. Rather than own the result, leading advocates are building up alibis in case the outcome is less fabulous than they assured voters it would be. Here then is your cut-out-and-keep guide - the Brexcuses - for Leavers on why things went wrong, just in case they do.
1) The civil service let us down by not planning for Brexit. I can’t believe the government didn’t have contingency plans for the fact that the Leave campaign didn’t have any. What kind of government leaves important issues like the future of the country to people like us? All we said is that we wanted to leave; why does that make figuring out where to go our job? It was the government’s responsibility to deliver on our promises. If they fail to do so, it can hardly be our fault.
2) No one at the wheel. When we said we wanted to take back control, we obviously meant that figuratively. It didn’t mean we don’t want to delegate.
3) Angry Remain campaigners talked down the country. This panicked us into an economic downturn which would undoubtedly have been avoided if they had not insisted on pointing out news which appeared to suggest they were right. Their selfish inability to admit they were wrong ensured that they were proved right, at great cost to the country.
4) The lefty media. By reporting daily on the sterling sell-off instead of hushing it up, the metropolitan elite in the mainstream media let down the public by telling them things they are better off not knowing. This also alerted currency speculators to things they would not otherwise have noticed. The media failed in its moral duty not to report unwelcome news.
5) George Osborne spooked markets. By not appearing in the first days after the vote to reassure markets, the chancellor let Britain down.
6) Mark Carney spooked markets. By making too many regular appearances designed to calm nerves, the governor of the Bank of England let Britain down. Did we mention he used to work for Goldman Sachs?
7) David Cameron should never have resigned. The Leave campaign always made clear that it wanted him to stay on to lead the exit negotiations even though his last negotiations were a catastrophic failure and in spite of our warnings that he had absolutely no credibility any more.
8) Blame Boris. He left the detailed plans for how to manage Brexit on the bus.
9) Blame Boris some more. We had thought that the lean and hungry sharp-suited Boris Johnson was the man to lead our country but it turned out that we confused him with someone else and that the real Boris Johnson was in fact a large blond bumbler with no idea.
10) Greedy bankers. The ordinary decent citizens of this country were let down by greedy bankers, who put their own welfare ahead of that of people they had never met at the other end of the country. There was no way we could have known they would be seduced abroad by the lure of higher profits and salaries.
11) The French. We thought they’d be more British about this, accept the democratic outcome and work with us to make the best of it. Instead of being British about this; they insisted on being all French and spent the 100th anniversary of the Battle of the Somme plotting ways to steal lucrative business from London.
12) The Germans. We really thought they would help us more this time. We’ve always been able to count on Angela Merkel in the past.
13) Cowardly employers. Craven businesses failed to show faith in the country by continuing to hire people to do jobs they no longer needed.
14) Foreigners let Britain down. Refusing to accept the democratic vote of the British people, foreigners moved their investment elsewhere, thereby failing to all pull together to make the best of it.
15) Immigrants. Are you thinking what we’re thinking?
16) Experts.We needed better experts than those we are fed up listening to.
17) We are all in this together now. So it’s as much their fault as ours.
18) We weren’t supposed to win. It never occurred to us that Remain would be so incompetent. Remain should have run a better campaign.
|
>.. because it is behind a paywall, the content is as follows:)
Naughty, naughty. If that's quoted verbatim tyred it's probably copyright.
|
...aye, you're probably right (though I have credited it).
If the mods feel jumpy, simply leave the advice to search for it......
|
> So its ok for the leavers to get a 52-48 vote and call it a
>> done deal when the instigator of all of this wouldn't have accepted it if it
>> went the other way?
inevitable really after a close result. Switch results but same margin and people would just switch 180 their arguments. Human nature probably.
|
|
All the more reason to structure referendums so that close results are not decisive. As in the current case as it is advisory only. There will either have to be a rerun under more stringent rules, or Parliament will have to take the proper constitutional step and decide. Quickly!
|
|
Quite possibly so for future ones. Bit after the fact for this one.
|
|
After this mess it's unlikely we'll put another issue to a referendum for a generation or two. Doesn't mean we shouldn't seek to limit the damage from this one.
|
True, and I think it's been a very sad event for Britain, British politics and the British public.
If you take it that we need to abide by the outcome (because I think we do), and that you can't have another referendum, then damage limitation is securing the best deal under the terms of the Out campaign.
Unfortunately no-one can articulate what those were. Did it mean getting out of the single market? Imposing immigration limits? Etc etc.
That is - we now know that full BREXIT is not possible in the vote-capturing way it was presented during the campaign, each side has admitted that.
So what we need to know from the Out side is what is acceptable, what they want, what they really really want.
But unfortunately, with no leadership, no coherent Out strategy or plan to refer back to, and no-one really that clear on what they voted for, the Government won't know what the boundaries are within which they can negotiate, and still remain within the spirit of the vote.
It's not until the Outs can explain themselves and their requirements more clearly and in more detail that we know how far the government can go with damage limitation while remaining on the right side of democracy.
|
...abide by the outcome...
Yes, fair enough, but can anyone explain what is the outcome? What is the one proposition that commands the support of a majority of the UK electorate? Until we know that, we are in the Deep Thought position of having determined the ultimate answer but having to start all over again to determine the question. And until we've done that who's to say what the will of the people actually is?
The more we look at this, the more idiotic the whole thing appears. Australia voted against becoming a republic because the referendum question left too much unanswered about what would follow. Plenty here have pointed to Australia as a model to follow - even though its famous points system would increase immigration here - and they seem to have been able to think through the what-next issue more clearly than our emotion-led Outies here.
|
|
The result is too close to give a mandate to the Out faction, and the terms of disengagement aren't for the Out campaign stake holders to set. It's solely a function of Government and our representative democracy. Given that we are facing a stance by EU that the movement of EU citizens is essential, we have no bargaining room. Unless other states ally with the UK against free movement, we are unlikely to get concessions on trade. As the evidence increasingly mounts, of economic loss, undermining of national unity and other harm done by Brexit, I think the slim majority will become a bad memory. Art. 50 will not be triggered for a while, ECA 72 would also have to be repealed (both required) and not least, the constitutional impasse on prerogative or Parliamentary supremacy is not resolved. Impetuous action could bring about actions by the state, for ultra vires, and citizens for loss of EU citizenship. In my view, it's either a new and improved referendum, giving time for reflection and setting a threshold, or a long delay before a decision (by MP's) is made.
|
|
PS: www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36742691 Hislop on not keeping quiet in the face of an adverse result….
|
Excellent. And I've always seen Hislop as a Manateean eurosceptic, who sees the flaws in the institution and isn't afraid to draw attention to them, but he seems very clear about the enormous disservice the Leavers have done to the UK.
Funny thing is, we Remainers are the only ones offering them a way forward and out of the mess they have created. You'd think they might be grateful.
};---)
|
|
In troubled times it's comforting to know we have such great intellects to guide us. Just promise us you won't be posing in nothing but a Union Jack cushion.
|
>> Excellent. And I've always seen Hislop as a Manateean eurosceptic, who sees the flaws in
>> the institution and isn't afraid to draw attention to them, but he seems very clear
>> about the enormous disservice the Leavers have done to the UK.
Having just watched that, he doesn't seem to be blaming the people who voted Leave, but the people who led the campaign and David Cameron. for the current mess. A fairly good snap analysis.
|
In response to Norton...
I saw Hislop on QT and I thought he made a good point very well there.
Last edited by: smokie on Fri 8 Jul 16 at 12:41
|
>> its famous points system would increase immigration here
If you want to convert anybody, don't state baseless "facts" like that - if you have a points system you can change the weighting towards the attributes you want, or move the cut-off value if you want to manage numbers. That would have a consequence of course, in that you might end up with a shortage of skills if you manage numbers alone, but you would have the levers.
>>our emotion-led Outies here
...and pure value judgements such as that. Emotions run high on both sides, and are typically the basis for soft decisions where the quant arguments are looked for afterwards to support the instinctive decision or to rebut the opposite view.
Smart people (such as us of course) recognise that and try harder to look at both sides, rather than just piling up the arguments that suit their preferences.
The potential economic and political pros of Brexit are really not that hard to see if you put the patch on the other eye. I wrote an outline on that when I made my last post, but I thought better of developing it given the way this discussion is being conducted.
The outline - look at the likely effects (good and bad) of sterling devaluation; look at the growth trends since say 2009 of Germany, the UK, and the eurozone excluding Germany; look at under-25 unemployment in those countries. Consider what future the eurozone (ex-Germany) has under current arrangements, what must happen for its outlook to change for the better, and where that would leave the UK with its exclusions from eurozone bailout costs and closer union.
Whether the Brexit case trumps the Remain case is a different question. The answer must depend on the execution or assumed execution of both; but I don't see either as a smooth ride.
What must be said is the above is fairly academic until government gets a grip. The situation has now turned to farce, because (a) Cameron resigned, leaving a vacuum, and (b) the Leave leadership has either run away, having lit the fuse, or self-destructed. Farage's attitude is unexcusable, although I suppose we should be relieved he isn't in charge of anything.
To wait until 11 weeks after the poll for a new PM to be elected is unacceptable.
|
Regarding immigration I didn't realise there was a seven year window to stop people entering the UK in the numbers they did.Unless I heard it wrong the Dutch foreign minister mentioned this in a interview.This was inforced by Germany and Holland.
The UK employers got the free hand and stopped the local people getting a job.Cheaper foreign labour more controllable..Why didn't the powers in charge kept a eye on this situation.
So instead of about hundred thousand people entering the UK you got 3 million with all the problems and benefits for social services.
The UK government can't send immigrants back unless of course they are criminals so immigration free movement of people is going to be one of the main sticking points with the rest of Europe.
I wouldn't follow the Australians the way they treat refugees is a disgrace and nothing to be proud of.
|
|
Maybe the original inhabitants of Australia should have been tougher on immigration. They'd still have their country.
|
|
Can't remember who it was attributed to but somebody famous, reputedly anyway, when asked at Australian immigration if he had a criminal record, replied that he didn't realise it was still a requirement for entry.
|
>> Maybe the original inhabitants of Australia should have been tougher on immigration. They'd still have
>> their country.
>>
After The referendum result an American white supremacist said "Now it's time to make America white again!"
The image that came in to my mind was of a proud Native American weeping.
|
Isn't that what they really mean? And if they do, be honest about make America white again.
Or make the U.K.white again.After the Brexit vote.Going back 40 years we took the two lads to Cayton Bay near Scarborough for a week holiday.Talking to a London chap who said it was nice to be amongst white people.A rascist remark or that is how he perceived his area where he lived.
It doesn't make it right racism is wrong it doesn't matter whatever colour you are but it is in many peoples mind.
|
>> chap who
>> said it was nice to be amongst white people.A rascist remark or that is how
>> he perceived his area where he lived.
>>
>>
Substitute "Welsh" for "white" and it is standard government-approved PC.
Perfectly normal preference to native inhabitants in housing allocation, planning and jobs.
|
An interesting take on, in part at least, the demographics that might have affected the brexit vote...
video.ft.com/5116750814001/Punk-FT-Outsider-Economics/Life-Arts
Last edited by: PeterS on Mon 10 Oct 16 at 21:23
|
An interesting article....
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/11/did-we-reclaim-sovereignty-from-brussels-only-to-ignore-parliame/
I think a vote is right. Not for or against Brexit, because the referendum answered that question, but on how hard it is going to be!
The hard Brexit seems to be gaining ground. Expect a recession if it goes that way.
I am seeing businesses (customers) really struggle with exchange rate issues and new orders from not only EU countries (which have turned off the tap) but also from further afield!
|
Demographic for/against Brexit - WillDeBeest
