Brexit Referendum Superthread

K-9

Sam Russell wrote: »

Why did they not listen to other than the elderly racist xenophobes?

Can we cut out stuff like the above please, it's just a lazy generalisation that winds people up.

smjm

Sam Russell wrote: »

[...] Racism is definitely a significant problem in Britain, particularly in England - not 100% but definitely significantly noticeable.

Frankly, I find such sweeping generalisations racist!

swampgas

It gets better and better ... WTO chief says UK's WTO status would have to be negotiated from scratch.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/07/wto-chief-brexit-trade-talks-start-scratch-eu-referendum

The UK cannot revert to earlier WTO agreements either, by the look of it.

The lack of even the most basic planning for dealing with trade agreements is staggering.

wes

swampgas wrote: »

The lack of even the most basic planning for dealing with trade agreements is staggering.

The SNP apparently had a 600 page document detailing there plan for independence, and the Brexiters have no plan at all. Again, absolutely astonishing incompetence. How Brexiters aren't angry about that, is beyond me.

smjm

swampgas wrote: »

It gets better and better ... WTO chief says UK's WTO status would have to be negotiated from scratch.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/07/wto-chief-brexit-trade-talks-start-scratch-eu-referendum

The UK cannot revert to earlier WTO agreements either, by the look of it.

The lack of even the most basic planning for dealing with trade agreements is staggering.

It seems no one has a plan, including the WTO:

Roberto Azevêdo, the WTO director-general, said he expected any talks to be long and difficult, adding: “We haven’t had any discussions about the process. We don’t know what the process would be. We do know it would be a very unusual situation.”

pablomakaveli

Inquitus wrote: »

I think latent racism was a big factor in the outcome of the vote myself, if you've ever spent much time in the UK, that should be no surprise to you.

A good saying i've heard is" Most Leave voters aren't racist, but all the racists voted for Leave"

djpbarry

Bob24 wrote: »

The EU is not prepared either and needs internal discussions to come up with a plan.

How can the EU possibly be prepared when absolutely nobody has any idea what it is the UK wants? Not even the UK itself, it seems.

But the EU very clearly has a plan in place – article 50 gets triggered and then discussions commence.

Bob24 wrote: »

Are controlling borders and limiting immigration flows racist or xenophopic ideas?

It’s already been said, but the strongest leave votes were in areas with very little, if any, immigrants – that hints very strongly at xenophobia.

wes

wes wrote: »

The SNP apparently had a 600 page document detailing there plan for independence, and the Brexiters have no plan at all. Again, absolutely astonishing incompetence. How Brexiters aren't angry about that, is beyond me.

A consistent theme here is the laying of responsibility of government on fringe politicians.

Yes Brexit won the vote, but they are not a homogenous group of people, nor a political party. Farage and Johnson have plenty of criticism for one another. But at the end of the day, one is a backbencher and the other is not even an MP. They do not have the legitimacy, let alone the capacity, to formulate a plan and implement Brexit.

That is a job for the Government.

It's too bad that the voting public didn't attach much weight to the lack of a plan, but a plan is the Government's responsibility.

You wouldn't have expected Libertas to negotiate a solution to the failure of the 2008 referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon. It was always a role for the Government, and it's the same situation with Brexit.

djpbarry

jackofalltrades wrote: »

Maybe they need some sort of Referendum Commission, to offer impartial advice.

There is an Electoral Commission, but it's role in referenda is pretty much limited to ensuring the referendum question is easy for voters to understand.

wes

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

That is a job for the Government.

No it wasn't. Cameron was against it. Not up to him to plan for something he was against. It is absurd to expect someone to plan for a change they disagree with. Passing the buck as Brexiters are doing just shows not only how bloody incompetent they are, but that they can't even admit to there own screw up. It really doesn't bode well for the UK, if this is the level of competence they can expect from Brexiters.

Seriously, if any other opposition party pull this nonsense, they would be torn a part in parliament.

wes

wes wrote: »

No it wasn't. Cameron was against it. Not up to him to plan for something he was against.

Sorry but that is just plain wrong.

It is the Prime Minister's and the Government's responsibility to formulate a back-up plan, and then to implement it.

That is not the responsibility of a backbench MP and a non-MP.

Blame attaches to those who voted without considering the repercussions, and those who failed to plan for repercussions. There is no responsibility on campaigners to develop contingency plans, or to implement those plans. Regardless of how crazy their campaigns may be.

Voters have to think critically about proposals, especially where outcomes are uncertain. That appears not to have happened, although in fairness, I think some of the repercussions are exaggerated anyway.

wes

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

It is the Prime Minister's and the Government's responsibility to formulate a back-up plan, and then to implement it.

Except that they don't have to have one, as they were against it. It would make 0 sense to expect the remain side to start planning, especially as it would send confusing signals to voters and make is seem like the government was expecting them to leave.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

That is not the responsibility of a backbench MP and a non-MP.

Ok, let say there is an election, and the government lose, and then opposition wants to bring in some new policies, but have no plan for it. If they turned around and blamed this on the previous government they would be a laughing stock. Expecting the other side to do you work for you, is a complete absurdity.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Blame attaches to those who voted without considering the repercussions, and those who failed to plan for repercussions. There is no responsibility on campaigners to develop contingency plans, or to implement those plans. Regardless of how crazy their campaigns may be.

Yes, it is on them. It was there idea, they should have a plan. The complete lack of one speaks to there incompetence, as well as the incompetence of those who voted for the mess.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Voters have to think critically about proposals, especially where outcomes are uncertain. That appears not to have happened, although in fairness, I think some of the repercussions are exaggerated anyway.

So its the now the Brexit voters fault, they were lied to now apparently? This gets better and better.

_Bella_

wes wrote: »

No it wasn't. Cameron was against it. Not up to him to plan for something he was against. It is absurd to expect someone to plan for a change they disagree with.

As far as I am concerned, if you decide to hold a referendum then you should have plans in place for both contingencies. I have no idea why Cameron rushed the holding of the referendum, more time should have been allowed to plan for both eventualities, from what I have read the civil service does not even have enough staff to cope with all the implications of an out result.

jackofalltrades

pablomakaveli wrote: »

A good saying i've heard is" Most Leave voters aren't racist, but all the racists voted for Leave"

It's not a good saying though.

1)You can't backup the claim
2)It's a slur
3)It's guilt by association
4)It pisses of Leave voters and creates further division at a time where the opposite is needed
5)It's been done to death

Inquitus

I think a GE is required to sort this mess out. The vast majority of MP's were elected on a pro Remain stance, and as such why should they have had a plan in place to leave?

wes

_Bella_ wrote: »

As far as I am concerned, if you decide to hold a referendum then you should have plans in place for both contingencies. I have no idea why Cameron rushed the holding of the referendum, more time should have been allowed to plan for both eventualities, from what I have read the civil service does not even have enough staff to cope with all the implications of an out result.

Well Cameron resigned, so he fell on his sword, for this part in the mess. Can't say I blame him, its not his mess, so why should have have to clean it up.

I have yet to see any acknowledgement on the Brexit side of there incompetence at all. Hell, Boris Johnson couldn't even be bothered to clean up the mess he called. The entire thing is shambles.

wes

wes wrote: »

Except that they don't have to have one, as they were against it. It would make 0 sense to expect the remain side to start planning

I am not talking about the Remain campaign in their capacity as campaigners.

I am talking about the Government qua Government, sitting at Cabinet.

They instituted a referendum & had a responsibility to make plans for the two possible results.

Ok, let say there is an election, and the government lose, and then opposition wants to bring in some new policies, but have no plan for it. If they turned around and blamed this on the previous government they would be a laughing stock.

We're not talking about an election. This point seems to be completely missed by those who grumble about Brexit's lack of planning.

It was a referendum. There is no change of government. An election doesn't materially affect change in policy. A referendum does.

In the course of a referendum, the Government must establish a back-up plan to deal with the possible outcomes. Because they will still be in government after the event.

_Bella_

wes wrote: »

Well Cameron resigned, so he fell on his sword, for this part in the mess. Can't say I blame him, its not his mess, so why should have have to clean it up.

I have yet to see any acknowledgement on the Brexit side of there incompetence at all. Hell, Boris Johnson couldn't even be bothered to clean up the mess he called. The entire thing is shambles.

Oh I agree that the Brexit campaign are a complete shambles and there is no way they will be able deliver what they promised the voters, I more took issue with your point that Cameron should not have had a plan in place. If you agree to holding a referendum it is your responsibility to plan for the fallout of outcomes, you cannot decide to hold a referendum and just assume you will win.

Also I think you can blame Cameron, this referendum should never have been held if he was not prepared to deal with either outcome.

K-9

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

A consistent theme here is the laying of responsibility of government on fringe politicians.

Yes Brexit won the vote, but they are not a homogenous group of people, nor a political party. Farage and Johnson have plenty of criticism for one another. But at the end of the day, one is a backbencher and the other is not even an MP. They do not have the legitimacy, let alone the capacity, to formulate a plan and implement Brexit.

That is a job for the Government.

It's too bad that the voting public didn't attach much weight to the lack of a plan, but a plan is the Government's responsibility.

You wouldn't have expected Libertas to negotiate a solution to the failure of the 2008 referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon. It was always a role for the Government, and it's the same situation with Brexit.

True, but Farage and Boris had ideas about what Britain could do after a Brexit, but they've suddenly gone quiet.

Farage will appear when there is a deal on the table and knock it, he doesn't offer anything constructive. Hopefully the electorate will see through him now but I doubt it tbh. UKIP is about an ideology, not even constructive criticism.

Therein lies the problem.

K-9

jackofalltrades wrote: »

It's not a good saying though.

1)You can't backup the claim
2)It's a slur
3)It's guilt by association
4)It pisses of Leave voters and creates further division at a time where the opposite is needed
5)It's been done to death

As admitted by the main donor to the leave campaign it was all about immigration, that's what the American PR company they hired focused on and very successfully too. So fear of immigration and borders being overrun was a major part of the campaign.

Just as there are legitimate concerns about immigration there was a lot of scaremongering that courted racism and xenophobia. It would be dishonest to focus on one and ignore the other.

K-9

K-9 wrote: »

True, but Farage and Boris had ideas about what Britain could do after a Brexit, but they've suddenly gone quiet.

Farage certainly hasn't gone quiet. He was on radio at 7am the morning of the result, and he's been on plenty of media, shilling his outrageous plans, criticising the EP (to their face; there is, after all, some honour among thieves) and last I checked (half an hour ago) calling for a General Election.

Johnson has indeed gone to ground, but seems to have been shafted, and it wouldn't be appropriate for him to start issuing demands. The next period is about tactful negotiations, nobody who is interested in the future of the UK should be undermining the Government at this time.

The bottom line, however, is that this is the Government's game of chess. Farage and Johnson have done enough damage. Frankly I don't want to hear their opinions. I don't know why Remain are so preoccupied with the internal minds of Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage.

CMOTDibbler

wes wrote: »

Except that they don't have to have one, as they were against it. It would make 0 sense to expect the remain side to start planning, especially as it would send confusing signals to voters and make is seem like the government was expecting them to leave.

It's the responsibility of the government to govern the country. That includes formulating plans for all kinds of possibilities. Having called a referendum, regardless of the outcome, there can only be two results. If it was remain, then happy days and no need for a plan, but in the event of a leave vote, they should have a contingency plan.

The leave side was a hodge podge of different interests and ideologies. They have absolutely no power to implement any plan that they could come up with and no responsibility to have one in the first place other than win.

To confuse matters further, elements of both sides of the debate were in the ruling party. However that does not absolve the government of responsibility for making a contingency plan. In fact since they had leave supporters in the government, they were in a particularly good position to do so.

The breathtaking arrogance on display in the Tory party, where a hugely important decision for the future of the UK was relegated to the level of a petty party squabble and used as a trojan horse for the ambitions of a tiny minded bunch of parasites.

It reminds me of the Yes Minister sketch where he becomes Prime Minister by manufacturing a crisis involving the EU. This of course is entirely different...

Oh wait :eek:

wes

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

We're not talking about an election. This point seems to be completely missed by those who grumble about Brexit's lack of planning.

The other guy not having a plan, is no excuse for not having one of there own. Cameron is gone now regardless. Brexiters expecting someone else to do all the work is pretty absurd. If you are campaigning for something surely, you would have a plan, expecting someone else to do it (regardless of whether they were suppose to or not), isn't an excuse for not having one.

As it stands Cameron is gone, and the Brexiters have no plan. The UK is in trouble and its up to them to fix things.

wes

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

The breathtaking arrogance on display in the Tory party, where a hugely important decision for the future of the UK was relegated to the level of a petty party squabble and used as a trojan horse for the ambitions of a tiny minded bunch of parasites.

Your not wrong about the Torys, they took an internal party division and made it a national one. Its a hell of an own goal.

wes

wes wrote: »

Brexiters expecting someone else to do all the work is pretty absurd. If you are campaigning for something surely, you would have a plan, expecting someone else to do it (regardless of whether they were suppose to or not), isn't an excuse for not having one.

As it stands Cameron is gone, and the Brexiters have no plan. The UK is in trouble and its up to them to fix things.

Wes... Cameron is not gone. He's the Prime Minister.

Boris Johnson is a backbench MP & journalist. Nigel Farage has fought and lost seven Westminster elections. These men are not politically compatible, and they have no responsibility to govern the country.

They were campaigners in a referendum, not an election. The referendum is over, the Government must react.

Inquitus

But even implementing Leave is complicated, there are soo many mutually incompatible concepts at play

• Free movement of people
• Access to the EEA

If we just take the 2 basic concepts above, the 2 are fairly firmly intertwined, given the leave vote seems to have been propelled to victory on the back of anti-immigration feeling, whilst equally most people still wanting tariff free access to the EU market, how does the UK go about having their cake and eating it? You cannot have one without the other, do the voting people realise this? The UK could probably get a Norway like deal, which in essence would essentially be a worse deal than the one they just rejected, as they would have to contribute to the EU Budget without having a say in it, accept free movement of people, which they say they don't want, in order to access the EU Market which I think all of them realise is the key to future prosperity.

Bob24

_Bella_ wrote: »

Also I think you can blame Cameron, this referendum should never have been held if he was not prepared to deal with either outcome.

Exactly. When you are a head of state and call a referundum, you should have a plan for whatever the outcome is or at least not lie about your intentions so that others can make their own plan. Let's not forgot Cameron clearly said he would stay and trigger article 50 in case of a leave victory. So while the leave campaigners should have had more of a plan, they are definitely not the only ones to blame for the current ackward situation.

LiamoSail

wes wrote: »

Well Cameron resigned, so he fell on his sword, for this part in the mess. Can't say I blame him, its not his mess, so why should have have to clean it up.

I agree to an extent, and do believe he was right to go. However he has to take a degree of responsibility for allowing the nations social, economic and political future be decided by the same people that voted in huge number for that research ship to be named Boaty McBoatface.

K-9 wrote: »

True, but Farage and Boris had ideas about what Britain could do after a Brexit, but they've suddenly gone quiet.

Farage will appear when there is a deal on the table and knock it, he doesn't offer anything constructive. Hopefully the electorate will see through him now but I doubt it tbh. UKIP is about an ideology, not even constructive criticism.

Therein lies the problem.

The English and Welsh, as this referendum proved, are probably to dumb or too eager to attribute all their problems to immigrants for that to happen IMO

wes

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Wes... Cameron is not gone. He's the Prime Minister.

He is a lame duck. For all intents and purposes he is gone. He made it very clear he will be doing nothing.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Boris Johnson is a backbench MP & journalist. Nigel Farage has fought and lost seven Westminster elections. These men are not politically compatible, and they have no responsibility to govern the country.

They were campaigners in a referendum, not an election. The referendum is over, the Government must react.

Boris was the leader of the campaign and a member of the ruling party, as well as Gove.

Boris Johnson was going to run for party leader, before the well deserved back stabbing. The lack of a plan is kind of problematic for some who intended to lead.

Gove is running for leader, so his lack of a plan is also problematic, and yes I know he managed to cobble together some promises like 100 million for the NHS (down from 350 million and will probably end up being 0).

jackofalltrades

K-9 wrote: »

As admitted by the main donor to the leave campaign it was all about immigration, that's what the American PR company they hired focused on and very successfully too. So fear of immigration and borders being overrun was a major part of the campaign.

Just as there are legitimate concerns about immigration there was a lot of scaremongering that courted racism and xenophobia. It would be dishonest to focus on one and ignore the other.

And all of that has what to do with my post?