Brexit Referendum Superthread

Sam Russell

The one thing I think Cameron should have done is appoint the equivalent of our Referendum Commission that produces a booklet outlining all the arguments for and against the proposition, and acts as a referee in cases of alleged lies, damn lies and out and out untruths.

In this case, the claim that £350 million a week goes to the EU would be debunked - also the claim that this money would be available for the NHS.

On the other side, much of the fear and mayhem claims would have been denied - third world war my arse.

They could have learned so much from us - how to run a coalition, how to run a referendum, how to have a rerun if the answer was wrong, etc. etc.

Sand

Sam Russell wrote: »

The one thing I think Cameron should have done is appoint the equivalent of our Referendum Commission that produces a booklet outlining all the arguments for and against the proposition, and acts as a referee in cases of alleged lies, damn lies and out and out untruths.

In this case, the claim that £350 million a week goes to the EU would be debunked - also the claim that this money would be available for the NHS.

On the other side, much of the fear and mayhem claims would have been denied - third world war my arse.

They could have learned so much from us - how to run a coalition, how to run a referendum, how to have a rerun if the answer was wrong, etc. etc.

This presume that the Leave vote was in anyway motivated by evidence or facts - it was an emotional rejection of the London elite, UK politics and UK immigration laws. It has little or nothing to do with the EU.

Cameron should never have called a referendum on something so dangerous. He did, and now the UK will reap the consequences.

CMOTDibbler

Sand wrote: »

This presume that the Leave vote was in anyway motivated by evidence or facts - it was an emotional rejection of the London elite, UK politics and UK immigration laws. It has little or nothing to do with the EU.

Cameron should never have called a referendum on something so dangerous. He did, and now the UK will reap the consequences.

Unfortunately you are right. On every count.

cml387

Sam Russell wrote: »

The one thing I think Cameron should have done is appoint the equivalent of our Referendum Commission that produces a booklet outlining all the arguments for and against the proposition, and acts as a referee in cases of alleged lies, damn lies and out and out untruths.

In this case, the claim that £350 million a week goes to the EU would be debunked - also the claim that this money would be available for the NHS.

On the other side, much of the fear and mayhem claims would have been denied - third world war my arse.

They could have learned so much from us - how to run a coalition, how to run a referendum, how to have a rerun if the answer was wrong, etc. etc.

Not entirely convinced by this.
The role of the Referendum Commission was taken up by the BBC in the main.
Everything said by either side had to be balanced on the BBC by a "on the other hand" piece which left everyone bewildered.
The real point, as made before, is that a referendum is very democratic and very bad way of deciding anything other than speed limits in a rural town.

swampgas

Deedsie wrote: »

No matter how balanced a media outlet, even the BBC... Will be seen by some as biased.

A completely independent referendum commission should have been appointed. I'm amazed there wasn't one.

Had there been a referendum commission, the Leave campaign would have rubbished it the same way they rubbished every other institution they didn't like.

The Leave campaign was one of breathtaking dishonesty. British politics is in the gutter.

K-9

Sand wrote: »

This presume that the Leave vote was in anyway motivated by evidence or facts - it was an emotional rejection of the London elite, UK politics and UK immigration laws. It has little or nothing to do with the EU.

Cameron should never have called a referendum on something so dangerous. He did, and now the UK will reap the consequences.

When you're up against appeals to emotion and nationalism you need strong arguments to oppose them...

One of the BBC radio comedies did a great sketch on it, Gordon Brown and John Major impersonators arguing passionately for the remain side because it's just a bit better than the alternative!

There was nothing to get excited explaining how the EU works when you've had decades of misinformation spread by the press which has seeped into the public consciousness as fact. Take the £350 Million a week figure, most people just accept it as true or buy the narrative of what that means and that's the leave sides job done. When you're explaining you're losing and all that.

topmanamillion

A referendum is a terrible way to decide anything.
It is based on the belief that the collective weight of the population knows what's best for it.
As Brexit proves they do not. Instead of an informed electorate, there was just a mob mentality.
Instead of debating the benefits and disadvantages of EU membership it became about petty stuff like getting one over the Scots and London elite.
Ultimately it's Camerons fault as the only reason he called the referendum in the first place was to quell infighting in his own party.

Billy86

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Interesting. Lib Dems are pledging to ignore the result.

Bit of a gamble on their part but they've little to lose in doing so. If the conservative leadership crisis results in an early election being called they could pick upvotes of remain voters and leavers who are having regrets. If theres no election but it all goes to **** they can at least say they put the offer out there.

Might actually be a smart move on their part.

Absolutely stupid move. Reverse this decision, and Nigel Farage or someone close to him will at the least be the leader of a minority party in government within the next 1-2 election cycles.

J Mysterio

whatever_ wrote: »

There is a big opportunity for Labour here. It's Corbyn's last chance of power really. He was honest to say that he is about 75% in favour of the EU. If they re-engage with their traditional voters (and this does not mean being anti-immigration) they could easily win the next election. Boris / Theresa May will have the difficult job.

An Election before article 50 ? A general election ? definitely not !

A general election matters not - your country has ruined itself.

Sam Russell

topmanamillion wrote: »

A referendum is a terrible way to decide anything.
It is based on the belief that the collective weight of the population knows what's best for it.

Ultimately it's Cameron's fault as the only reason he called the referendum in the first place was to quell infighting in his own party.

And Boris Johnson only joined the Leave side as a direct route to number 10. He may have won the poisoned chalice as a prize for the Phyrric victory he has just won.



As the Chinese say ' Be careful what you wish for' and 'May you live in interesting times'.

So much wisdom had the Chinese.

briany

topmanamillion wrote: »

A referendum is a terrible way to decide anything.
It is based on the belief that the collective weight of the population knows what's best for it.
As Brexit proves they do not. Instead of an informed electorate, there was just a mob mentality.
Instead of debating the benefits and disadvantages of EU membership it became about petty stuff like getting one over the Scots and London elite.
Ultimately it's Camerons fault as the only reason he called the referendum in the first place was to quell infighting in his own party.

Many leaders have been elected on the basis of the people not being politically well-informed, or at least this was the accusation. Direct democracy is not perfect by any means, but at least politicians can say they left it to the will of the people rather than a closed vote among representatives for a decision that would affect everyone.

Jimmy Garlic

cml387 wrote: »

The real point, as made before, is that a referendum is very democratic and very bad way of deciding anything other than speed limits in a rural town.

I love how the mask has slipped and those with absolute contempt for democracy aren't even trying to hide it anymore.

CMOTDibbler

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

I love how the mask has slipped and those with absolute contempt for democracy aren't even trying to hide it anymore.

This from the guy who started the Vladimir Putin appreciation thread? :rolleyes:

cml387

If anything defines Boris' unfitness for high office it is his decision to back the brexiteers.

He took a huge gamble that remain would win but by a narrow margin that would have wounded Cameron so that later on (a few years) he could have had his coronation as the true blue leader whose eurosceptic credentials were impeccable.

No wonder he was so subdued on Friday.

And what's worse now is that he must see his chances of being PM fading fast. There will be calls now in the Conservative party for "unity" and "consensus".

You could call it the Heselentine Paradox. He who wields the axe etc.

J Mysterio

Deedsie wrote: »

No matter how balanced a media outlet, even the BBC... Will be seen by some as biased.

A completely independent referendum commission should have been appointed. I'm amazed there wasn't one.

This is an outstanding poibt, and in the rush never thought of it - makes the whole situation even morr ridiculous.

cml387

J Mysterio wrote: »

This is an outstanding poibt, and in the rush never thought of it - makes the whole situation even morr ridiculous.

But what could a referendum commission do? They can't foresee the future. All they could say to the claims made by either side was that there wasn't enough evidence to support them. Hardly a game changer I would have thought.

K-9

Billy86 wrote: »

Absolutely stupid move. Reverse this decision, and Nigel Farage or someone close to him will at the least be the leader of a minority party in government within the next 1-2 election cycles.

In fairness, and I can't believe nobody else hasn't pointed this out yet, it's the Lib Dems!

I just can't see how they can get around not enacting the result, politically it's just delaying the inevitable. Could Boris get a new deal? Cameron had bother getting the concessions he got. And as you say, the longer they delay gives UKIP more power and annoys the Tory Euro skeptic wing.

Its dead Jim

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

I love how the mask has slipped and those with absolute contempt for democracy aren't even trying to hide it anymore.

Referendums aren't the only form of democracy. Although as a supporter of Putin your view of democracy might be a bit different than everyone else's.

my friend

cml387 wrote: »

If anything defines Boris' unfitness for high office it is his decision to back the brexiteers.

!?!

It's clear that Boris is in touch with +50% of the citizens that cared to vote.

J Mysterio

cml387 wrote: »

But what could a referendum commission do? They can't foresee the future. All they could say to the claims made by either side was that there wasn't enough evidence to support them. Hardly a game changer I would have thought.

They would give impartial, honest, accurate representations of the pros and cons (reprecussions) of both potential outcomes of the vote (as they have in the last two Irish referendums).

An informed populace is more likely to make the right choice. Also, it prevents the nasty promotion we have seen in the Brexit vote from the competing groups.

Suryavarman

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

I love how the mask has slipped and those with absolute contempt for democracy aren't even trying to hide it anymore.

Realising that the average voter doesn't have the knowledge necessary to decide whether or not the EU is a good thing doesn't mean that someone has contempt for democracy.

Billy86

K-9 wrote: »

In fairness, and I can't believe nobody else hasn't pointed this out yet, it's the Lib Dems!

I just can't see how they can get around not enacting the result, politically it's just delaying the inevitable. Could Boris get a new deal? Cameron had bother getting the concessions he got. And as you say, the longer they delay gives UKIP more power and annoys the Tory Euro skeptic wing.

Exactly, we have to let them fail and suffer as badly as they probably will in order for them to wake up to reality. It does sound spiteful but with the sheer rejection of facts or knowledge and open celebration of ignorance we are seeing over the likes of Trump (the had the 'brokered convention' scenario materialised) or the Brexit, it might just be best to let them have their way and suffer for it.

A reason that the far right's baseless nonsense is being lapped up is because they have not been in power for so long in so many places; people are angry in general and feel all the others have lied to them but UKIP etc will be different (as they have never been in much of a position to lie to them due to lack of power). Time to learn they've been sold up the river.

BoJack Horseman

Suryavarman wrote: »

Realising that the average voter doesn't have the knowledge necessary to decide whether or not the EU is a good thing doesn't mean that someone has contempt for democracy.

Well, we all cannot be as smart as you.....

However you are right, 'knowledge' cannot be a bad thing.
After all, one of the cornerstone arguments put forth by PM Cameron was the threat of WW3 should the UK leave the EU....

Objectively, the man putting forth that argument cannot be said to be overburdened by knowledge on the EU.....

I would argue that the average voter (damn their oily hides) was more than intelligent enough to see through the bafflingly stupid arguments put forth by 'remain'.

Finnbar01

micosoft wrote: »

So OpenEurope - a eurosceptic think tank in the UK held a fascinating mock negotiation between the Uk (represented by Malcolm Rifkind & Norman Lamont) and the other EU states (Ireland represented by John Bruton) most of home are ex Premiers/Prime Ministers from the various states. It's well worth viewing but two things really emerge:

- The Initial Negotiation will be tough.
- If the UK chooses Brexit the negotiations will be even tougher - no quarter will be given.

In short, what the Euro Sceptics fail to recognise again and again is that they are not negotiating with "the EU". They are negotiating with the other 27 states who have their own strong views on the future of Europe. In fact it's clear that there is real anger in continental Europe over Camerons solo run. There is a real lack of trust with Bruton asking how can we know if the this is the last time the UK comes looking to renegotiate.

Apologies for coming late to the debate but are you talking about negotiating trade deals? Also I thought member states cannot individually negotiate trade deals with countries outside the EU?

And apologies again if my questions have already being answered.

Jimmy Garlic

Suryavarman wrote: »

Realising that the average voter doesn't have the knowledge necessary to decide whether or not the EU is a good thing doesn't mean that someone has contempt for democracy.

Oh ffs. Self proclaimed intellectuals who sup from an imaginary fountain of knowledge proclaim that Joe Public is too stupid to to get the right answer. Condescending pri*ks full of their own self-importance say that democracy is only democracy when they get the answer that they want.

cml387

J Mysterio wrote: »

They would give impartial, honest, accurate representations of the pros and cons (reprecussions) of both potential outcomes of the vote (as they have in the last two Irish referendums).

An informed populace is more likely to make the right choice. Also, it prevents the nasty promotion we have seen in the Brexit vote from the competing groups.

Really?
Who would be on this commission? How could they be considered completely unbiased.No doubt both sides could find evidence of previous views of these paragons which would cast doubt on their impartiality.
And how on earth could they counteract an argument, for example, that the 350 million rescued from Brussels will be spent n the NHS. Would they say "No that's a lie, they'll row back on that immediately afterwards "?
Would they contradict treasury forecasts that predicted that Britain would be worse off outside the EU? On what basis could they do that?

Suryavarman

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Well, we all cannot be as smart as you.....

However you are right, 'knowledge' cannot be a bad thing.
After all, one of the cornerstone arguments put forth by PM Cameron was the threat of WW3 should the UK leave the EU....

Objectively, the man putting forth that argument cannot be said to be overburdened by knowledge on the EU.....

I would argue that the average voter (damn their oily hides) was more than intelligent enough to see through the bafflingly stupid arguments put forth by 'remain'.

Jimmy Garlic wrote: »

Oh ffs. Self proclaimed intellectuals who sup from an imaginary fountain of knowledge proclaim that Joe Public is too stupid to to get the right answer. Condescending pri*ks full of their own self-importance say that democracy is only democracy when they get the answer that they want.

One of the most common Google searches in the UK Friday was "what is the EU?". Doesn't exactly scream of a well informed electorate.

Inquitus

This really sums up where the UK is at now, no plan for Brexit, no idea what to do, political chaos and economic turmoil with the very future of the Union at stake:

https://twitter.com/sgardner/status/747059883128692737

cml387

One should note that one country who love referendums is Switzerland.
A country that allowed women to vote...in 1971.

Billy86

Suryavarman wrote: »

One of the most common Google searches in the UK Friday was "what is the EU?". Doesn't exactly scream of a well informed electorate.

I'm praying this is fake, but given how weird the last few days have been, I'm not even so sure it is...