I messed the quote up. That's what I mean is a good point. Yes I agree. Far too much Parliamentary time's been spent on this. A row's now eruprted as MP's had their half-term February break cancelled and some want re-imbursing for ski-ing holidays. Some will defy the Whips and still go away.

 

But the actual point was that the vote hasn’t been ignored. Which is what you were complaining would happen. Re-evaluation wouldn’t be the same as ignoring. In fact, if there’s a possibility that public opinion has change at all in the past quarter of a decade, then it would be irresponsible to not hold a second vote.

 

I mean it’s a bit silly to say ‘yes I know you might have changed your minds, but we have to stick with what you voted for 3 years ago even though we have no plan and you clearly feel differently now’.

 

If the result was the same then so be it. Britain would still pretty much be doomed but at least it was based off an informed opinion.

That was May's and the government's fault then. It should have been far far better publicised. I haven't yet met a person who didn't think it was legally binding.

That just emphasises my point that there was a lot that people didn't know. I note that you don't seem to think the press or broadcasters should have done more to educate voters.

That was May's and the government's fault then. It should have been far far better publicised. I haven't yet met a person who didn't think it was legally binding.

Surely you'd have to agree then that a second referendum would be a decent means of indicating what the public now thinks, having a) actually sat back and thought about what Brexit really means to them and the UK, and b) realised that the foundations of the Leave campaign were based purely on lies and law-breaking?

 

Or do you just not care about everybody being given the chance make a more informed decision because all you want is to rid the UK of immigrants (which won't happen regardless)?

Surely you'd have to agree then that a second referendum would be a decent means of indicating what the public now thinks, having a) actually sat back and thought about what Brexit really means to them and the UK, and b) realised that the foundations of the Leave campaign were based purely on lies and law-breaking?

 

'More info becoming available' could be used as an excuse to delay/rerun *any* vote, but then nothing would ever change, why is why gov't does not operate that way. The answer is to hold another vote, but not *before* any consequences have actually happened, rather than just being based on speculation. That's why the standard period between GE's is 5 years, so that any new gov't is judged on the whole period, not just on any deeply unpopular actions they are forced to initially take (austerity, for example).

 

IMO almost all of those inclined to vote Leave were going to do so no matter what, so b) would make no real difference.

Edited February 2, 20196 yr by vidcapper

That just emphasises my point that there was a lot that people didn't know. I note that you don't seem to think the press or broadcasters should have done more to educate voters.

 

If the public thought it was not legally binding, than in all likelihood that would have affected the result - probably in the direction of a bigger Leave margin as they felt they could express their opinion without risk. Believing a vote to be binding however, focuses the mind on the possible consequences, yet Leave *still* won...

 

Turnout would surely have been much lower too.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-66...n-breaches.html

 

Arron Banks's Leave.EU Brexit campaign group and an insurance firm he owns are fined £120,000 for 'serious' data protection breaches

 

The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) noted 'serious breaches'

Mr Banks also owns Eldon Insurance, trading as Go Skippy, an insurance firm

Its customers were targeted with 300,000 Leave.EU marketing messages

And Leave.EU subscribers got a million marketing emails including for Go Skippy

 

******************************

 

So they've been punished in an appropriate way - end of story.

An appropriate way? It's a minor expense, a small hit to quarterly profits. The cost of doing business, the cost of cheating in an election is a monetary fine. For that, £1 for 3 impressions, approx. Seems like a bargain. You talk about threats to democracy... there's your threats, the current corporatocracy who can spend their way to whatever result they like.

 

 

'More info becoming available' could be used as an excuse to delay/rerun *any* vote, but then nothing would ever change, why is why gov't does not operate that way. The answer is to hold another vote, but not *before* any consequences have actually happened, rather than just being based on speculation. That's why the standard period between GE's is 5 years, so that any new gov't is judged on the whole period, not just on any deeply unpopular actions they are forced to initially take (austerity, for example).

 

IMO almost all of those inclined to vote Leave were going to do so no matter what, so b) would make no real difference.

 

So you would support a vote to rejoin the EU in 2021, when negative consequences have happened, when we have severed all of our ties and will never get the excellent opt-outs that we enjoyed back? The reactions from the markets and businesses leaving should be enough to see that wanting to stop the process isn't us getting cold feet.

 

If the public thought it was not legally binding, than in all likelihood that would have affected the result - probably in the direction of a bigger Leave margin as they felt they could express their opinion without risk. Believing a vote to be binding however, focuses the mind on the possible consequences, yet Leave *still* won...

 

Turnout would surely have been much lower too.

 

Nah, what actually happened is that the public did not give a shit about whether the result was legally binding or not. It rarely crossed their minds. Yes, then the default is that they assumed the vote would be carried out, but if the government then comes out and points to evidence that it was always advisory and promises because of the slim margin of victory to start looking into ways that they can leave the EU without enacting Article 50, keeping it on the agenda, I expect many people (because half of the voting population is never all 'Brexit at any cost') to have been satisfied.

An appropriate way? It's a minor expense, a small hit to quarterly profits. The cost of doing business, the cost of cheating in an election is a monetary fine. For that, £1 for 3 impressions, approx. Seems like a bargain. You talk about threats to democracy... there's your threats, the current corporatocracy who can spend their way to whatever result they like.

 

So you would support a vote to rejoin the EU in 2021, when negative consequences have happened, when we have severed all of our ties and will never get the excellent opt-outs that we enjoyed back? The reactions from the markets and businesses leaving should be enough to see that wanting to stop the process isn't us getting cold feet.

 

Nah, what actually happened is that the public did not give a shit about whether the result was legally binding or not. It rarely crossed their minds. Yes, then the default is that they assumed the vote would be carried out, but if the government then comes out and points to evidence that it was always advisory and promises because of the slim margin of victory to start looking into ways that they can leave the EU without enacting Article 50, keeping it on the agenda, I expect many people (because half of the voting population is never all 'Brexit at any cost') to have been satisfied.

 

1. I suppose you think annulling the referendum result *wouldn't* be a gross overreaction to the transgression?

 

2. No I would not - I'd still believe that leaving the EU was the right course of action, and could live with any negative consequences

 

3. You don't think knowing the result was 'only advisory' would have affected the outcome, seriously? :huh:

1. No, not really. That sort of illegal tampering has no place in a society that relies on fair votes and it would make an example fairly neatly. However what would probably be more acceptable to all would be to use it to force another referendum. I'm shocked you or anyone thinks that what they've done isn't a gross underreaction. This way, it doesn't discourage any similar organisation from doing the same thing.

 

2. But you would think it would be fair, because we've gone 5 years, right? Though I'm not seriously trying to get you to say you'd support another vote, I know you personally would never want that, but the thing is, at this point, everything can technically still be salvaged with shockingly few future repercussions should the country change its mind. Wait past the deadline, in either a deal or no deal, and its a lot less easy to reverse. Many Leave voters won't have your resolve, and they will need to realise that these negative consequences are because of Brexit, not whatever scapegoat is put on them. So holding a vote after it's all gone horribly wrong, and when people vocally want to go back in the EU to make things better, it works, but the cost is much higher and our eventual situation worse than it would have been if we hadn't gone into a dalliance in the wilderness. So if we can see the disaster coming, better to hold the vote before it happens.

 

3. No... my point is exactly that. It wouldn't affect the result itself. But... if in their immediate post-Brexit addresses, the government had pointed to that fact and the tight margin as an excuse to take a middle investigative path, it would have been far more prudent and satisfied both sides far more. That's what the talk about 'advisory' is about, because while it as (and I remember this) pretty clearly advertised during the campaign and immediately after as such (although because the public is not used to the idea of advisory votes this was not effective), it was quickly forgotten and it should not have been.

1. No, not really. That sort of illegal tampering has no place in a society that relies on fair votes and it would make an example fairly neatly. However what would probably be more acceptable to all would be to use it to force another referendum. I'm shocked you or anyone thinks that what they've done isn't a gross underreaction. This way, it doesn't discourage any similar organisation from doing the same thing.

 

2. But you would think it would be fair, because we've gone 5 years, right? Though I'm not seriously trying to get you to say you'd support another vote, I know you personally would never want that, but the thing is, at this point, everything can technically still be salvaged with shockingly few future repercussions should the country change its mind. Wait past the deadline, in either a deal or no deal, and its a lot less easy to reverse. Many Leave voters won't have your resolve, and they will need to realise that these negative consequences are because of Brexit, not whatever scapegoat is put on them. So holding a vote after it's all gone horribly wrong, and when people vocally want to go back in the EU to make things better, it works, but the cost is much higher and our eventual situation worse than it would have been if we hadn't gone into a dalliance in the wilderness. So if we can see the disaster coming, better to hold the vote before it happens.

 

3. No... my point is exactly that. It wouldn't affect the result itself. But... if in their immediate post-Brexit addresses, the government had pointed to that fact and the tight margin as an excuse to take a middle investigative path, it would have been far more prudent and satisfied both sides far more. That's what the talk about 'advisory' is about, because while it as (and I remember this) pretty clearly advertised during the campaign and immediately after as such (although because the public is not used to the idea of advisory votes this was not effective), it was quickly forgotten and it should not have been.

 

1. There's a vast difference between ordering the re-run of, say, a parliamentary by-election involving a few tens of thousands of voters, and a national election involving over 45 million - apart from anything else, the cost would run into tens of millions.

 

2. As I told Popchartfreak, I am not against another referendum, but it would have to be wanted by the people, *not* ordered by a court.

 

As it is, the demand for such a rerun is overwhelmingly from Remainers, so could be dismissed as merely another desperate attempt at getting their own way.

 

3. We're just going to have to agree to disagree on this.

 

Why do we need another referendum when we've had one which gave a clear margin for LEAVE, OUT? I'll make a guess here and say the result would shock you all remainers and be a wide margin this time for leave, something like 60-40.

 

Yes I know that and democracy is respecting the other view and implementing the result of the referendum.

 

Because what was promised isnt whats been delivered, and the spending on the referendum was corrupt.

 

If 60% voted to leave then that would be the end of the matter for a generation. Farage, however, said if 52% voted Remain that wouldn't be the end of the matter because it was too close to call. I agree with Nigel Farage, 52% is too close to call in a corrupt referendum.

'More info becoming available' could be used as an excuse to delay/rerun *any* vote, but then nothing would ever change, why is why gov't does not operate that way. The answer is to hold another vote, but not *before* any consequences have actually happened, rather than just being based on speculation. That's why the standard period between GE's is 5 years, so that any new gov't is judged on the whole period, not just on any deeply unpopular actions they are forced to initially take (austerity, for example).

 

IMO almost all of those inclined to vote Leave were going to do so no matter what, so b) would make no real difference.

 

Let's say you agree to buy a house. You love the house and its setting and think it's absolutely ideal. You set the usual legal process going and plan to visit that nice pub at the end of the road to see what it's like.

 

The survey comes back saying that there are some structural problems with the house. The local authority search shows that those lvely fields at the back have been designated in the local plan as a site for 200 new homes. As for that lovely pub, it was so noisy when you visited that you couldn't hear yourself think.

 

Now that you have new information, do you go ahead and buy the house at the price you offered? Or do you change your mind?

 

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-66...n-breaches.html

 

Arron Banks's Leave.EU Brexit campaign group and an insurance firm he owns are fined £120,000 for 'serious' data protection breaches

 

The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) noted 'serious breaches'

Mr Banks also owns Eldon Insurance, trading as Go Skippy, an insurance firm

Its customers were targeted with 300,000 Leave.EU marketing messages

And Leave.EU subscribers got a million marketing emails including for Go Skippy

 

******************************

 

So they've been punished in an appropriate way - end of story.

 

No it hasn't been handled appropriately. If this is allowed to stand, what is the point of having spending limits? Parties and campaigns will just spend what they like and add a bit more to the budget to allow for the fine.

Because what was promised isnt whats been delivered, and the spending on the referendum was corrupt.

 

If 60% voted to leave then that would be the end of the matter for a generation. Farage, however, said if 52% voted Remain that wouldn't be the end of the matter because it was too close to call. I agree with Nigel Farage, 52% is too close to call in a corrupt referendum.

 

But he said that *before* the result was known, not after.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-66...n-breaches.html

 

Arron Banks's Leave.EU Brexit campaign group and an insurance firm he owns are fined £120,000 for 'serious' data protection breaches

 

The Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) noted 'serious breaches'

Mr Banks also owns Eldon Insurance, trading as Go Skippy, an insurance firm

Its customers were targeted with 300,000 Leave.EU marketing messages

And Leave.EU subscribers got a million marketing emails including for Go Skippy

 

******************************

 

So they've been punished in an appropriate way - end of story.

 

This is not the end of the story. This is the start of the story. Watch the FBI. There is no British investigation into what went on, this is just a smack on the wrist by an ineffectual oversight committee for illegal activity that is in the public domain. Plus, even if this was the total amount of corruption (it isn't, there's the issue of financial backing from abroad, Wikileaks involvement, passing of hacked US data from cambridge Analytica and so on) then that's 300,000 dodgy votes already, bringing the result even closer from 17.4 to 17.1m vs 16.4 from 16.1m. Or split down the middle, give or take.

 

What you are doing is trying to pretend is that corruption is sorted when it isn't. Chuck in Cambridge Analytica/Facebook data corruption (which parts of the campaign insisted CA was absolutely decisive in the result) and it's a very dodgy result indeed.

But he said that *before* the result was known, not after.

 

Irrelevant. You can't change your mind when someone else uses the exact same argument. That's called "hypocrisy"

But he said that *before* the result was known, not after.

How does that make a difference? He said 52% was not decisive. If it’s not decisive for the status quo, it definitely isn’t decisive for such a massive change.

But he said that *before* the result was known, not after.

 

 

And? How does that make any difference? He made his intentions clear, had the vote been a narrow victory for remain he woukd have pressed on full steam ahead calling for another referendum.

Remember that Nissan announcement shortly after the referendum that they were expanding production in Sunderland? An announcement that led Quitters to chant "Project Fear" at the top of their voices?

 

Things have changed now. Anyone care to ask those Quitters for a comment?

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-47102708

Remember that Nissan announcement shortly after the referendum that they were expanding production in Sunderland? An announcement that led Quitters to chant "Project Fear" at the top of their voices?

 

Things have changed now. Anyone care to ask those Quitters for a comment?

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-47102708

 

at rumoured great tax-payer bribe expense, all kept quiet under the usual government/local government "Get Out Of Jail Free" card "Financial Confidentiality". Just for the sake of completeness, I can vouch for 100% fact, having been privy to embarrassing local gov financial "investments" (ie political decisions not based on reality) that what they actually mean is "we can't tell you because when you see how crap the people you voted in are at not wasting huge sums of money and sacking experts who told them it would happen, you would be shocked at how dumb we are, and how gullible you the voters are".

 

Just saying. Cos it's true.

Remember that Nissan announcement shortly after the referendum that they were expanding production in Sunderland? An announcement that led Quitters to chant "Project Fear" at the top of their voices?

 

Things have changed now. Anyone care to ask those Quitters for a comment?

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-47102708

As I said then, Nissan is 43% owned by Renault SA aka the former state enterprise and still 15% owned directly by the government of the republic of France.

 

There was never gonna be a debate here, in a battle between the boardrooms of Yokohama and Boulange-Billancourt, the Paris suburb wins every day and twice in Sunday’s. Even if Yokohama attempts a coup to prevent a merger, Renault still has a lot of factories in the single market. Nissan has factories in countries with lower wage costs. Renault-Nissan have factories in China. Sunderland may be the beacon of Alliance efficiency but that depends on the single market. No SM, no efficiency, no cars built in Sunderland