brexit?!!?

[thalbergmad]

In order for you to say " nobody voted to be worse off" , you must have written to everyone in the Countty and received a reply, so please publish the first thousand.
I voted in the knowledge that i might not see the benefits myself but the future grneration would. I was prepared to be worse off and many of my Leave friends were also.
None of us seem to have received your letter.

[ahinton]

In order for you to say " nobody voted to be worse off" , you must have written to everyone in the Countty and received a reply, so please publish the first thousand.
I voted in the knowledge that i might not see the benefits myself but the future grneration would. I was prepared to be worse off and many of my Leave friends were also.
None of us seem to have received your letter.

What you write clarifies beyond doubt that you'd have had no need to do so, since you admit that your and "many of (your) Leave friends" were prepared to be worse off as a consequence of Brexit should it occur; that would appear to be evidence enough, even though in the form of "hoist by your own petard". That said, none of you actually voted to be worse off, which was the point that I made.

You "might not see the benefits"? Good grief! As you should by rights have at least another half century to live, I presume this to imply that you anticipate no benefits for anyone for at least that length of time; sounds like a dumb idea to me!

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Still no sign of all the letters you have had.
I doubt if I will live to 105 and I was actually referring to my working life which will be about another 5 years.
The full benefits may not be seen for some time and even if that is the case, it is still a price worth paying.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Alistair, with respect, even if Brexit made people slightly less well-off, there will be a lot of people who are quite prepared to make a trade-off between small financial loss and what they perceive as the social and political benefits of removing themselves from the EU. I understand this not least because during the Scottish independence referendum there was a study which said Scots would be c. £50 p.a. worse off following independence, and this was used as an argument against independence. Those of us who support independence found that argument fatuous to the point of actually being quite amusing.

[ahinton]

I doubt if I will live to 105

I hope that you do, as long as you remain in good health! But OK, let's say 90; that's still a whole 35 years hence.

and I was actually referring to my working life which will be about another 5 years.

But what difference will that make to the matter of how well off you and others might be during retirement?

The full benefits may not be seen for some time and even if that is the case, it is still a price worth paying.

You've often complained that UK and its citizens are worse off than they'd othewise have been as a direct consequence of contributions that UK has been and continues to be obliged to make to the EU budget; if UK ever gets to the stage when those become lower or even zero, will it really matter as they'll then be overtaken by the fact that, as you write, "the full benefits" (whatever they might be, if any - and to and for whom?) "may not be seen for some time"?

People will care less about what it is that makes them worse off as they will about the very fact of being worse off.

You're not alone in fearing that UK will likely be worse off for some time in the event of Brexit reaching completion (if ever it does); for example, the egregious Mr Rees-Mogg once referred to 50 years before any such anticipated turnaround. Now he's only a few years your junior but apparently prepared never to witness such benefits himself as he'll be in his second century by the time he expects them to begin to materialise; however, he's already very well off so won't be affected by that as much as will most of us, so he spouts forth from a position of self-satisfied smug complacency - something that I'd not expect from you.

The point here is that, as you and some other Leave supporters accept that UK and many of its citizens will likely be worse off for at least a generation or two as a direct consequence of Brexit, it is unclear what there could be to recommend it to anyone who is not already very wealthy and able to preserve his/her wealth come what may.

Moreover, if you take account of the toll to be taken on many world economies (including all of those within EU) by the virus, that period of comparative poverty is likely to be a good deal longer even than would otherwise be the case. Whether that will lead to the virus ultimately killing Brexit as well as hundreds of thousands of people I cannot say, but it seems unlikely to play no part therein.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

Alistair, with respect, even if Brexit made people slightly less well-off, there will be a lot of people who are quite prepared to make a trade-off between small financial loss and what they perceive as the social and political benefits of removing themselves from the EU. I understand this not least because during the Scottish independence referendum there was a study which said Scots would be c. £50 p.a. worse off following independence, and this was used as an argument against independence. Those of us who support independence found that argument fatuous to the point of actually being quite amusing.

Whilst you have a point in principle, I don't think that the risk of being worse off would be limited to anything like the equivalent of a pound per week for a year; indeed, many, including some who supported Leave, now realise that Brexit could and likely will hit them far harder than that and they've now changed their allegiances. More importantly, though, you write of "what they perceive as the social and political benefits of removing themselves from the EU" and, in that phrase, the vital word is "perceive" and the missing part is any clue as to what either of those benefits will be or how they would be achieved and maintained.

You mention the Scottish independence referendum of 6 years ago and, as you may realise, I am a Scot who does not favour Scotland's secession from UK. Be the arguments for and against such independence what they may, the mood there is quite different now than it was in 2014 when UK's continued EU membership was not under consideration; it is so now and Scotland voted firmly in its favour but the Westmonster government proposes to overrule it.

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Yes, I chose the word "perceive" carefully. All studies of benefit v loss are guesswork, albeit of differing levels of education and impartiality, until they come to pass.

I do find it ironic that we're talking about the economic consequences of Brexit when, no matter how dire they might be, they are a drop in the ocean to what the aftermath of the current problem will be and indeed the already manifesting unemployment levels.

[ahinton]

Yes, I chose the word "perceive" carefully. All studies of benefit v loss are guesswork, albeit of differing levels of education and impartiality, until they come to pass.

Not only guesswork but subject to an almost inifinte number of variables according to individual circumstance.

I do find it ironic that we're talking about the economic consequences of Brexit when, no matter how dire they might be, they are a drop in the ocean to what the aftermath of the current problem will be and indeed the already manifesting unemployment levels.

Indeed! This is a point that I sought to make when raising the spectre of the latter's possible impact upon the former to the extent of possibly putting it out to grass; few seem any longer to be discussing Brexit, let alone proceeding with the vast raft of negotiations towards it, because everyone everywhere has far more important things to think about and try to do.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

https://www.theneweuropean.co.uk/top-stories/brexiteers-in-coronavirus-britain-moaning-1-6620837?fbclid=IwAR0ZQtFBk1MEwvGaPQpYpZSG-OvxqtOtfVp7ouhjR0Y4aYYim_5jxYBrju4

[thalbergmad]

I am not clicking on any more of your lefty links.

[ahinton]

I am not clicking on any more of your lefty links.

That's hardly surprising, since I have none; that said, were I to link to an item from The Daily Telegraph that didn't entirely fit with your ideas, you'd not be happy about that either. All of this is far more important than matters supposedly "left" or "right"; it is hardly as though most or all Leave voters did so from a right-wing standpoint and all Remain ones from a left-wing one...

What you might choose to read or not to read at any given moment is your sole prerogative but information on it contributes little of value to discussion of the topic.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Yes, I chose the word "perceive" carefully. All studies of benefit v loss are guesswork, albeit of differing levels of education and impartiality, until they come to pass.

Wise words.
Incidentally, I cannot get my head around why you are for independence and against Brexit.
Will leaving the UK and staying with the EU still achieve independence?

[ahinton]

Wise words.
Incidentally, I cannot get my head around why you are for independence and against Brexit.
Will leaving the UK and staying with the EU still achieve independence?

Not for me to answer, of course and I do not presume to do so but the notion of being pro-independence and anti-Brexit is hardly an incompatible one, at least in terms of the fact that Scotland voted heavily for UK to remain an EU member state but Westmonster seeks to say "sorry, but no dice"; now as you know I do not in principle favour Scottish independence from UK, I point this out merely for the purpose of expressing understanding that enough Scots to make a difference might now feel rather differently to the way that they did (in terms of their voting) in 2014, the circumstances having changed fundamentally since then.

That said, your question remains an interesting one; in asking about Scotland "will leaving the UK and staying with the EU still achieve independence?" you appear to imply a question as to the meaning of "independence" by pointing up the issue of "independence from whom?". By that I mean that you appear to imply that the independence of Scotland from the rest of UK (should it ever happen) is still not true "independence" if it means that its secession from UK does not mean that Scotland will be "independent" of EU. Perhaps you could expand on your thoughts about that. In the meantime, I would say only that I was never persuaded that Scotland's desire for "independence" was from anything other than UK.

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Incidentally, I cannot get my head around why you are for independence and against Brexit.
Will leaving the UK and staying with the EU still achieve independence?

My position is more nuanced than I let on. I'm in favour of EU membership whilst the UK remains united, but should Scotland become independent, I think it is less important and I'd be fine with general trade agreements rather than full membership.

I will say, though, that the Scottish parliament is far more restricted, legally and fiscally, by UK membership than EU membership. As things stand, we have very rudimentary 'additional' powers with regard to taxation measures, and these are the fundamental levers of social policy. No matter what your political colour, it is very difficult to argue against the observation that over the last 20 years an increasing divide has emerged between Scotland and England over social, political and even military issues.

[ahinton]

My position is more nuanced than I let on. I'm in favour of EU membership whilst the UK remains united, but should Scotland become independent, I think it is less important and I'd be fine with general trade agreements rather than full membership.

I will say, though, that the Scottish parliament is far more restricted, legally and fiscally, by UK membership than EU membership. As things stand, we have very rudimentary 'additional' powers with regard to taxation measures, and these are the fundamental levers of social policy. No matter what your political colour, it is very difficult to argue against the observation that over the last 20 years an increasing divide has emerged between Scotland and England over social, political and even military issues.

Good points all.

Whether any parts of the current UK should remain in EU or leave it is of course, a quite different matter to that of whether UK as a whole should do so.

If UK does break up, Scotland will want to remain in EU, Northern Ireland will rejoin the republic and automatically retain EU membership and what Wales might do is open to question; Wales voted to leave by a very small margin that is now widely believed to have evaporated so the chance are that it will want to remain in EU as well.

For England alone to leave might then prove problematic, given that London - the capital and seat of government - voted decisiely to remain, as did some other major English cities.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

The important thing is that we leave, then democracy will have been satisfied as that is what the majority voted for. Not many want to prolong the agony and uncertainty.
If any Country wants to rejoin, I think they should be given all assistance to do so.

[ahinton]

The important thing is that we leave, then democracy will have been satisfied as that is what the majority voted for.

"Important" for you and certain others but by no means for all - and certainly not the majority in Lond and other major English cities, or Scotland, or Northern Ireland.

Not many want to prolong the agony and uncertainty.

I have no doubt that this is true; I for one would like to see such prolongation scrapped, albeit by scrapping Brexit alotogether.

If any Country wants to rejoin, I think they should be given all assistance to do so.

But by whom and at whose expense? Much as I appreciate your sentiment per se, it seems to me that, with £4.25bn+ already having been wasted on the Brexercise without reaching anywhere near a conclusion, adding to such massive expense would seem to be folly of the very worst order.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

"Important" for you and certain others but by no means for all

No, just most and that is all that is needed.

[ahinton]

No, just most and that is all that is needed.

"Most" of whom? - and "all that is needed" for what, precisely?

We can have no idea of the public mood on this subject four years down the line from the public opinion poll, especially given how much more work remains to be done and with the COVID issue beleaguering all of us.

If there's one good thing to come out of the fact that a conclusion of all these Brexit negotiations seems to be becoming more remote by the minute it is that those who voted in 2016 (and, or that matter, at least some of those who didn't) will have learned a great deal more about what's involved than they had at the time of that vote; whilst some might have moved from Remain to Leave and others might not have changed their minds, it does seem as though the largest group of "floaters" is that who either didn't vote or who voted Leave and who would now vote Remain were the poll to be held again which, frankly, if conculsions have not been arrived at, say, five years down the line, it almost certainly should.

One issue here is how long anyone might assume that a voting decision should be held to last and remain viable and a barometer of public opinion; just as no one voted to be worse off, few would, I imagine, have voted on the grounds that the result should last forever (and, after all, no other legislation is written in stone for ever).

Public opinion, like any other opinion, is by definition subject to change - and let's not forget that many hundreds of thousands of people would be eligible to vote in, say, 2021 than was the case in 2016 because they'll be old enough to do so and, likewise, many who voted in 2016 would be unable to do so in 2021 because they'e sadly no longer with us.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

The General Election was hugely influenced by Brexit and the Party wanting to ensure the referendum result was enacted got a huge majority.
Public opinion does shift, but clearly it has not.
Your witterings are those of a deluded loser.

[ahinton]

The General Election was hugely influenced by Brexit and the Party wanting to ensure the referendum result was enacted got a huge majority.
Public opinion does shift, but clearly it has not.
Your witterings are those of a deluded loser.

I am neither. I have "lost" nothing. I've already found ways to circumvent most problems that Brexit - should it occur - would visit upon me, although of course I appreciate the impacts on - and sympathise with - those who'd find such things harder to get around.

The GE result was certainly unanticipated but, to my mind, was less about the public mood on Brexit and more about the Labour Party and its future (or lack thereof); this remains the case today. Consider how many long-standing traditional Labour supporters switched allegiance to the party of government in perfectly understandable protest.

In so saying, it's worth bearing in mind that Tory allegiance is no more indicative of Brexit support than is Labour allegiance indicative of Remain support - so it's not that simple and cut-and-dried.

Whilst not assuming Labour's collapse, I don't dismiss such a possibility out of hand; with the LibDems, Greens and others in such disarray, UK might risk finding itself in a most dangerous and unprecedented situation should it end up without a viable opposition, not least because an effective opposition is an essential element of democracy in practice.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Without Brexit, many long held Labour seats might still be Labour.
Corbyn was of course a disaster on the doorstep.
UK will not be the only Country to leave this failed experiment.

[ahinton]

Without Brexit, many long held Labour seats might still be Labour.

On what specific evidence do you base this assumption?  Most traditional Labour supporters who voted Conservative in last December's GE did so due to profound discontent with and dismay at the conduct of that party; there are many Conservative Remain supporters as well as Labour Leave supporters, so the Brexit issue played no significant part in that change of electoral allegiance.

All else aside, why would Labour Leave supporters vote for the party (the Conservatives) that had so signally failed to progress Brexit to anywhere near a conclusion in 2½ years? The idea simply fails to stand up to logical scrutiny.

Corbyn was of course a disaster on the doorstep.

He was indeed a poor party leader, but Labour voters didn't desert the party just because of him; there was far more to it than that and, after all, Mr Corbyn and his predecessor (the far less talented of the two Milibands) were voted in as leaders by Labour party members.

UK will not be the only Country to leave this failed experiment.

Call it what you will for whatever reason or none, only one member state has so far given notice of its desire to end its contract in the many decades of EU's (and its precdecessors') existence.

That said, EU's stability EU would indeed be compromised should UK leave; if it does so in a messily inconclusive no-deal form for which the UK electorate did not and was not asked to vote, that reduced stability will be especially noticeable because it will certainly accompany increasing acrimony towards UK. Do you want that? I don't!

Given the current situation in which COVID-19 and its undoubtedly protracted legacy will continue to take precedence over Brexit and many other political actions throughout EU for quite some time, none of this is likely to matter as otherwise it might.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Sometimes you are dim. Labour leave voters voted Tory because they blamed Labour for holding Brexit up by continually voting against deals put before parliament.
In addition, Corbyn had taken a nonsensical neutral stance.
This is not rocket science.

[ahinton]

Sometimes you are dim

By what measure? And why only sometimes?

Labour leave voters voted Tory because they blamed Labour for holding Brexit up by continually voting against deals put before parliament.

But what about Labour's Remain voters? You conveniently ignore them! Labour voters of both persuasions who voted Tory in December 2019 did so out of grave general discontent with the party, its leadership and its conduct - and now the party itself might fold.

In addition, Corbyn had taken a nonsensical neutral stance.

The stance that he took, insofar as I understand it, may or may not have been "neutral" but it was at least impossible to determine and identify, so that probably influenced some Labour voters to vote other than for Labour, but the "neutrality" - or rather the vagueness and lack of clarity - of Mr Corbyn's stance on all manner of other matters besides Brexit was what I believe did for him and what has helped to give rise to the general disarray in which that party now finds itself.

This is not rocket science.

No, indeed; it is party political science of a most unwelcome but also undeniable kind.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Try listening to some of the reports from Labour MP''s on what came up on the doorstep.
This is real people and real views,  not some crap you have picked up from the Guardian.
Labour remain voters did not generate a larger than expected Tory majority. Labour leave voters did.
I have no intention of repeating myself. It is your problrm if you lack the cells to understand the basics.

[ahinton]

Try listening to some of the reports from Labour MP''s on what came up on the doorstep.
This is real people and real views,  not some crap you have picked up from the Guardian.

It would be difficult for me to pick up anything from a newspaper that I hardly ever read. In any case, why would you believe any such reports over newspaper reports unless it merely suited you to do so? Where is the hard evidence for either?

Labour remain voters did not generate a larger than expected Tory majority. Labour leave voters did.

You can prove that, can you?

I have no intention of repeating myself.

Really? You don't say?!...

It is your problrm if you lack the cells to understand the basics.

It is yours if you don't understand that the virus - as well as UK intransigence and incompetence - is standing in the way of continuing negotiations and looks set to do so for quite some time; if you think a no deal Brexit based on failure to complete them will be anything other than supremely problematic for EU and UK, you are sadly deluded and - at the risk of repeating myself - that is not what the UK electorate voted for, nor was it asked to do so.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

The UK electorate voted out. How it happens is not important.

[ahinton]

The UK electorate voted out. How it happens is not important.

By a small margin, the English electorate voted for UK to leave EU (though that of its capital and most larger cities did not).

By an even smaller one, the Welsh ditto did likewise.

The Northern Ireland electorate voted by a small margin to remain.

The Scottish ditto voted by the largest majority of the four to remain.

"How it happens is not important"? Nonsense! One might as well claim that how UK became a member of EEC (as then it was) was "not important"! "How it happens" - if indeed it does - is vitally important for almost everyone in UK and EU.

It's widely known that, when the undemocratic and wholly unnecessary public opinion poll was held, the UK electorate was woefully ill-informed about the ramifications of leaving or remaining and was asked just one absurdly simplistic question - in or out - as though anything that would affect the future of UK and EU for generations could be reduced to that! It cannot be; it never will be.

Were it indeed that simple, it would have required just a couple of signatures on a newly drafted agreement instead of almost four years of varied and immeasurably complex negotiations that are by no means complete and which have incurred immense costs for UK; see
https://www.businessinsider.com/brexit-will-cost-uk-more-than-total-payments-to-eu-2020-1?r=US&IR=T
https://brexit.hypotheses.org/files/2017/01/Budget-et-contrib.pdf
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/summary-costing-brexit (well out of date now but still a useful indicator)
https://www.theweek.co.uk/93785/how-much-money-has-brexit-cost-the-uk
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-46338585
https://www.statista.com/chart/20544/forecast-cost-of-brexit-compared-to-the-uks-eu-budget-contributions/

Note that none of the above has been sourced from your journalistic bête noire, The Guardian.

Note also that no reference to the leaving costs was included in the public opinion poll question or accompanying documentation when voting took place; UK's electorate therefore had no idea about that aspect of the issue. This, however, is perhaps not entirely unsurprising, since the government that launched that crazily undemocratic exercise was convinced that the vote would go the other way and it would not then matter!

The only scenario in which "how it happens" could even get close to unimportance would be one in which UK were to

a) sever all connections with EU - trading, political, cultural, security, educational, fiscal/economic/monetary and the rest

b) deport forthwith all EU citizens resident in UK and

c) bar all future travel from EU to UK and vice versa, especially immigration / emigration.

That, as doubtless even you will have noticed, is mercifully not going to happen in any form of Brexit should it ever come to pass.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

If a football team wins a match 3-2, nobody questions the result and asks for a replay.
That is effectively what happened with Brexit.
Doesn't matter how small the victory.

[ahinton]

If a football team wins a match 3-2, nobody questions the result and asks for a replay.

1. 3-2 is hardly the equivalent of the public opinion poll result!

2. The result of a soccer match cannot be changed after it has ended, becvause it is not a matter of opinion; in terms of the public opinion poll, on the other hand that opinion can change and almost certainly has done so.

3. A soccer match comprises just two teams; its result is either a draw or a win for either one. That cannot sensibly be compared to the result of a poll of UK's four countries in which there were wide divergences not only between but also within the one of them wherein is found its capital and seat of government.

4. A soccer match affects its participating teams and their fans for a limited time, whereas the outcomes of a change of UK's EU membership will impact upon more than half a billion people for generations.

5. A soccer match rarely lasts more than 90 minutes unless it goes into extra time, whereas this public opinion poll, from its announcement through its conduct and subsequent negotiations, has gone on since the Conservative party won the 2015 GE - i.e. almost 5 years - and it's still ongoing!

Your analogy therefore demonstrably fails to work.

That is effectively what happened with Brexit.

Nothing has happened with Brexit other than rampant divisiveness, confusion and uncertainty, the spread of misinformation and years of wrangling and debate at a cost running into billions of pounds with no end in sight.

Doesn't matter how small the victory.

No, indeed - as long as there is one! In the case of UK's EU membership, however, there has been none and, in any case, it is not the kind of thing in which there can even be a "victory" per se, since it is not a war - or even a soccer match!

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Sorry, I am not reading all of that.
People voted leave. End of story.

[ahinton]

Sorry, I am not reading all of that.
People voted leave. End of story.

Although what you choose to read or not to read is up to you and not my problem, the subject is far too important to be dismissed in a few ill-chosen words.

I addressed the shortcomings of your soccer match analogy; in its absence, I'd not have done so.

Had polling ended the story (some story! - and clearly it did no such thing), why has almost nothing changed in 4 years beyond what I outlined above?

The virus has impeded negotiations only recently, after the delays, confusion, disagreements and the rest between June 2016 and mid-March 2020.

Many people's voting preferences 4 years ago would almost certainly be different today.

The electorate can oust the government of the day in a GE should it so choose. This public opinion poll includes no equivalent provision. Should Brexit come to pass, it will impact upon more than half a billion Europeans, i.e. around 9 times the number of citizens affected by governmental change following an UK GE.

Moreover - and perhaps more importantly - Brexit is not (as I keep reminding you) anyone's political priority right now; that is demonstrable fact, not personal opinion.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

A great victory for Aaron Banks and UKIP. The Electoral Commission forced to back down.
Won't hear this in the left wing shitrags that accused him.

[ahinton]

A great victory for Aaron Banks and UKIP. The Electoral Commission forced to back down.
Won't hear this in the left wing shitrags that accused him.

Mr Banks was never in government or otherwise involved in the Brexit negotiations. UKIP has no representation in Parliament and was trounced at the last GE.

Your reference to each is therefore of no relevance to the topic, despite Mr Banks' and UKIP's views being well known.

Anyway, Brexit is on ice right now and, who knows, that ice might never be cracked.

Incidentally, it's possible that agreement to the entitlement to retain EU citizenship for UK citizens who desire it might after all be reached without the requirement of a court case; if EU decides to grant it without the need for litigation, that's good enough in itself.

In such circumstances, I will certainly apply to retain it myself but do not intend - at least in the foreseeable future - to renounce my UK citizenship.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

UKIP was trounced, but so was all the remain parties as people voted leave again.

[ahinton]

UKIP was trounced, but so was all the remain parties as people voted leave again.

But none of those are in government and therefore none is participating in the negotiations! Again this is not germane to the subject matter!

Also, no one voted "leave" again; there has been only one public opinion poll and that was almost four years ago. What people who voted in the last GE for was their political party of choice.

Best,

Alistair

[ronde_des_sylphes]

If a football team wins a match 3-2, nobody questions the result and asks for a replay.
That is effectively what happened with Brexit.
Doesn't matter how small the victory.

I think what happened is that the football match ended 13-12 after both sides threw the kitchen sink at it, only for some people to pop up and say "btw, it was only a friendly".

I bet almost nobody who went to vote viewed it in such terms, and if they had 'realised' it was just a glorified opinion poll, then they wouldn't have bothered.

[ahinton]

I think what happened is that the football match ended 13-12 after both sides threw the kitchen sink at it, only for some people to pop up and say "btw, it was only a friendly".

!!!

I bet almost nobody who went to vote viewed it in such terms, and if they had 'realised' it was just a glorified opinion poll, then they wouldn't have bothered.

Indeed. What kind of soccer match would engage and rely upon the egregious David Cameron as a VAR?!

Seriously, though, a large part of the problem was indeed that so few voters realised that "it was just a glorified opinion poll" (not that there was any glory in it!) despite the facts that its outcome would not be legally binding (which is rather bizarre for long-term legislation as significant and far-reaching as this) and its status "advisory only"; what price a taxpayer-funded democratically elected government deciding to dodge its professional responsibilities and instead seek the electorate's advice on an individual piece of proposed legislation when it only ever seeks such "advice" otherwise in the guise of General Elections? On what other legislative occasion did it ever do that?

It is indeed largely due to that ignorance and lack of concern that more than 70% of the electorate voted in it rather than refusing to participate on the grounds that MPs should instead do the jobs for which they're elected and paid and Lords should do the jobs for which they're paid.

Incidentally, when considering the immense amounts of money that have been spent on this hapless and unnecessary exercise since announcement of the poll, it would be sensible also to incorporate the vast sums that UK spent over years in its efforts to join EU's predecessor EEC way back in the late 1960s / early 1970s; taken together, the numbers would be fearsome indeed.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

You childishly continue to mock the most important vote perhaps in British history.
The Brexit Bill is now law and there seems to be little appetite to extend negotiations beyond this year.
Thankfully, the ruling party actually respect democracy and they have a huge majority, so you can do nothing apart from moan.
You continually boast that it isnt going to effect you, so I fail to see what your problem is.
All Remoaners especially that greasy piece of sh*t called Ian Blackford can do one.

[ahinton]

You childishly continue to mock the most important vote perhaps in British history.

I do not mock it; it's far too grave for that. Why, though, might you consider it a more important vote than the one that took UK into EEC in the first place?

The Brexit Bill is now law and there seems to be little appetite to extend negotiations beyond this year.

That alone is a further 8 months but, appetite or no appetite, COVID-19 has already ensured that they'll have to be delayed and that inevitability is neither side's fault.

Thankfully, the ruling party actually respect democracy and they have a huge majority

If it had respected democracy, it would have subjected the issue to debate and voting in both Houses of Parliament; that is Parliamentary democracy in practice. It didn't.

so you can do nothing apart from moan

But I'm not moaning! - and it's not all about me anyway! There are plenty of spanners that can be and are being put into the works by all manner of people as well as by circumstances; the economies of all EU nations including UK will continued to be affected adversely by COVID-19 and its legacy for years to come, so the European scenario as this decade unfolds will look unimaginably different to what it would have been at the time of the public opinion poll.

You continually boast that it isnt going to effect you, so I fail to see what your problem is.

I do not boast. I have merely found ways around most of the problems because I've needed to do so in case Brexit actually happens. As I stated, though, it's not all about me; millions of people will not be as easily able to get around these things as I am and that is a matter of grave concern.

Not everyone shares your evident willingness to be worse off and for most others to be worse off for generations just in order to ensure that some form of Brexit is established.

All Remoaners especially that greasy piece of sh*t called Ian Blackford can do one.

As I've noted, I know none, so cannot comment.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

You keep trumpeting on that it was down to Parliament. It wasn't. Far too much self interest and Cameron knew that. It wasnt down to Parliament to join.
Whether or not we will be worse off, and if so how long for, is yet to be seen and you have as much chance of being right as by my next door neighbours parrot.
If you don't like it, I believe Gatwick is still open.

[ahinton]

You keep trumpeting on that it was down to Parliament. It wasn't. Far too much self interest and Cameron knew that. It wasnt down to Parliament to join.

I am no trumpet player.

Both joining and leaving were subject to public opinion poll and, irrespective of the result of either, they were not examples of the carrying out of democratic Parliamentary procedure as should have been the case. We elect and fund MPs and fund Lords to create legislation for us in a democratic manner; what was and still is good enough for all other items of legislation was and should have been good enough for this.

What Cameron knew was not worth the paper on which it may or may not have been written; he, Osborne and their cronies promised and launched this referendum convinced that Remain would win. That didn't turn out well, did it?!...

Whether or not we will be worse off, and if so how long for, is yet to be seen and you have as much chance of being right as by my next door neighbours parrot.

Of course no one can predict how badly Brexit in any form will affect the UK economy or for how long - that much is obvious, especially now that COVID-19 is likely to impact adversely on all EU economies including UK's for quite some time; it is widely assumed, however, that a "no deal" Brexit will have a worse impact than one with an agreed deal.

That said, you have already stated your preparedness to be worse off (and, by implication, for others in UK to be the same) for quite some time in the hope that, ultimately, things will be better for future generations of people in UK, despite the fact that "you have as much chance of being right [that this will eventually come about] as [your] next door neighbours parrot".

In other words, you appear to consider Brexit in any form - even a "no deal" one - to be of such fundamental importance that you are willing to sacrifice at least a generation or two on the back of it; I have to say that I think this to be truly appalling and am far from alone in that. Why should people have to risk being worse off just because a handful of people like you think that the Brexit game's worth that candle at any price?

If you don't like it, I believe Gatwick is still open.

Not for long, it would seem! But why would I need it to remain open in order to remain an UK domiciled EU citizen? - unless UK's government chose to withdraw its citizenship from and deport anyone doing so, which is hardly likely!

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

Why should Brexit be delayed or cancelled because of a handful of people like you?
Apalling and undemocratic.
A no deal Brexit would mean no divorce payment so instantly we have 39 billion to support the economy.
Again, 'widely thought" is not thought by all experts or all people.

[ahinton]

Why should Brexit be delayed or cancelled because of a handful of people like you?
Apalling and undemocratic.

It is more likely to be delayed by the virus and its legacy than by people, whether or not "like me".

A no deal Brexit would mean no divorce payment so instantly we have 39 billion to support the economy.

You cannot be certain of that; this would be for EU to decide and a payment enforced if necessary. A no deal Brexit would be a recipe for ongoing acrimony, disagreement, confusion and the rest and would demonstrate among other things that UK is incapable of completing negotiations in respect of something which it alone set in motion.

Again, 'widely thought" is not thought by all experts or all people.

I did not suggest that it was/is.

As matters stand at present, Brexit might very well merely wear itself out; indeed, no one can any longer be certain of what kind of country UK might be when it either exits or doesn't exit EU - just as no one can tell what kind of EU UK will or won't be exiting from - except that it will all be very different to what anyone might have expected or predicted at the time of the public opinion poll.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

It might be up to the EU to decide on the divorce payment, but it would be up to the Government if they wanted to pay it.
The result of the referendum was confirmed in the General Election. I don't know how many defeats you want before you accept the result.

[ahinton]

It might be up to the EU to decide on the divorce payment, but it would be up to the Government if they wanted to pay it.

But who can say which would prevail? Not you, not me and not, I imagine, anyone else, especially at this early stage.

The result of the referendum was confirmed in the General Election.

How? The referendum, a device of a Conservative party convinced of a Remain outcome, was in no sense a General Election. General Elections are, as you know, democratic instruments whereby the electorate can decide what kind of government it thinks that it wants, be it the same or different to that which it already has; the issues at stake are many and varied, not just a single one like Brexit. There is therefore no correlation whatsoever between the referendum outcome and that of the last or indeed any other GE.

I don't know how many defeats you want before you accept the result.

Defeats of what and by whom, exactly?

I've already clarified that I will not be persuaded to accept the result of something that I didn't accept in the first place (i.e. the referendum); I've already explained my non-acceptance of the referendum and why it was undemocratic so, likewise, I don't know how many times you wish that to be reiterated before you accept it as such.

You, on the other hand, have never said why you thought that the advisory-only non-legally binding opinion poll was as democratic a route towards legislative change (or none) as debating and voting on it in both Houses of Parliament would have been and indeed is for all other legislative procedures; I put that down to inflexibility in prioritising your own opinions and desires above the exercise of democratic Parliamentary practice in this instance.

For the record, had the result favoured Remain (as the government whose idea it was had expected), I would still not have "accepted" it even though agreeing it in principle, because it would not have been arrived at in a democratic manner.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

There is therefore no correlation whatsoever between the referendum outcome and that of the last or indeed any other GE.

You have finally taken complete leave of your senses, that is if you ever had any in the first place with this subject matter.

[ahinton]

You have finally taken complete leave of your senses, that is if you ever had any in the first place with this subject matter.

If it suits you to believe so, that's your prerogative but, in the meantime, for the benefit of anyone else here who might be interested, you might care to explain how the outcome of a General Election, which is held at least every five years on all of the issues of the day and which lawfully determines which party wins seats in all of the constituencies, can correlate with that of the referendum, a single issue matter to be held just once and which the government of the day was not even legally obliged to honour; it is plainly obvious that the two phenomena are entirely different instruments for different purposes.

Best,

Alistair

[thalbergmad]

I am not going to waste keystrokes explaining what you already know.