Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Crazyterran wrote:
I love how the American is telling the Brits to do the referendum over again. Can you imagine how Americans would react if a bunch of foreigners with no real hat in the ring came and told them that they were wrong and should have a do over?

But the boogeyman, Russia, might potentiall gain from this! You can't do what you want Britain! (Because that's what he said in his last post, a superpower in the east watching and waiting...)

China has a big vested interest, as they were losing the competition to the EU in terms of wealth. It will be decided by economics not by military force.

Boogeyman. Ha. But it is an american Australian, who is well traveled and who knows alot about the world stage. The World Stage is far more important to me than the local one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
I love how the American is telling the Brits to do the referendum over again. Can you imagine how Americans would react if a bunch of foreigners with no real hat in the ring came and told them that they were wrong and should have a do over?

But the boogeyman, Russia, might potentiall gain from this! You can't do what you want Britain! (Because that's what he said in his last post, a superpower in the east watching and waiting...)

But America also has rules in place which require changes this big to be voted for by a larger majority of the population, else they fail.

So a referendum in which 52% voted for a repeal of the Second Amendment, for example, would fail as it didn't reach the required amount.

Essentially.

Its why I thought the Brits and the UK would have that in their clause would make sense given their history.

 welshhoppo wrote:
I heard a pretty cool statement yesterday.


If you voted leave, 17 million people would shake your hand and buy you a drink, 15 million people would punch you in the face and call you a knob.

Except for that one bloke who voted Leave because he thought it wouldn't count, then regretted it. He would have to punch himself in the face.

Many people who voted leave were just as angry as many of the Remain voters are now.

Telling them that they were "wrong" to vote they way they did and if fact they need to vote again is only going to play into the hand of those who argue the EU and its supporters are in fact undemocratic.

What happens if we get the same result - keep doing it until we get the "right" result?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 welshhoppo wrote:
I heard a pretty cool statement yesterday.


If you voted leave, 17 million people would shake your hand and buy you a drink, 15 million people would punch you in the face and call you a knob.

Except for that one bloke who voted Leave because he thought it wouldn't count, then regretted it. He would have to punch himself in the face.

I have quite a few friends that I Had to tell what would happen, I don't even live in the darn country and I knew what would happen if you left.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
Why would a petition - one likely signed by many people who already voted remain - over rule a referendum that had a majority of over a 1.2 million people?

Because 1.2 million people out of a total population of 65 million is not a lot of people to be basing the economic and political future of the UK on.

According to who? If your side had won, you would be telling us to shut up and accept the result.

This is how democracy works. Deal with it, or admit that you don't really care for democracy.

Britain isn't a democracy, it's a representative democracy.

And if Bremain had won by a narrow margin, the Brexiteers would be signing a petition. This is how things works in a free society. People are allowed to protest and try to get the thing reconsidered. Farage said as much himself, the day before the event, when he thought Remain would win by a narrow margin. He said he would only give up the fight if there was a substantial margin for Remain.

In truth, the thing is supposed to be reconsidered by Parliament. The referendum is not binding. The law and policy of the UK is made by representative not direct democracy.

 Manchu wrote:
No, Brexit doesn't mean that. There is no state called the EU to which anyone could swear allegiance. You seem to be fundamentally confused about the nature of the EU and the significance of EU citizenship.

I see your point but it really isn't valid anyway. Yes technically any British Europhile cannot flee the country to a nation called the EU, yet. Maybe in twenty years one might exist, who knows. What they can do is flee legally to one of twenty seven destinations, twenty eight if Scotland manages to juggle things to their liking. Become a citizen of that country and plug for the EU. The best shot at Federalism is to travel to Germany, which has already opened the welcome mat formally for Europhile Britons and is a great place to live.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Many people who voted leave were just as angry as many of the Remain voters are now.

Telling them that they were "wrong" to vote they way they did and if fact they need to vote again is only going to play into the hand of those who argue the EU and its supporters are in fact undemocratic.

What happens if we get the same result - keep doing it until we get the "right" result?

What happens if next time it is 60 to 40? This time in favor of remain?

Or next time it is 90 to 10 ? In favor of leave?

It is better to be farther than closer, majority in this case is only barely a single percentage. Which means it is barely even the majority.

It is not anger it is sadness and disappointment by alot of people because they know how much it will effect them. It may be democracy but in my country at least there would have to be a revote.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Fair enough but why did no-one get this sorted prior to a vote?

What would happen if you can't get that level of majority?

The normal procedure if you are voting on the idea of making a change, is that the status quo remains in effect unless the change vote is large enough.

The thing is in this case Cameron didn't think he would win the election at all, so he never thought he would have to do the referendum. When he did win, he never thought the referendum would go against him.

 Asherian Command wrote:

Boogeyman. Ha. But it is an american Australian, who is well traveled and who knows alot about the world stage. The World Stage is far more important to me than the local one.

You are not British. What you want and what is important to you is irrelevant to this discussion.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Many people who voted leave were just as angry as many of the Remain voters are now.

Telling them that they were "wrong" to vote they way they did and if fact they need to vote again is only going to play into the hand of those who argue the EU and its supporters are in fact undemocratic.

What happens if we get the same result - keep doing it until we get the "right" result?

Repeated referendums will cause permanent divisions.
We already had that problem, even if Remain won because the SNP were looking for excuses for a second referendum anyway. This just made it easier.
The vote must remain binding or we will be having events like this every other year for as long as issues exist.

 Crazyterran wrote:
I love how the American is telling the Brits to do the referendum over again. Can you imagine how Americans would react if a bunch of foreigners with no real hat in the ring came and told them that they were wrong and should have a do over?

Happens in every gun/shooting/2A thread.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
But the thing is, it's not the poor standing up.

It's a Tory rebellion. That's been facilitated into being about the "common British man".

A lot of the Brexiteers are the poor, though, and everyone under 66% of the income scale probably. A lot of the spirit behind the Leave vote is a protest against the situation of decades of globalisation and so on that has delivered much riches to the wealthy, and job insecurity, stagnant wages and welfare austerity to the majority.

I have a lot of sympathy with that position. I just think that these problems are not the result of the EU in itself and won't be cured by resigning from the EU.

Hopefully it might act as a sharp kick in the arse for the power elite, and get them to change things. But looked at another way, it's a kind of bread and circuses and simply gives the power elite another five years to fiddle-faddle around making a different set of trade agreements, while shuffling their chairs at the top table.

Cameron goes away with a knighthood and a government pension of over £30,000 a year, so we don't need to feel too sorry for him losing his seat.

Boris potentially wins and becomes PM. Can anyone realistically view old-Etonian, Oxford educated, Bullingdon Club Boris as a champion of the common man?

Are referendum results actually abiding for UK under their system?

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Many people who voted leave were just as angry as many of the Remain voters are now.

Telling them that they were "wrong" to vote they way they did and if fact they need to vote again is only going to play into the hand of those who argue the EU and its supporters are in fact undemocratic.

What happens if we get the same result - keep doing it until we get the "right" result?

What happens if next time it is 60 to 40? This time in favor of remain?

Or next time it is 90 to 10 ? In favor of leave?

It is better to be farther than closer, majority in this case is only barely a single percentage. Which means it is barely even the majority.

It is not anger it is sadness and disappointment by alot of people because they know how much it will effect them. It may be democracy but in my country at least there would have to be a revote.

On social media and forums there is alot of anger by some of those who favoured Remain

I agree that the above sounds much better - but that was not what the people were told would happen - it probably should have been set up that way - but apparently it wasn;t - I don't know why.

However I do know that the best way to stir even more anger and resentment against the EU and the percieved "establishment" would be to declare this result simply null and void after the fact - I really would worry about the consequnces.

You are not British. What you want and what is important to you is irrelevant to this discussion.

What we do effects the world, so they are entiled to express their views, we can then decide if we take notice of it as people did in the vote. Plus this is just a forum

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
I love how the American is telling the Brits to do the referendum over again. Can you imagine how Americans would react if a bunch of foreigners with no real hat in the ring came and told them that they were wrong and should have a do over?

Happens in every gun thread.

Except I think it is a brit or an Aussie in that case.

You are not British. What you want and what is important to you is irrelevant to this discussion.

I've said it before, I care, but I don't have a vested interest in either side. I just think it will do alot more bad on the world stage than good in either situation.

On social media and forums there is alot of anger by some of those who favoured Remain

I agree that the above sounds much better - but that was not what the people were told would happen - it probably should have been set up that way - but apparently it wasn;t - I don't know why.

However I do know that the best way to stir even more anger and resentment against the EU and the percieved "establishment" would be to declare this result simply null and void after the fact - I really would worry about the consequnces.

I agree but that is the price of unity. I rather see an unified Britain than an non-unified one.

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
I love how the American is telling the Brits to do the referendum over again. Can you imagine how Americans would react if a bunch of foreigners with no real hat in the ring came and told them that they were wrong and should have a do over?

Happens in every gun thread.

Except I think it is a brit or an Aussie in that case.

You are not British. What you want and what is important to you is irrelevant to this discussion.

I've said it before, I care, but I don't have a vested interest in either side. I just think it will do alot more bad on the world stage than good in either situation.

So does the election of bad American Presidents. Does that give the rest of the world the right to lecture and bully Americans on their choice of President and insist that they hold the election again, but vote the correct way this time?

Many express "views" on the Presedential candidates.

US citizens can listen and/or ignore what we say

 Knight wrote:
Are referendum results actually abiding for UK under their system?

No, it's more advisory. Failure to carry them out though is political suicide.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
Why would a petition - one likely signed by many people who already voted remain - over rule a referendum that had a majority of over a 1.2 million people?

Because 1.2 million people out of a total population of 65 million is not a lot of people to be basing the economic and political future of the UK on, especially when you account for the fact that those who will be least affected by the decision are the ones who have voted for it whilst those who will face the brunt of any detrimental affects will be those who didn't want it in the first place.

The problem with that is you are weighting votes by who the voter is. While it is true that the disenfranchised voted for Leave in vast numbers and they were least effected by the decision, this was itself not invalid. A plebiscite doesn't expect the voter to behave with anything other than self interest, and never has. That is the benefit of democracy, its inherently a crap government system but if everyone motivated to vote votes on self interest there is generally a bar below which governance cannot easily fall.
The English white working class have felt left behind in the UK by all the main parties, but they have the same right to vote as everyone else. They might have less of a vested material interest, but that is the point, what was in it for them. Also why is their vote worth less than those of businessmen who rely on cross channel trade in a plebiscite. When the good times rolled, were the benefits shared with them. No largely they were not.

I did not expect Leave to win, and they may have won for the wrong reasons. But the motive of the disenfranchised voter was easy to see and comprehend, and isn't beyond a small minority have much to do with far right sympathies.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Asherian Command wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Crazyterran wrote:
I love how the American is telling the Brits to do the referendum over again. Can you imagine how Americans would react if a bunch of foreigners with no real hat in the ring came and told them that they were wrong and should have a do over?

Happens in every gun thread.

Except I think it is a brit or an Aussie in that case.

You are not British. What you want and what is important to you is irrelevant to this discussion.

I've said it before, I care, but I don't have a vested interest in either side. I just think it will do alot more bad on the world stage than good in either situation.

So does the election of bad American Presidents. Does that give the rest of the world the right to lecture and bully Americans on their choice of President and insist that they hold the election again, but vote the correct way this time?

I don't think I have bullied anyone or even pressured anyone. Except we have laws to prevent that from happening and revotes have happened before. We kind of have had that happened before, but our system is designed to prevent that from happening now.

I mean a bad president?

Trump vs Hillary

or

Hoover vs Smith?

I don't particularly care, as long as it doesn't affect the games industry I am fine. Infact it would take a nuke to hurt the games industry.

In paricular I think a bad president has happened before, we have had a few who are weak presidents, but they only last for four years. Hell we might even see Trump if he gets elected get impeached by the senate and congress because of how many law suits he has under his belt.

Many express "views" on the Presedential candidates.

US citizens can listen and/or ignore what we say

Essentially. Media often does preclude and involve it so that we are given manipulations of imagination over the actual true facts.

 Orlanth wrote:


The problem with that is you are weighting votes by who the voter is. While it is true that the disenfranchised voted for Leave in vast numbers and they were least effected by the decision, this was itself not invalid. A plebiscite doesn't expect the voter to behave with anything other than self interest, and never has. That is the benefit of democracy, its inherently a crap government system but if everyone motivated to vote votes on self interest there is generally a bar below which governance cannot easily fall.
The English white working class have felt left behind in the UK by all the main parties, but they have the same right to vote as everyone else. They might have less of a vested material interest, but that is the point, what was in it for them. Also why is their vote worth less than those of businessmen who rely on cross channel trade in a plebiscite. When the good times rolled, were the benefits shared with them. No largely they were not.

I did not expect Leave to win, and they may have won for the wrong reasons. But the motive of the disenfranchised voter was easy to see and comprehend, and isn't beyond a small minority have much to do with far right sympathies.

It is true that Westminster has largely ignored the problems faced by the working class, especially when it came to applying austerity, which makes their decision to leave even more baffling. The EU was funding regeneration projects in quite a few areas of the UK, including in Wales who just voted to leave. It is quite schizophrenic for these people to give more power over that money to the very same people who have been ignoring them for decades whilst expecting things to change.

The motive of "punishing the elite" who ignored them could actually have given those elites a lot more power to continue doing just that.

 Frozocrone wrote:

 Knight wrote:
Are referendum results actually abiding for UK under their system?

No, it's more advisory. Failure to carry them out though is political suicide.

This is true. In 1973 the referendum was clearly explained to be advisory and had to go through parliament.


There will be turmoil if Westminster does not ratify the referendum, but the Tories and Labour can agree to do just that, and with both main parties doing so they will get away with it.
SNP MP's will vote against as a protest of Scotland's choice anyway, but they are in the envious position of being the only party able to do so openly as policy.

I can see quiet deals between the majority of Labour and Tory MP's to rebel against the formal vote. I cant see what would happen next.

 Orlanth wrote:

It is a term of racist stereotyping.

You never actually read that link did you.

Its not 'racist' but it is a term of contempt for those who haven't noticed that the British Empire no longer exists and that globalisation is something that is not going to go away.

Pistols at Dawn wrote:

 Knockagh wrote:
As a out voter who vacillated between in and out for weeks, the reaction from some within the remain camp has confirmed all my fears. A bunch of middle class elite snobs who can't stand the fact that poorer people have stood up to them and now they are embarking on a bullying campaign that shows clearly how undemocratic they are. Where is your national spirit?? Come on guys lets move forward, this country has come through much worse and survived. Not getting your own way isn't cause to behave like a child.

Basically my position too. The level of moon-howling drama has been quite unedifying. I can understand being annoyed that your side lost, but I have heard some spectacularly stupid things in the last 24 hours. Some guy saying "I'm glad I got to see Vienna and Paris when I had the chance". FFS, you'd have thought we suddently turned into North Korea overnight.

There is a misconception going around that by leaving the EU we will be:

-Blocked from leaving the UK
-Are guaranteed to lose Scotland, London and NI
-Will not be able to trade with anyone for the next decade

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:


The problem with that is you are weighting votes by who the voter is. While it is true that the disenfranchised voted for Leave in vast numbers and they were least effected by the decision, this was itself not invalid. A plebiscite doesn't expect the voter to behave with anything other than self interest, and never has. That is the benefit of democracy, its inherently a crap government system but if everyone motivated to vote votes on self interest there is generally a bar below which governance cannot easily fall.
The English white working class have felt left behind in the UK by all the main parties, but they have the same right to vote as everyone else. They might have less of a vested material interest, but that is the point, what was in it for them. Also why is their vote worth less than those of businessmen who rely on cross channel trade in a plebiscite. When the good times rolled, were the benefits shared with them. No largely they were not.

I did not expect Leave to win, and they may have won for the wrong reasons. But the motive of the disenfranchised voter was easy to see and comprehend, and isn't beyond a small minority have much to do with far right sympathies.

It is true that Westminster has largely ignored the problems faced by the English white working class, which makes their decision to leave even more baffling. The EU was funding regeneration projects in quite a few areas of the UK, including in Wales who just voted to leave. It is quite schizophrenic for these people to give more power over that money to the very same people who have been ignoring them for decades whilst expecting things to change.

Leave but their point across well, much better than the Remain did. Did you watch Brexit the Movie. I did. I retired to find Remain the Movie or anything similar and found zip beyond individual amateur opinions vids on YouTube.
The argument went that the UK commits more funds than it gets back, this is true and generally fair as the Uk has a stronger economy. The film also made great pains to highlight the bureaucracy and case of Brussels, which is also true, but overlooks that Westminster and other UK government bodies including Cardiff and Holyrood also squander proportionately similar monies.
Therefore while there are large scale projects with EU funding, it could be argued that it was funded with our monies anyway and we could have just done this by redistributing our contributions.

There is a current expectation that all the contribution savings are diverted to the NHS, if this is done, then there will no longer be the money to fund EU backed projects at all. Though said projects can get lottery funding.

 Selym wrote:

Pistols at Dawn wrote:

 Knockagh wrote:
As a out voter who vacillated between in and out for weeks, the reaction from some within the remain camp has confirmed all my fears. A bunch of middle class elite snobs who can't stand the fact that poorer people have stood up to them and now they are embarking on a bullying campaign that shows clearly how undemocratic they are. Where is your national spirit?? Come on guys lets move forward, this country has come through much worse and survived. Not getting your own way isn't cause to behave like a child.

Basically my position too. The level of moon-howling drama has been quite unedifying. I can understand being annoyed that your side lost, but I have heard some spectacularly stupid things in the last 24 hours. Some guy saying "I'm glad I got to see Vienna and Paris when I had the chance". FFS, you'd have thought we suddently turned into North Korea overnight.

There is a misconception going around that by leaving the EU we will be:

-Blocked from leaving the UK
-Are guaranteed to lose Scotland, London and NI
-Will not be able to trade with anyone for the next decade

Well sounds like alot of people are misinformed.

Though your economy will have to recover for next few years.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

It is a term of racist stereotyping.

You never actually read that link did you.

Its not 'racist' but it is a term of contempt for those who haven't noticed that the British Empire no longer exists and that globalisation is something that is not going to go away.

I read the link and stand by my comments.

You are assuming that those who vote for Leave are people for whom you have a bigoted comtempt, by your own admission, because of your bigoted assumption that they "haven't noticed that the British Empire no longer exists and that globalisation is something that is not going to go away".

However that is only part of the definition of the term. Not only did I read the link, the first time actually, I noticed it said other things as well. Including bigoted identification of so called 'little englanders' by such signs as flag waving, and taking pride in English identity.

 Selym wrote:

There is a misconception going around that by leaving the EU we will be:

I haven't seen anyone seriously suggest that London will gain independence....

There are also some fairly big misconception on the leave side as well.
Regaining sovereignty - EU regulations will still effect the UK almost as much as they do now if we want to trade with the EU.
Curbing Immigration - the free movement of people will almost certainly be a feature of whatever trade deal the EU makes with the UK.

The two (stated) issues that the leave campaign built their case around are likely to stay pretty much as they are now.

On the upside of Brexit, we will be free to negotiate trade deals of our own accord, rather than waiting for a bunch of people in the EU to spend years debating it, only to then come up with a deal that does not benefit us.

Theres no better way to get someone to vote opposite to what you want than insisting what horrible, bigoted people they are. The arrogant bullying attitude displayed by Silent Puffin helped fuel the Leave campaign.

People are sick of being abused and bullied and labelled bigots for daring to oppose the EU, and they are sick of being told what to think.