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.

@reds8n.

They never appealed to any denominator, never mind the lowest, because they ran a horsegak campaign.

Fair enough, I'll concede that I was always voting Brexit come what may.

But a hardcore supporter like me is in the minority and vastly outnumbered by millions of floating and undecided floaters. And that's true for every election.

Remain could have hoovered up those millions of voters but they failed...

Remain lost by 1 million votes. Remain had every advantage of media, money, EU success stories, experts etc etc

You name it, they had it, and your side still lost...

When faced with the choice of to campaign or meet a dodgy donor for cash for the Tory party, Cameron chose the donor.

That's not my fault. It's not your fault.

Instead of blaming the other side for Russians or Klingons meddling in the election, the Remain camp need to take a long hard look at themselves for the horsegak campaign they ran.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
They have never accepted the result or tried to do the best for the country.

Best would be cancel brexit so...

They could cancel it tomorrow but they won't, but I get the blame for their cowardice.

They had three chances to stop Brexit:

1. Win a referendum. They lost.

2. Campaign on a General Election platform to take us back into the EU. They did that and they lost.

3. Refuse to vote for Article 50. They voted for it but it's somebody else's fault that they voted for it...

The Remain campaign was gak. But so was the Leave campaign, just in a different way. They were deliberately unclear about what the consequences would be and made out that everything would be much easier than it would be in reality.
They lied (so did the Remain campaign, I'm just pointing out that Leave was gak too). They had no plan for what would come next, even though they had decades to come up with one. Prominent members showed that they did not understand the status quo let alone any future arrangement. And of course, it was equally led by a bunch of careerist gobshites from a very limited group of people that are drastically over represented in the upper echelons of British society.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@reds8n.

They never appealed to any denominator, never mind the lowest, because they ran a horsegak campaign.

Fair enough, I'll concede that I was always voting Brexit come what may.

But a hardcore supporter like me is in the minority and vastly outnumbered by millions of floating and undecided floaters. And that's true for every election.

Remain could have hoovered up those millions of voters but they failed...

Remain lost by 1 million votes. Remain had every advantage of media, money, EU success stories, experts etc etc

You name it, they had it, and your side still lost...

When faced with the choice of to campaign or meet a dodgy donor for cash for the Tory party, Cameron chose the donor.

That's not my fault. It's not your fault.

Instead of blaming the other side for Russians or Klingons meddling in the election, the Remain camp need to take a long hard look at themselves for the horsegak campaign they ran.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tneva82 wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
They have never accepted the result or tried to do the best for the country.

Best would be cancel brexit so...

They could cancel it tomorrow but they won't, but I get the blame for their cowardice.

They had three chances to stop Brexit:

1. Win a referendum. They lost.

2. Campaign on a General Election platform to take us back into the EU. They did that and they lost.

3. Refuse to vote for Article 50. They voted for it but it's somebody else's fault that they voted for it...

What if I disagreed with the rest of the platform the LibDems were running on?

But not voting for article 50 would have been an act of sabotage because 157% of MP's all want to become European commissioner and would have subverted the will of the people. (per the edit) It's almost like people voted for Brexit, so yes it is someone else's fault they voted for it remember?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Sure, 50% + 1 counts as a "win", but a result of 51.9/48.1% is as about as indecisive as you can get. What the gak is anyone meant to do with an almost 50/50 split, even if one side "won" if you squint hard enough. MP's need to consider all of their constituents, including those that didn't or couldn't vote.

You just made my point for me.

Only because you're missing it. The RAW was crap, and the result was meaningless. Had you won it 55/45 or greater (outside of statistical error) then you'd have a point. You're being disingenuous if you regard the referendum result as being anything beyond "dunno". But we've done that one to death.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

You voted for an undefined almost impossible action, with no plan, based on lies, to be executed by incompetents. How the gak are you expecting to turn that into a victory for anyone?

Crime happens every day in the UK and has been for centuries. Should we abolish the British police because they don't catch every criminal and solve every crime?

Again you're missing the point. Police (and the rest of your examples) have plans which they work to, rules and checks and all that. They aren't perfect but you know roughly what they are going to do.

But Brexit - we had no idea what it actually meant in the referendum, and we still don't know what it actually means. The campaign was full of populism, rhetoric and xenophobia, but no actual details on what it would be. What'd happen. What we actually want.

You're getting the blame here (some of which is deserved, some not) because you've admitted that regardless of how bad the campaign was, how badly we handle it or how badly we suffer, you'd vote for it anyway. You're then trying to deflect the blame for Brexit on everyone else, even though you voted for it. We can't let the people who voted for Brexit off the hook for the damage they've done, just because they whine about it later. Brexit is your fault (at least 1/17,000,000th) because you voted for it despite knowing it'd be a disaster.
I'm not carrying the blame for you, nor will I fix your mess. Because me fixing your mess would be sabotage, apparently.

I'm sure everybody is probably bored of my ranting by now

So I'll leave this final post before I head off:

If Remain MPs had stood up and said, damn the will of the people. Brexit is bad for Britain. I'm sticking two fingers up to activating Article 50, and if you're not happy then feth off and vote me out at the next General Election.


I would have been angry as hell, but I would have respected their principals.


But with the notable exception of Ken Clarke, none of them did that.

And for that they are unprincipled weasels and to Remain dakka supporters I would say you don't want people like that on your side.

Thank you and good night.

But my side doesn't include Gove, Farage and Bojo, So I think we're okay.

I don't understand you, DINLT.

You claim to have such respect for people like the founders of the US, or Bismark. Great statesmen. But your actual approach to politics is more akin to Trump than any of those great statesmen.

If the MP's had said that Brexit was a bad idea and voted against it you'd be in outrage and calling them traitors.

But lets be fair here; without knowing what a Brexit is, it's unfair to decry MP's to vote to allow it to start. For all they knew May, Davis and co had a workable plan. I doubt many of them would have voted to trigger A50 if they knew what a mess it was going to be.

May: "Brexit, I choose you!"

<MAY TRIGGERS ARTICLE 50. ITS NOT VERY EFFECTIVE...>

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@reds8n.
They never appealed to any denominator, never mind the lowest, because they ran a horsegak campaign.

And the leave campaign was built on lies, utopian pipe dreams and xenophobia. (And in fairness to shadow and cultist, there was some honest folks amongst the deluded daemagogues who wanted to leave on principle, whether being against a United States of Europe etc - I disagree with it, but I will acknowledge it)

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@reds8n.
Fair enough, I'll concede that I was always voting Brexit come what may.
But a hardcore supporter like me is in the minority and vastly outnumbered by millions of floating and undecided floaters. And that's true for every election.
Remain could have hoovered up those millions of voters but they failed...
Remain lost by 1 million votes. Remain had every advantage of media, money, EU success stories, experts etc etc
You name it, they had it, and your side still lost...

It's hard to win an argument when the other side isn't interested in facts, playing fairly and is essentially arguing in bad faith from the word go. Remain had all that, and leave had lies, damned lies and a bus. They also had forty years of populist fear mongering from arch brexiteer gutter media, general gak stirring and good old fashioned xenophobia.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@reds8n.
Instead of blaming the other side for Russians or Klingons meddling in the election, the Remain camp need to take a long hard look at themselves for the horsegak campaign they ran.

You truly are the king of deflection. Never mind leaves lies, and unrealistic expectations. Never mind lack of a plan. Never mind the weaponised fear and xenophobia of folks goaded along by special interest daemagogues and populists. It's not leaves fault at all apparently! I am gobsmacked at the calculated indifference, bloody minded cheek and sheer brazen neck for you to come along , try and wash your hands of this and say 'really it's the remainers fault that leave won and that's we are in this disaster'. You voted to leave. You won. Own it, own your lies and deceit and damned well get over it. This is your bed. Lie in it.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
@reds8n.
They could cancel it tomorrow but they won't, but I get the blame for their cowardice.

Their cowardice? You hypocrite. We are leaving the eu. And they're trying to do it whilst causing the least amount of national pain possible (and lets face it, if they make a poor play, the uk is in for one hell of. Terrible time).

They are not cowards.

You are.

You are the coward here by trying to deflect and lay the blame for the consequences on everyone else but yourself.

That wasn’t the first time I suggested a three option referendum, but last time I didn’t realise that EFTA was a viable option. I knew of it but I thought it wasn’t enough, but for me at least it is. There was a time, when things were getting particularly bitter, that I then reneged on the idea. We won, I thought. We were promised that the result would be honoured. Nobody said anything about a rerun, so feth that. But, you have to be realistic. It’s about getting on.

I have learnt a lot during the last two years. I never knew that previous treaties were ratified in parliament, which is particularly embarrassing for me as I’m a history major. My excuse for that is, I’ve been neglecting my reading. And I forgot to fact check once and became convinced that Denmark was in the euro. Doh.

With the current set up, I still think that power is too removed from the voter. It’s not unique to the EU, but it’s like this; the Eurocrats only have to convince the PM and their party to their plans and they happen, regardless of what we lower types think. It’s only due to Gordon Brown that we aren’t using the Euro for example. And had we joined, there’d be no going back. And that’s a key issue with the EU to me; it only goes in one direction. At least at the national level we can nationalise and privatise and then renationalise again as we see fit. This is more a problem with our system to be honest but feth don’t the Eurocrats exploit it.

By leaving the EU to join EFTA I’d be saying no more. No more intergration, no more going over our heads to inact your little plans. No more Lisbon treaties and letting new countries join with no breaks on immigration in place and no more euro threat hanging over our heads and planing to turn our country into a mere province within your super state. This point right here is far enough...if this makes sense.

This thread has become nauseating at this point.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Nobody said anything about turnout or eligibility or 66% clauses or you had to wear a purple coat when you were voting or your vote doesn't count.

The people who wrote the rules didn't say anything about this pre-referendum.

But now they're complaining about rules they wrote.

That's not quite correct though. The rules agreed by parliament was that it was a non-binding vote, effectively taking the pulse of the country's view on the EU. It, however, is being treated as a binding vote and that the vote meant it had to be taken in a specific way to close all the doors, lift the drawbridge and so forth. If it had been put forward as a binding vote then parliament may have required more stringent controls on what a vote would mean and that a statistical certain result was required. Your complaining that we aren't following the ground work rules but at the same time not requiring the opposite side to hold to those same principles. That't not particularly reasonable.

What really annoys me though is how it is 'Remoaner's' fault that it is a right mess. It's the same principle that leave took after winning the referendum when they were asked "now what" and the response that was given back was "that's for the other side to tell you". That by highlighting the issues all the way through they are now being used to claim that the reason it is failing is because of this side. The reality being that the issues highlighted were always the same, that there is not a unpainful solution to achieving it and in some ways is completely impossible. Yes the reality of that does not sink in for some and it is easier to bale the other side for not pulling their ass out of the fire.

AdmiralHalsey wrote:
This thread has become nauseating at this point.

Try ignoring it, and Politics in general for a week. It'll do your mental health a lot of good.

 Future War Cultist wrote:

I’ve got an opportunity to go to Australia, but I’m going to wait to see how this all pans out. If we leave (going to EFTA or something similar) I’ll stay here and make it work. If we remain, I think I’ll go. Some might say it’s hypocritical to complain about immigration only to immigrate yourself. Maybe it is, but at least I’ll have had to earn that visa.

My advice would be don't wait. If you have the opportunity try it. You can always come back. Too many people look back and regret not giving themselves the opportunity. If it doesn't work out, that's fine. If you are making a decision on politics then I'd say you were crazy (in a friendly way). You don't want to get to 60, look back and think I wonder where I might have been if I took that opportunity? Just remember to give your self two years to settle because you will be homesick for a while...that is normal for pretty much everyone. That's also why I'm a firm believe in freedom of movement as it gives people the best opportunity and not being simply constrained by a line on a map.

 Whirlwind wrote:

 Future War Cultist wrote:

I’ve got an opportunity to go to Australia, but I’m going to wait to see how this all pans out. If we leave (going to EFTA or something similar) I’ll stay here and make it work. If we remain, I think I’ll go. Some might say it’s hypocritical to complain about immigration only to immigrate yourself. Maybe it is, but at least I’ll have had to earn that visa.

My advice would be don't wait. If you have the opportunity try it. You can always come back. Too many people look back and regret not giving themselves the opportunity. If it doesn't work out, that's fine. If you are making a decision on politics then I'd say you were crazy (in a friendly way). You don't want to get to 60, look back and think I wonder where I might have been if I took that opportunity? Just remember to give your self two years to settle because you will be homesick for a while...that is normal for pretty much everyone. That's also why I'm a firm believe in freedom of movement as it gives people the best opportunity and not being simply constrained by a line on a map.

Just remember to keep as much paperwork as you can, so that the Home Office decide they can't prove you're a UK citizen and kick you out years after you return.

I wish I was joking

I'm a Remainer. Actually, that doesn't quite cover it. I don't merely think that we're somewhat better off in than out. I'm strongly pro-EU. Pro-ever-further-integration. Pro-United States of Europe as an eventual goal (as was a certain Winston Churchill of all people). I and my family live between the UK and France, and any sort of 'hard' Brexit has the potential to seriously screw us over.

And yet, I find myself agreeing with a lot of what DINLT is saying in this thread. It's stupid and unfair to put all the blame on the ordinary Brexit voters. They were lied to. Conned.

When some poor sap gets conned out of all his savings by a charming sociopath, we might sigh and roll our eyes and reassure ourselves rather sanctimoniously that we'd never be so stupid. But we don't say that the victim deserves more blame than the conman. No, the conman is the criminal. He is not morally equal to his victim.

And in the case of the whole Brexit Referendum fiasco, the conmen are the MPs of both Leave and Remain flavours who voted to hold the referendum without ensuring it had any mechanism to ensure a qualified majority for such a major constitutional change; without ensuring it gave sufficient weight to the specific concerns of different parts of the UK (nobody even thought about poor bloody Gibraltar, did they?); without ensuring the government had a plan for what to do in the event of a Leave vote; and then told the people that this advisory referendum was going to be treated as 100% binding even though that's not how it works in our democratic system.

DINLT is absolutely right to point out that Remainer MPs could have stopped this whole mess in its tracks by voting against holding the Referendum in the first place. Or against invoking Article 50. I mean, if you really think Brexit is absolutely guaranteed to be an utter disaster, you have a duty as an MP to stop it by whatever legal/political means you can, and take the potential of being voted out by an angry electorate as something that comes with the job. If you can't put the survival of the country above holding on to your seat in Parliament, then you've no business being an MP.

Remainers who joined May's Brexit-at-all-costs government are the worst of the lot.

I actually have a bit more respect for the Leave members of the cabinet. People like Davis and Fox are merely incompetent and wrong about everything. They're making a total mess of Brexit because they're not capable of anything better (and, yeah, making an actual success of Brexit is almost certainly impossible and always would have been). But I've no reason to think they're being disingenuous or not trying their best for the country.

But what the hell are people like Hammond and Bradley and May herself doing? They told the people before the Referendum that Brexit would be a disaster, and now they're... driving the country full steam ahead into said disaster because "Will of the People". They're desperately hoping to keep their jobs by appearing to side with the 51.9%, even while they genuinely believe that the policy they're pursuing is harming the country. It's despicable.

I don't have much time for the Labour shadow-cabinet and their cowardly refusal to stand up against Brexit, either. It's clear they want Brexit to go ahead but be a disaster so the Tories get the blame and Labour can take advantage in the next election. Again, despicable.

While we indulge ourselves in this campaign of self-flagellation, let's remember that every time anyone has stood up for Remain in any way shape or form -- businesses, private citizens, the Supreme Court, MPs, the select committee, and the Lords -- they have been condemned by Hard Brexiteers as enemies of the people, traitors, and rebels, in a highly hypocritical abandonment of the constitutional principles of the UK that hard Brexiteers profess themselves so concerned to preserve that wrecking the economy with a Hard Brexit is more than worth it. (And which a lot of them voted for. I'm looking straight at you, Rees-Mogg and Bozza.)

So I would not jump down the throat of the House of Commons. You may be tempting fate.

As push comes closer to shove, the rather large, fairly soft centrist cross-bench grouping of MPs are gradually growing more balls and in the end they may really revolt and vote the feth out of everything, just like the Lords and the Select Committee.

Then where will you be?

 Duskweaver wrote:

And yet, I find myself agreeing with a lot of what DINLT is saying in this thread. It's stupid and unfair to put all the blame on the ordinary Brexit voters. They were lied to. Conned.

I agree entirely. With the exception of people like DINLT who's made it clear he decided to leave before the lies, and despite of everyone pointing out how bad it'd be. Knowing how bad it'll be, he'd still do it again. So he's not been conned.

I do feel for those that genuinely thought Brexit would be good for them/the country based on lies from the Leave campaign.

 Duskweaver wrote:
I'm a Remainer. Actually, that doesn't quite cover it. I don't merely think that we're somewhat better off in than out. I'm strongly pro-EU. Pro-ever-further-integration. Pro-United States of Europe as an eventual goal (as was a certain Winston Churchill of all people). I and my family live between the UK and France, and any sort of 'hard' Brexit has the potential to seriously screw us over.

And yet, I find myself agreeing with a lot of what DINLT is saying in this thread. It's stupid and unfair to put all the blame on the ordinary Brexit voters. They were lied to. Conned.

When some poor sap gets conned out of all his savings by a charming sociopath, we might sigh and roll our eyes and reassure ourselves rather sanctimoniously that we'd never be so stupid. But we don't say that the victim deserves more blame than the conman. No, the conman is the criminal. He is not morally equal to his victim.

And in the case of the whole Brexit Referendum fiasco, the conmen are the MPs of both Leave and Remain flavours who voted to hold the referendum without ensuring it had any mechanism to ensure a qualified majority for such a major constitutional change; without ensuring it gave sufficient weight to the specific concerns of different parts of the UK (nobody even thought about poor bloody Gibraltar, did they?); without ensuring the government had a plan for what to do in the event of a Leave vote; and then told the people that this advisory referendum was going to be treated as 100% binding even though that's not how it works in our democratic system.

DINLT is absolutely right to point out that Remainer MPs could have stopped this whole mess in its tracks by voting against holding the Referendum in the first place. Or against invoking Article 50. I mean, if you really think Brexit is absolutely guaranteed to be an utter disaster, you have a duty as an MP to stop it by whatever legal/political means you can, and take the potential of being voted out by an angry electorate as something that comes with the job. If you can't put the survival of the country above holding on to your seat in Parliament, then you've no business being an MP.

Remainers who joined May's Brexit-at-all-costs government are the worst of the lot.

I actually have a bit more respect for the Leave members of the cabinet. People like Davis and Fox are merely incompetent and wrong about everything. They're making a total mess of Brexit because they're not capable of anything better (and, yeah, making an actual success of Brexit is almost certainly impossible and always would have been). But I've no reason to think they're being disingenuous or not trying their best for the country.

But what the hell are people like Hammond and Bradley and May herself doing? They told the people before the Referendum that Brexit would be a disaster, and now they're... driving the country full steam ahead into said disaster because "Will of the People". They're desperately hoping to keep their jobs by appearing to side with the 51.9%, even while they genuinely believe that the policy they're pursuing is harming the country. It's despicable.

I don't have much time for the Labour shadow-cabinet and their cowardly refusal to stand up against Brexit, either. It's clear they want Brexit to go ahead but be a disaster so the Tories get the blame and Labour can take advantage in the next election. Again, despicable.

Some very good points - given what happened after the expenses scandal its not easy to get rid of MPs anyway so most would have had little worry about on that score.

There were however (are?) far too many deeply unpleasant people making threats or similar to anyone who spoke against the result - and that may have been a consideration for some, I dislike and distrust the EU as an institution but the behaviour of many was (and is) disgusting.

Some may have believed that in an area that voted for Brexit then they were representing their constituents?

The person I blame the most for the whole fiasco is Cameron - he was a coward - he pledged to steer the country "whatever happened" and then went straight back to the nearest feeding trough after seeing all his mates got a big fat bonus - nauseating. he and his cronies refused to plan for anything other than victory and again that arrogance was I feel part of the reason for his defeat.

The thing that really annoys me about Cameron is that he promised a referendum in the general election, fine, but he didn’t have to do the slapdash version. He could of put an act of Parliament through to make it legally binding, had all of the debates about the nature of leaving (which would probably have ended up with several options, similar to FWC’s suggestion) and how the result would be decided (probably a super-majority as I suggested) and the out it to the public. That would have kept his promise and given us a clear and definitive result, with a much better chance of being implementable. But no, it was quick, rush it out, with no thought or effort, on the assumption that fear of economic turmoil would sway the vote as it had with Scotland.

 Jadenim wrote:
The thing that really annoys me about Cameron is that he promised a referendum in the general election, fine, but he didn’t have to do the slapdash version. He could of put an act of Parliament through to make it legally binding, had all of the debates about the nature of leaving (which would probably have ended up with several options, similar to FWC’s suggestion) and how the result would be decided (probably a super-majority as I suggested) and the out it to the public. That would have kept his promise and given us a clear and definitive result, with a much better chance of being implementable. But no, it was quick, rush it out, with no thought or effort, on the assumption that fear of economic turmoil would sway the vote as it had with Scotland.

I agree. The leave option and remain option should have been determined first so everyone knew what they were voting for specifically; whether it included freedom of movement, remaining part of the customs union and so on. Instead we ended up with a definitive we know what have and on the other side a group of shysters who basically told anyone that was listening what they wanted to hear and never give any sensible though as to how it might actually work. In the end everything about the referendum was about political gain on all sides and nothing to do with what was best for the people of the country.

Kilkrazy wrote:While we indulge ourselves in this campaign of self-flagellation,

Nope. I'm flagellating our useless, cowardly shyster MPs, not myself or anyone else here. I prefer to reserve my contempt for those with power who failed to use it to protect the country they profess to serve.

let's remember that every time anyone has stood up for Remain in any way shape or form -- businesses, private citizens, the Supreme Court, MPs, the select committee, and the Lords -- they have been condemned by Hard Brexiteers as enemies of the people, traitors, and rebels

MPs should be doing their jobs regardless, acting in what they see as the best interests of their constituents and the country, not merely trying to hang onto their seats. Getting stick from the newspapers comes with the job. When did our elected representatives become so pathetic that they cringe and cower and fall into line just because the Daily Mail calls them names?

So I would not jump down the throat of the House of Commons. You may be tempting fate.
As push comes closer to shove, the rather large, fairly soft centrist cross-bench grouping of MPs are gradually growing more balls and in the end they may really revolt and vote the feth out of everything, just like the Lords and the Select Committee.
Then where will you be?

Yes, it is possible that they'll fail to stop Brexit and instead merely scupper any deal with the EU and guarantee a chaotic hard Brexit. That would suck. But that's not a reason for me to stop criticising them for failing to stand up and stop Brexit.

Herzlos wrote:I agree entirely. With the exception of people like DINLT who's made it clear he decided to leave before the lies, and despite of everyone pointing out how bad it'd be. Knowing how bad it'll be, he'd still do it again. So he's not been conned.

Sure. He's the exception that proves the rule. But I'm not even angry at people like him. He's allowed to be wrong and to vote for wrong things. He did his part in our democratic system by voting for what he honestly believed to be right. The Remain campaign failed to convince him otherwise. That's fine.

What's not fine is people who know Brexit is wrong but are either going along with it to keep their jobs or avoid being slammed by the pro-Brexit press, or undermining it in small and sneaky ways while pretending to go along with it. If you think it's wrong and disastrous, then bloody well stop it by whatever means you can. Don't pussy-foot around pretending that you "respect the Will of the People" while doing things that are more likely to lead to us crashing out without a deal than in actually stopping Brexit.

We're a representative democracy, not a direct democracy. There was no reason to even have the Brexit Referendum other than Cameron was trying to get the ERG nutjobs to shut up and go away so he could continue to pretend he was leader of the Tory Party. As DINLT said, Remain MPs should really have been against holding the Referendum in the first place. They knew a successful Brexit was flat-out impossible. But no. Most of them voted for the Referendum. Then when Remain lost, most of them collectively shrugged and went from "Brexit would be a horrible disaster" to "Oh well, the People voted for it so it must be done".

They hold up "Will of the People" as a magic talisman, as though it will save them and make Brexit all work out somehow. Why can't any of them have the courage to stand up and say "No, the People are actually just wrong on this. What you asked for isn't deliverable. You were lied to. We're sorry."

To vote to put an issue to a public referendum is to imply that either result of said referendum would be a reasonable outcome. If you are 100% convinced that one of the two possible outcomes would be an utter disaster for the country, then why in hell would you vote to put the question to the people in the first place?

The Brexit Referendum was like asking your kid what they want for Christmas, telling them they can have whatever they like... but neglecting to tell them that there's a £10 budget because the family is skint. You have misled your child into believing they have a wider range of choice than they in fact have. It's entirely understandable that the child that confidently asked for a pony is feeling somewhat aggrieved now the truth about the family finances is coming out.

And even the Remain campaign told Brexit-voters like DINLT that they would get what they voted for (just that it'd be bad), so in that sense he was conned. The responsible, honest thing to say would have been more like "Brexit is not an achievable goal anyway, so it doesn't matter which way you vote. Voting for Brexit will just lead to a two-year nightmare followed by some clunky fudge that amounts to Brexit-in-name-only." But then why hold the Referendum at all, right?

Mr Morden wrote:Some may have believed that in an area that voted for Brexit then they were representing their constituents?

MPs need to remember how a representative democracy is supposed to work. You're supposed to act in what you believe are the best interests of your constituents and to be honest with them about your policies. Not merely do whatever they say they want on any given day while lying about whether it's a good idea or even realistically achievable. It's not the job of your constituents to know enough about every issue to always make the best decisions for themselves and the country. That's your job as an MP. Your constituents then get to decide every 4-5 years whether they think, overall, you've done a good job of representing them, and to keep you in or kick you out accordingly. That is intended to insulate the decision-making from the vagaries of short-term popular opinion and the sort of ignorant prejudice whipped up by the Sun and the Mail.

The person I blame the most for the whole fiasco is Cameron - he was a coward - he pledged to steer the country "whatever happened" and then went straight back to the nearest feeding trough after seeing all his mates got a big fat bonus - nauseating. he and his cronies refused to plan for anything other than victory and again that arrogance was I feel part of the reason for his defeat.

Holding the Referendum in the first place was the main cause of his defeat. It misled people into thinking Brexit was a reasonable option that at least had a chance of working out to the country's benefit. Putting the question to the people was a big flashing neon sign saying "This is totally a thing you can vote for!" At that point, the claim that it would actually be a disaster of Biblical proportions was never going to be taken seriously.

Has there ever been a case in any other country of the guy calling the Referendum also leading the campaign for the status quo vote? Referenda in representative democracies are supposed to be for getting public backing for a change you think will be good. Not to get support for maintaining the status quo. You don't need a referendum for keeping things the same. The whole thing was a con-job. One that backfired spectacularly.

Jadenim wrote:The thing that really annoys me about Cameron is that he promised a referendum in the general election, fine, but he didn’t have to do the slapdash version. He could of put an act of Parliament through to make it legally binding, had all of the debates about the nature of leaving (which would probably have ended up with several options, similar to FWC’s suggestion) and how the result would be decided (probably a super-majority as I suggested) and the out it to the public. That would have kept his promise and given us a clear and definitive result, with a much better chance of being implementable. But no, it was quick, rush it out, with no thought or effort, on the assumption that fear of economic turmoil would sway the vote as it had with Scotland.

At the very least, it should have required a majority in all four major parts of the UK (England, NI, Scotland and Wales) to avoid the prospect of the Union shattering due to Scotland feeling like it was being yanked out of the EU against its will, or NI deciding that joining Ireland might be a better solution than ending up with a hard border with the Republic.

But a better option would have been not holding the Referendum at all. Why ask a question to which one answer is utterly unthinkable?

The above poster has written the most sensible, accurate and well thought out post I've seen in this thread to date.

Yeah, good post from Duskweaver.

And for the record, I wasn't conned. I knew exactly what I was voting for.

My opposition to the EU has always been ideological, not economical.

I don't want ever closer union with the EU or a United States of Europe.

If they want to go down that road, good luck to them, but my pro-Brexit stance has not wavered an inch.

Given the choice between in the EU and prosperous, or out of the EU but banging rocks together in a cave, I'll choose the cave any day of the week.

I made the choice years ago, and I'm far too stubborn to change my mind, so please don't waste your valuable time trying to convince me otherwise.

I can't see why anybody would choose Remain, but I respect their choice and would always argue for them to have their voice heard in our democracy, even though I disagree with them.

Happy to trade with the EU, happy to be in NATO with other EU members, but count me out of ever closer union.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

Given the choice between in the EU and prosperous, or out of the EU but banging rocks together in a cave, I'll choose the cave any day of the week.

DINLT I hate parts of the UK enough that if I had the chance to do it, nothing would remain but a radioactive wasteland. And *I* think you need to dial it back.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Yeah, good post from Duskweaver.

And for the record, I wasn't conned. I knew exactly what I was voting for.

My opposition to the EU has always been ideological, not economical.

I don't want ever closer union with the EU or a United States of Europe.

If they want to go down that road, good luck to them, but my pro-Brexit stance has not wavered an inch.

Given the choice between in the EU and prosperous, or out of the EU but banging rocks together in a cave, I'll choose the cave any day of the week.

I made the choice years ago, and I'm far too stubborn to change my mind, so please don't waste your valuable time trying to convince me otherwise.

I can't see why anybody would choose Remain, but I respect their choice and would always argue for them to have their voice heard in our democracy, even though I disagree with them.

Happy to trade with the EU, happy to be in NATO with other EU members, but count me out of ever closer union.

Well this just seems to suggest you have zero respect for anyone else in the UK, really.
Kind of makes me want to take you even less seriously than before, and question why you even post in this thread.
If your attitude is seriously, 'I'd rather turn the country into the stone age and let everyone else live in unimaginable poverty because muh principles' then I think even the Hardcore Brexiteers would give you funny looks. Do you have kids? Loved ones? Any respect for anyone?

Are we really heading into economical ruin because of people like you? Are people like you representative of the British people?

Gosh. This post has actually made me geninuely sad.

Part of living in a democracy like ours with free speech, rule of law, free press et al

is having to tolerate opinions and viewpoints you don't like. That is the price of a free society.

I've despised every Conservative government I've ever had the misfortune of living under, which is most of my life, but you'll never see me leading an armoured column on London.

Maastricht was a black day for me, but I accepted the result.

Scotland voting No in 2014 was another low point, but I accepted the result, cursed my luck, and peacefully got on with things.

Had Britain voted Remain in 2016, I probably would have drowned my sorrows with cheap booze from Tesco...

but respected the result and got on with things as I always do...


I can sympathise with Remain voters here, because I know what it's like to lose a crucial referendum, but what other system or society do you advocate?

Why are we not celebrating the greatest day in British democracy? And I don't mean the result...

I'm talking about the fact that more people voted for or against the EU than any other issue in 300 years of British history.

75% turnout

And let's nor argue again about Russians, Daily Mail, 350 on Red buses, Cameron's World War III, Osborne's punishment budget etc etc

That's been done to death...

What is often overlooked in the massive engagement that the British public had with their democractic system...

That's worth celebrating is it not? Because it spilled over into the next general election, and we're forever moaning about low turn outs in elections...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Part of living in a democracy like ours with free speech, rule of law, free press et al

is having to tolerate opinions and viewpoints you don't like. That is the price of a free society.

I've despised every Conservative government I've ever had the misfortune of living under, which is most of my life, but you'll never see me leading an armoured column on London.

Maastricht was a black day for me, but I accepted the result.

Scotland voting No in 2014 was another low point, but I accepted the result, cursed my luck, and peacefully got on with things.

Had Britain voted Remain in 2016, I probably would have drowned my sorrows with cheap booze from Tesco...

but respected the result and got on with things as I always do...


I can sympathise with Remain voters here, because I know what it's like to lose a crucial referendum, but what other system or society do you advocate?

Why are we not celebrating the greatest day in British democracy? And I don't mean the result...

I'm talking about the fact that more people voted for or against the EU than any other issue in 300 years of British history.

75% turnout

And let's nor argue again about Russians, Daily Mail, 350 on Red buses, Cameron's World War III, Osborne's punishment budget etc etc

That's been done to death...

What is often overlooked in the massive engagement that the British public had with their democractic system...

That's worth celebrating is it not? Because it spilled over into the next general election, and we're forever moaning about low turn outs in elections...

Quite frankly, if your ilk don't turn out to vote at the next election, I'd be quite happy.

I'd rather a minority of people with the nations best interests at heart voted, than a mass of people who care about nothing but themselves and their own petty views.

I'd rather a minority of people with the nations best interests at heart voted

I did have the nation's best interest at heart. That's why I voted leave.

than a mass of people who care about nothing but themselves and their own petty views.

I agree. Remain voters are terrible...

Jokes aside, and getting serious here, you and I both believed we had the nation's best interest at heart with our respective votes.

I voted in good faith and I honestly beleive that Remain voters on dakka voted in good faith. I don't agree with their views, but I obviously respect their right to have it.

And that's the heart of the matter: what other system do you advocate? Disenfranchise vast swathes of British people?

If you think I'm bad, my uncle is probably more hard Brexit than I am...

But he was a taxpayer for decades and did years in the British army and obviously guarded this nation from its enemies i.e The Warsaw Pact countries...

Could we seriously advocate taking the vote from peole like him just because we don't agree with them?

And I'm at odds with him on a lot of non-Brexit issues...

Tolerance and respect for our political opponents is the only system that works in our democracy...