Would you change your Ref vote if you could go back time?
Poll: Would you change your Ref vote if you could go back time?
Total Members Polled: 819
Discussion
romeogolf said:
If we stay, we can decide again to leave in the future after a renegotiation (which, thanks to the vote, appears to be off the table now) but is what many people wanted.
It was made very clear before the vote that there would be no new renegotiation for the UK in future, whatever the outcome. Which surprisingly enough seems to actually be the case. Mario149 said:
IMO the biggest issue we've had with the EU was actually highlighted by Alistair Campbell on an interview I saw this morning. He's a w
ker but he makes sense: we've had a right wing / eurosceptic press constantly slating the EU for 25 years or more with very little to balance it out. If you're told something is ste for long enough, you'll eventually believe it. At which point the gov starts pandering to your thoughts to get your vote. So they have to whinge about the EU too, and it's a vicious cycle. It's like immigration, study after study shows it has been massively beneficial for our country as a whole, yet people still think we have a problem. But because our politicians pander to us and don't challenge the narrative with facts pointing out the benefits it has brought us, we still have idiots in towns with almost zero immigration complaining "we're full".
You are aware it was the left wing people that were against the EU first?ker but he makes sense: we've had a right wing / eurosceptic press constantly slating the EU for 25 years or more with very little to balance it out. If you're told something is ste for long enough, you'll eventually believe it. At which point the gov starts pandering to your thoughts to get your vote. So they have to whinge about the EU too, and it's a vicious cycle. It's like immigration, study after study shows it has been massively beneficial for our country as a whole, yet people still think we have a problem. But because our politicians pander to us and don't challenge the narrative with facts pointing out the benefits it has brought us, we still have idiots in towns with almost zero immigration complaining "we're full".Immigration has plenty of benefits for a country, but it is generally for those "who have", not those at the bottom. Those of us who have get the benefit of increased competition for houses pushing the value of our house up, cheaper plumbers, cleaners etc to work on them, and cheaper/ more available healthcare etc. Those at the bottom face more competitions for jobs etc. They generally don't have much voice, and are hit harder by changes. But they have got the place where they got fed up and want change. To them the general benefits have very little impact on their lives.
Mario149 said:
Mark Benson said:
I honestly think that if the vote had gone the other way a similar number of remain voters would be having the same 'buyers remorse' this week.
Although they probably wouldn't have been pushed to the fore in the same way by the broadly Remain-supporting media.
What would they have remorse about? Nothing the Remain campaign said has turned out to be untrue as far as I can tell. Basically, the markets would have got a bit of a boost, we'd still have a functioning gov and opposition (okay, it's all relative with Corbyn :hehe) and things would have carried on as normalAlthough they probably wouldn't have been pushed to the fore in the same way by the broadly Remain-supporting media.
Otispunkmeyer said:
romeogolf said:
I voted leave. I'm very much upset and frustrated with the result, not just because it's not what I had hoped for, but because of the reasons people voted to leave and the lack of a plan now we've voted to leave. The more people tell me the reasons, the more I despair.
I have two friends who voted to leave. Their arguments were based on a perceived lack of control within the EU and the notion we don't get good value for money from our contributions. They felt the EU was illiberal. These are debatable topics and we've had some good chats about it. I can understand these reasons.
On the other hand, I have family members and colleagues who voted to leave based purely on the £350m figure in the belief it would go to the NHS; Who voted to leave because they thought all the immigrants would leave; Who voted to leave because they thought you can't celebrate Christmas without offending people; Who thought by leaving we could get back old-fashioned light-bulbs and curved bananas and so on. These are the horrifying reasons, many of which have legitimised the more public racism and xenophobia which we've seen.
It scares me how easily people have been mislead, and how much they have been mislead. In conversations at work when I've explained "well, actually we only gave £77 million/week after our rebate and benefits... And we won't be sending all the EU-born people who live here home, and actually Turkey is a very long way off joining, and if we want to be in the single market we'll still need to accept free movement..." they're surprised. They genuinely thought that this is what they voted for.
Cornwall, who voted strongly to leave, have already asked the government to confirm they will receive additional funding which will be lost. My partner's sister who is due to start university studying German later this year, has been told that the year in Germany for her second year is very likely to be cancelled as a result (her leave-voting grandparents are surprised). There's been no real forward thinking from many people.
I'm scared because there is no plan. There has been no plan of what we're actually going to do, nothing has been negotiated, there was just a referendum on a huge decision which has far reaching implications, many of which were never discussed in popular media.
The EU is far from perfect, but this wasn't the time to "protest vote" as many have. If we leave, that's final. If we stay, we can decide again to leave in the future after a renegotiation (which, thanks to the vote, appears to be off the table now) but is what many people wanted.
The choice was between the status quo and something new. It makes absolute sense that to make a change should require a more significant margin to win than to maintain the current situation. A difference of less than 5% leaves far too many people on the wrong end of a change they don't want. A number of people who thought they wanted to leave actually didn't. They just wanted a change. Now they're getting a change they didn't really want.
Interesting comments. Something for me to mull over. Thanks.I have two friends who voted to leave. Their arguments were based on a perceived lack of control within the EU and the notion we don't get good value for money from our contributions. They felt the EU was illiberal. These are debatable topics and we've had some good chats about it. I can understand these reasons.
On the other hand, I have family members and colleagues who voted to leave based purely on the £350m figure in the belief it would go to the NHS; Who voted to leave because they thought all the immigrants would leave; Who voted to leave because they thought you can't celebrate Christmas without offending people; Who thought by leaving we could get back old-fashioned light-bulbs and curved bananas and so on. These are the horrifying reasons, many of which have legitimised the more public racism and xenophobia which we've seen.
It scares me how easily people have been mislead, and how much they have been mislead. In conversations at work when I've explained "well, actually we only gave £77 million/week after our rebate and benefits... And we won't be sending all the EU-born people who live here home, and actually Turkey is a very long way off joining, and if we want to be in the single market we'll still need to accept free movement..." they're surprised. They genuinely thought that this is what they voted for.
Cornwall, who voted strongly to leave, have already asked the government to confirm they will receive additional funding which will be lost. My partner's sister who is due to start university studying German later this year, has been told that the year in Germany for her second year is very likely to be cancelled as a result (her leave-voting grandparents are surprised). There's been no real forward thinking from many people.
I'm scared because there is no plan. There has been no plan of what we're actually going to do, nothing has been negotiated, there was just a referendum on a huge decision which has far reaching implications, many of which were never discussed in popular media.
The EU is far from perfect, but this wasn't the time to "protest vote" as many have. If we leave, that's final. If we stay, we can decide again to leave in the future after a renegotiation (which, thanks to the vote, appears to be off the table now) but is what many people wanted.
The choice was between the status quo and something new. It makes absolute sense that to make a change should require a more significant margin to win than to maintain the current situation. A difference of less than 5% leaves far too many people on the wrong end of a change they don't want. A number of people who thought they wanted to leave actually didn't. They just wanted a change. Now they're getting a change they didn't really want.
Unravelling all these threads, rules, laws, conventions etc will be the work of a lifetime, because it was the work of a lifetime to put them in place in the first place.
And it will cost, both in simple monetary terms and in social terms.
None of this was properly explained BUT anyone who intended to vote either way had a democratic responsibility to do their research first. Which, of course, the vast bulk of people didn't do - preferring to "learn" by watching moronic and facile debates on TV or swallow dumb assertions from vested interest tabloids.
You have all been duped.
However, despite this, I am happy to live with the results and my feelings are, you have got what you asked for - put up with it.
Mark Benson said:
matsoc said:
What I can not understand is why a discussion on the referendum outcome has not been made months ago between EU and UK.
The moment the referendum was made possible the two outcomes should have been investigated and discussed.
How can it be that UK gov. wants to wait to use Art.50 while large part of the EU thinks it should be made immediately?
because both the UK and EU governments couldn't countenance the idea that the plebs might actually misbehave.The moment the referendum was made possible the two outcomes should have been investigated and discussed.
How can it be that UK gov. wants to wait to use Art.50 while large part of the EU thinks it should be made immediately?
It always amazes me when politicians say "we trust the British people", I mean do they really? I f*cking don't! The beauty of our system is that when run it correctly, it's reasonably idiot-proof. You seek to elect someone who appears to broadly have the same views as you, you check their prior form, check a few main new points of their manifesto, hope they fulfill it, but don't really expect it. Rinse and repeat every few years. It's not perfect, but it's reasonably stable and it broadly works. Letting the public decide an issue as complex as EU membership was just a massively stupid idea. 99% are probably unable to make a truly informed decision, the 1% ironically being our political and business leaders who tend to run things anyway.
I mean, let's be clear here, the moment we trigger Article 50, the sh!t hits the fan for *minimum* of 2 years on top of whatever we'll have endured up to that point anyway, and the people who suffer first are the poorest. There is clearly already another spending cut/tax rise budget in preparation, and while I can stump up a few £k extra in tax on top of the minor stiffing I got as a result of the last election, the vast majority of the people that voted out probably can't. My family is well placed to ride out a few rough years, hell, with a bit of forward planning we could just take a 2 year holiday, or in extremis I could grab myself German or Italian passport and take my family somewhere sunny and set up shop there, work 3x less and let someone else pay the taxes.
The nasty side of me says "f*ck 'em", if people are gullible enough to believe that stopping (but not actually stopping in the end) immigration is going to make their life better, that leaving the EU (but not really leaving and doing a Norway) really is the simple answer to all their problems because Nige and Bojo said so, that "defying" the "elite" actually does anything beneficial (when none of them gives a sh*t, and the new people you're asking for are "elite" as well and they can all retire and never work again if it goes wrong), then they're welcome to it. But they can pay for it. Given how it was by and large the older people and lower income people who have brought about this change it seems, the irony would be strong if as a result of this, one or more of these happened: predicted rises in living wage stopped, the basic tax free thresholds were reduced, the pension triple lock removed. Frankly, I'd rather give my tax money to people in Spain etc to get back on their feet than indulge a society here that, compared to pretty much anywhere else in the world, has it bloody made.
Anyway, that's my nasty side which I try to keep in check. But I don't half feel like I'm being poked with a sharp stick and told to hold my temper!
For me the fundamental issue/question is why the hell did Cameron do this and then jump straight into the middle of it.
As PM he would have been far better positioned now if he had stayed "neutral" and we would now not be facing leadership challenges in both main stream parties just when this country needed a stable political leadership.
Which ever way people voted once again the bloody politicians have let us down with this double whammy!
As PM he would have been far better positioned now if he had stayed "neutral" and we would now not be facing leadership challenges in both main stream parties just when this country needed a stable political leadership.
Which ever way people voted once again the bloody politicians have let us down with this double whammy!
Why would immigration bother the rich? It's not like they have to put up with living next door to a house full of them is it?
The people "lower" in society have finally taken a stand and have voiced the fact that they are pissed off with constantly being shat on from above
I think the referendum was less about the EU and more about reclaiming the idea of being British, power to the people and all that and I whole heartedly applaud it.
The people "lower" in society have finally taken a stand and have voiced the fact that they are pissed off with constantly being shat on from above
I think the referendum was less about the EU and more about reclaiming the idea of being British, power to the people and all that and I whole heartedly applaud it.
JoeMarano said:
Why would immigration bother the rich? It's not like they have to put up with living next door to a house full of them is it?
The people "lower" in society have finally taken a stand and have voiced the fact that they are pissed off with constantly being shat on from above
I think the referendum was less about the EU and more about reclaiming the idea of being British, power to the people and all that and I whole heartedly applaud it.
Sorry - the 'Referendum was less about the EU'? Seriously? That was the overriding purpose behind the whole bloody thing!The people "lower" in society have finally taken a stand and have voiced the fact that they are pissed off with constantly being shat on from above
I think the referendum was less about the EU and more about reclaiming the idea of being British, power to the people and all that and I whole heartedly applaud it.
'Power to the people' and 'being British' doesn't really cut it either, unless you mean as a protest vote? If so, then I don't see who it's targeted at? When the terms of exit are finalised and the UK leaves the EU we will still have the same system of national government and likely the same basic group of UK politicians running it.
I had despaired of the EU bringing in ever more countries when also ensuring unlimited migration across EU states. If there had been a means of limiting the massive numbers of immigrants to the UK I might have voted Remain. As it was I voted Leave - and I would now be even more certain that Leave is the only realistic way forward. We should have stuck to just trading with the EEC.....
JoeMarano said:
Why would immigration bother the rich? It's not like they have to put up with living next door to a house full of them is it?
The people "lower" in society have finally taken a stand and have voiced the fact that they are pissed off with constantly being shat on from above
I think the referendum was less about the EU and more about reclaiming the idea of being British, power to the people and all that and I whole heartedly applaud it.
Can you tell me why immigration should bother the poor? Employment is at its highest rate ever (or was, we'll see now), immigrants over contribute to the exchequer compared to UK people, public services are not under pressure due to the "uncontrolled" EU migration driven rise of a "massive" 0.24% last year and the towns with the highest anti immigration sentiment are the ones where there are barely any bloody immigrants.The people "lower" in society have finally taken a stand and have voiced the fact that they are pissed off with constantly being shat on from above
I think the referendum was less about the EU and more about reclaiming the idea of being British, power to the people and all that and I whole heartedly applaud it.
The only reason that is obvious as to why they're bothered by immigrants is that the Sun, Daily Wail et al tell them to be and they believe it.
Robertj21a said:
I had despaired of the EU bringing in ever more countries when also ensuring unlimited migration across EU states. If there had been a means of limiting the massive numbers of immigrants to the UK I might have voted Remain. As it was I voted Leave - and I would now be even more certain that Leave is the only realistic way forward. We should have stuck to just trading with the EEC.....
Robert,About immigration, have a look at this, it's from telegraph;
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/16/eu-refe...
Both BJ and Gove want, quite rightly imo, access to EU market.
motco said:
Isn't net migration a red herring? It is influenced by emigrants and we're not concerned with them. Compare immigratiopn figures among these countries both as total numbers and per capita.
I don't know if it's red herring or not. That's certainly matter of opinion. As for immigration figures, isn't that what's on the second graph?I have no idea what absolute figures are as they are not, that I can see, in that telegraph article. In my opinion they would be pointless.
motco said:
Isn't net migration a red herring? It is influenced by emigrants and we're not concerned with them. Compare immigratiopn figures among these countries both as total numbers and per capita.
Nett migration is entirely relevant. If we had 300000 immigrants coming in each year and 300000 emigrating to their country of origin or another EU country each year the nett migration would be zero and it would go totally unnoticed.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Taking all that into account do you think UK should now go for access to EU market or not? I'd imagine everyone is clear now that that includes free movement of labour.Also, what do you see as a sustainable number of of immigration? How many new homes a day are acceptable?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
So basically your entire argument rests on the hope that someone has forgotten to take inflation into account when calculating the extra money (over what a "regular" UK person would contribute) that an immigrant on average brings? Right. And I don't think you understand how a Ponzi scheme works: they require new people to pay for the previous joiners. If we stopped EU immigration dead, assuming our EU residents wanted to stay here (and I'm not sure they would want to and I don't blame them), they'd still be contributing more than the equivalent number of UK people. They don't need further immigrants to support them. UK Plc would actually be better off if a few hundred thousand UK residents buggered off to Spain and left the immigrants here to it.
The massive irony in all this is that given our aging population and the fact that as a country we don't want to pay more taxes, we *need* immigrants to come here to boost our GDP to help pay for all the stuff we want and look after our aging population.
The "immigration = bad" argument has about as much logical structure and coherence to it as a wet paper bag.
jjlynn27 said:
motco said:
Isn't net migration a red herring? It is influenced by emigrants and we're not concerned with them. Compare immigratiopn figures among these countries both as total numbers and per capita.
I don't know if it's red herring or not. That's certainly matter of opinion. As for immigration figures, isn't that what's on the second graph?I have no idea what absolute figures are as they are not, that I can see, in that telegraph article. In my opinion they would be pointless.
lostkiwi said:
motco said:
Isn't net migration a red herring? It is influenced by emigrants and we're not concerned with them. Compare immigratiopn figures among these countries both as total numbers and per capita.
Nett migration is entirely relevant. If we had 300000 immigrants coming in each year and 300000 emigrating to their country of origin or another EU country each year the nett migration would be zero and it would go totally unnoticed.
motco said:
jjlynn27 said:
motco said:
Isn't net migration a red herring? It is influenced by emigrants and we're not concerned with them. Compare immigratiopn figures among these countries both as total numbers and per capita.
I don't know if it's red herring or not. That's certainly matter of opinion. As for immigration figures, isn't that what's on the second graph?I have no idea what absolute figures are as they are not, that I can see, in that telegraph article. In my opinion they would be pointless.
For every educated person that considered all the facts and voted remain, another one voted leave.
For every idiot that voted leave only because "brown people", another one voted remain only because "I ain't racist".
The vast majority voted for what they genuinely believe is the best long-term option for their country. Some people even realised they're voting for short-term hardship and were willing to make that sacrifice. There is no right or wrong because nobody knows exactly how it'll pan out in the long term.
For every idiot that voted leave only because "brown people", another one voted remain only because "I ain't racist".
The vast majority voted for what they genuinely believe is the best long-term option for their country. Some people even realised they're voting for short-term hardship and were willing to make that sacrifice. There is no right or wrong because nobody knows exactly how it'll pan out in the long term.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff