Jump to content
British Coin Forum - Predecimal.com

50 Years of RotographicCoinpublications.com A Rotographic Imprint. Price guide reference book publishers since 1959. Lots of books on coins, banknotes and medals. Please visit and like Coin Publications on Facebook for offers and updates.

Coin Publications on Facebook

   Rotographic    

The current range of books. Click the image above to see them on Amazon (printed and Kindle format). More info on coinpublications.com

predecimal.comPredecimal.com. One of the most popular websites on British pre-decimal coins, with hundreds of coins for sale, advice for beginners and interesting information.

azda

So, Brexit....What's happening?

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Gary D said:

The MPs may have disappointed 17.4 million people but then they still have a duty of care for the other 50 million.

I do understand the point but factually figures quoted for both Percentage of the voting population and numbers are wrong and entirely misleading. as it assumes all that had no preference would have voted remain.

             
  Number of local areas declared: 382/382     Total Electorate    
             
  Remain: 16,141,241   34.71% Remain  
  Leave: 17,410,742   37.44% Leave  
        27.80% No Vote / preference  
  Total Electorate   46,500,001      
             
  Turnout:   72.20%      
  Rejected Ballots 25,359   0.05%    
             
        100.01%    
             
         
         

 

 

Edited by Chingford

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Brexit Referendum result:

51.9% leave 117410742 votes . 48.1% stay 16141241 votes. Informal 26033 votes.

Electorate 46.5 million

Turnout  72.2% 

Garry D,

Where do your 50 million voters come from who need a "duty of Care" with a total electorate of only 46.5 million? There was a clear majority of votes to leave as shown above with a turn out of the electorate of 72.2 % which is higher than most general elections. For example for the 2016  UK general election the  turnout of the electorate was 68.7% of those eligible to vote.  I suppose you now want to argue that not everyone voted at the Brexit referendum. I'm afraid low voter turnout seems to be a feature of UK elections. Perhaps next time the electorate may take more trouble to get off their buts and vote on important  issues. Maybe  the UK should adopt the Australian system where it is compulsory to turn up at the polling station and have your name checked off the electoral roll otherwise you will cop a $50 fine Most people then vote having had to make the effort to attend the polling station. However you can still exercise your right not to vote if you wish but at least you have to think about it.

I'm afraid your argument doesn't hold water.

Sorry Chingford I think I am covering the same ground as you.  We do have preferential voting in Australia but It is not relevant to referendums as they normally require a Yes/No answer. However in Australia a referendum is mainly for changes to the constitution (A bill of the House of Commons). A  majority of votes and States are required for the referendum to be carried. As  it happens there have been 44 referendums since federation of which only 8 have carried.

Edited by ozjohn
Stop press

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I assume the 50 million is the rest of the UK population whether able to vote or not. 2019 estimate is approx 66.85 million , so leaving 49.45 after those who voted leave are accounted for.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Nonmortuus said:

I assume the 50 million is the rest of the UK population whether able to vote or not. 2019 estimate is approx 66.85 million , so leaving 49.45 after those who voted leave are accounted for.

I would think that too, and with an event as big as this referendum, affecting EVERY citizen of this country for years to come, and possibly for the rest of the lives of those only just entering this world, I’d say the Government has a responsibility to those people too. We aren’t simply changing parties here!

Edited by Coinery

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But surely the govenrments duty of care is relevant to which way you voted?

Someone from  the "leave" side would say that the government has a duty of care to everyone to abide by the result, and remove the country from the EU for it's many well documented flaws*

*please refer to the internet.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you want to include children  etc? To vote you must be on the electoral roll otherwise there is no control on people multiple voting, under age and non citizens voting  Eliminating these are the things that give credibility to election results. I'm afraid your open voting  idea is untenable and the result would have no credibility and would be even more contested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every year or so I get a paper from my Local authority to register for voting, same as every household up and down the Country, it is every eligible individuals choice to register, if they decide not to that is their personal decision. You cant argue a vote for those that chose not to register or if registered chose not to vote.

The 28% who decided not to give an opinion are both remain and leave voters who probably thought the result was a forgone conclusion when reading the polls before hand.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, ozjohn said:

Do you want to include children  etc? To vote you must be on the electoral roll otherwise there is no control on people multiple voting, under age and non citizens voting  Eliminating these are the things that give credibility to election results. I'm afraid your open voting  idea is untenable and the result would have no credibility and would be even more contested.

For me it’s maybe a little too simplistic. You see we invest all this time and money trying to make the world a better place for our children (how ever miserably we are failing), plastics, pollution, etc., yet you wouldn’t want to consider the choices we are making in government today in the same way? I’m not saying we should give children the vote, I’m saying that when we are snowballing out of control on generation-long commitments, as it looks as if we are doing so, I just wish it wasn’t the ‘me and mine’ factions controlling what happens to us all. There is a moral responsibility to do the right thing for all citizens, and going blindly into the abyss just because we said we would a couple of years ago is quite frankly the domain of the insane, that this has driven us all into a state of ‘fuck it, let’s just do this thing and get it over and done with,’ is terrifying.

 

edit: I use the F-word not in anger, only as contemporary slang language to express a state of careless abandon. ‘Cor blimey’ just wouldn’t cut it! :)

Edited by Coinery

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Coinery said:

 I just wish it wasn’t the ‘me and mine’ factions controlling what happens to us all.

Me too? because it seems to me, it's either the remainer 'me and mine' or their brethren peers, and not the country who voted who are getting the say on this.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with all these reasonable positions is that the referendum was a binary choice, in which one side or other was bound to be upset. When it comes to the implementation phase, there is no simple way to keep both sides happy. Pandering to remainers desire to stay in is completely incompatible with leavers desire to go. There is no happy medium compromise that can accommodate everyone. You can't be a bit and a bit out. Its an impossible position to square. It's also the reason why leavers are so pissed off with parliament, because the basic terms of leaving were explained in the Cameron leaflet, and the MPs promised to respect and implement the result. The reverse is actually what they are doing, and in my view we are likely to be just a few weeks away from revocation of A50 - the final betrayal.

If what I suggest comes to pass i.e. we remain, then here's a nice simply question for anybody who is a remainer and wants to see compromise and a soft to non-existant Brexit. When it comes to leaving you argue for compromise so that 'everyone' can be 'happy.' If we remain in the EU, what compromise is going to be offerred to the 17.4 million leavers, so that their position is protected? How are their desires to be managed, or is it a case of the remainers must be accommodated but the leavers will just have to accept the changes?

And a final thought. Why do all you remainers so avidly want to stay in this mafia club? I won't go on about it here, but there's a long list of objections to the EU, which when you put them together make me wonder why anybody in their right mind would want to stay. On the other side, I've yet to see a cohesive and compelling argument in favour of remaining, at least not one that isn't full of all the negative reasons, as opposed to positives. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, DaveG38 said:

If we remain in the EU, what compromise is going to be offerred to the 17.4 million leavers, so that their position is protected? How are their desires to be managed, or is it a case of the remainers must be accommodated but the leavers will just have to accept the changes?

And a final thought. Why do all you remainers so avidly want to stay in this mafia club?

Re your first point I have no magic wand, but it must surely be a very different position today that the ‘leave voters’ find themselves in, that today they are in a position of putting all their eggs into one basket and just throwing them at the wall, hoping some will survive? We may even find ourselves in a position, if too many break, where a new expression of politics may rise up, as others abandon ship, that leave us with good intentions but no ability to actually govern a country.

And the second point, Mafia is a state of being human. You will find it in every aspect of our natures being flawed, whether it’s Europe, or Britain, the school place or the work place. It isn’t cured by walking away, it’s tackled by the desires of people like myself who oppose secularism (not quite the right word, though its replacement isn’t coming to me at the moment for some bizarre reason). The EU for me was an attempt at working together, no matter how flawed it was. However I accept with the ‘them and I’ attitude that most people hold, that it will take a threat from another universe before we will ever join together as one planet.

Edited by Coinery

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Coinery said:

However I accept with the ‘them and I’ attitude that most people hold, that it will take a threat from another universe before we will ever join together as one planet.

I don't know, think probably Diane Abbot would invite them in as lost souls.

There are good and bad arguments for both sides, unfortunately the ideal is not on offer.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Chingford said:

I don't know, think probably Diane Abbot would invite them in as lost souls.

There are good and bad arguments for both sides, unfortunately the ideal is not on offer.

Ah yes the new universe division in progress already.

The ideal is not on offer, it’s a fair comment, I concede to that, Chingford! :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Coinery said:

We may even find ourselves in a position, if too many break, where a new expression of politics may rise up, as others abandon ship, that leave us with good intentions but no ability to actually govern a country.

And what do you think will be the consequences if you get your way and Brexit is cancelled?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
13 minutes ago, Nick said:

And what do you think will be the consequences if you get your way and Brexit is cancelled?

That’s the biggest part of what’s bad about all this, is now I’m feeling the snowball has got too big and we’re all, both leavers and remainers, running out of sensible ways forward. Surely the leavers never meant for this? In a very strange way the country seems somehow united in the chaos we’re in.

Edited by Coinery
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Coinery said:

In a very strange way the country seems somehow united in the chaos we’re in.

I'm not sure that's how leavers are feeling at the moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Nick said:

I'm not sure that's how leavers are feeling at the moment.

What, not in the feeling that this has all gone completely pear-shaped? And I mean that most sincerely...every side has been let down by a mess that was kicked up by egos in government. I’m no expert in politics, I’m an idealist, which I apologise for but, surely, outside of a war cabinet, this is as shambolic as it gets...for everyone? No-one is a winner any more, whichever path you voted for, and that’s the kind of united fatigue I’m talking about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Nick said:

I'm not sure that's how leavers are feeling at the moment.

The Speaker John Bercow then decided which motions to take forward for MPs to vote on tonight.

He picked four of the eight put forward:

  • Motion C: Committing the government to negotiating "a permanent and comprehensive UK-wide customs union with the EU" as part of any Brexit deal - proposed by Tory former chancellor Ken Clarke
  • Motion D: Referred to as Common Market 2.0, this option would mean joining the European Free Trade Association and European Economic Area - proposed by Tory MP Nick Boles
  • Motion E: This is for a confirmatory referendum, giving the public a vote to approve any Brexit deal passed by Parliament before it can be implemented - proposed by Labour MPs Peter Kyle and Phil Wilson
  • Motion G: The motion aims to prevent the UK leaving without a deal, including a vote on whether to revoke Article 50 - stopping Brexit - if the EU does not agree to an extension - proposed by the SNP's Joanna Cherry

He did not choose motions calling for a unilateral exit to the backstop, to leave on 12 April without a deal, to hold a referendum in the case of no-deal or to rejoin the European Free Trade Association.

All the proposals lean very much to remaining in the EU in one form or other, and referendum will probably be a  choice of two Options - Remain in the EU or revoke Article 50

Sad day for democracy, a fairer vote should be balanced with Leave and Remain options

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Coinery said:

I would think that too, and with an event as big as this referendum, affecting EVERY citizen of this country for years to come, and possibly for the rest of the lives of those only just entering this world, I’d say the Government has a responsibility to those people too. We aren’t simply changing parties here!

Yes, in an ideal world every point of view would be taken into account. But the nature of a referendum is to take a snapshot view at a given point in time, from those who are able and willing to vote. That's their very essence. There was a referendum in 1975 to confirm us staying in the then Common Market. I don't imagine too much thought was given then to the 33% who voted against, nor to those who didn't bother voting. Nor to those too young to vote at that time, or to those (including me) who were not yet born.

As far as those who for whatever reason decide not to vote when they could do, I've got no time. Their opinion is the least important as they have passed up their opportunity of their volition.

For those of a younger demographic who feel their opinion is more important than anybody else's - sorry, no. Democracy is based on every vote being of equal value, with no vote or group more important than anybody else's. To stray away from that principle is to go down an extremely dangerous path. One which essentially compromises democracy and would cause deep resentment among some, and an artificial feeling of self importance among others.  

For those who were too young to vote in 2016, well hard luck. Again, a referendum takes that snapshot view at a given point in time. How else can it be done? 

In conclusion, we were told that the result of the referendum would be honoured, and people voted in good faith based on that. If that result was not to your liking, then in democratic spirit you should bow to the majority will.

To now see the current shambles in parliament caused by a bunch of mainly remainer MP's manifestly hell bent on stopping brexit, is appalling. Puffed up with their own arrogant self importance, they clearly are quite happy to "piss all over" the majority of voters in that 2016 referendum. Not my expression by the way. I heard it today at work in connection with the same topic, and thought it was quite apt        

     

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In some ways the betrayal of Brexit will make the job of those parties that want to leave very simple tt the next election. I can see the message on the side of the bus right now: 'Vote The Traitors Out.' It should resonate with a large number of voters and may result in a very different political landscape in the future! Hopefully with the loss of a whole slew of remainer MPs: the likes of Anna Soubry for one, but maybe many others as well. If so, then good riddence.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Brexit is almost as effective in getting people angry on this forum as TPGs. I will say this before trying to stay away from this tread.

I do strongly disagree with Brexiteers calling Remain MPs "traitors". Some are even claiming that MPs like Dominic Grieve are arrogant in thinking they are more intelligent and better informed than the people they represent. An MP is not some sort of brainless mouthpiece for his constituents. He has a duty to act and vote in the best interest of his constituents and the population at large. And yes, I do very much hope that our MPs are intelligent and well informed. Mr Grieve is a QC, was an attorney general, was the shadow Justice and Home Secretaries. Yes, I would say he is very well informed and undoubtedly very intelligent. He is pushing for a second referendum because he genuinely believe rightly or wrongly it is the best option for the country. I respect him a great deal more than someone voting along party lines as an easier way out. 

And if we don't like what our MPs are doing, we SACK them in the next general election. That is our system of our democracy. But I do object to calling principled politicians traitors. 

I ask people in favour of Brexit this question: If Remain won that referendum narrowly and there are MPs pushing for Brexit, would you call those MPs traitors? Probably not.

 

Edited by Sword
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, 1949threepence said:

Again, a referendum takes that snapshot view at a given point in time.

     

I’d argue that snapshot views are a dangerous thing. Does the leave position today correlate in any way with original campaign promises, I’d say not?

Many have gone to their graves on the back of misleading facts and snapshot views, the hangman is testimony to that. I’m just asking that the government and the pressure groups all stand back and take a deep calming breath that’s all. The average 60-70 year old will know nothing of the long-term effects of getting this wrong - but my son will, and he has no say.

Edited by Coinery
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 30 March 2019 at 12:55 PM, Chingford said:

The problem with Norway Plus deals is that we would not be able to do our own deals outside of the EU and we would still be bound by the European Courts, currently the EU sets all the tariffs and dictates who any members can trade with, like all EU Members we impose the tariff and then pass these on to the EU coffers. It is described as a Customs union and single market but really it is a closed shop to ensure members goods and services are traded within the Union, cheaper alternatives are spurned through legislation, red tape and lobbyists are paid to gain favour, it is not an open fair or competitive market place.

Not the full story. We already have heaps of trade deals with other countries due to being in the EU. All those and more would have to be renegotiated from scratch. And why would any other nation give us - with a population of 66m - more favourable terms than the combined Single Market of the other 27?

Also, the ECJ would only be able to rule on trade deals and tariffs if we were in a customs union - all other regulations would be outside their jurisdiction. It IS a fair market place for those who are in it. No lobbyists have the power to deal with 27 or 28 separate heads of state.

16 minutes ago, Sword said:

I do strongly disagree with Brexiteers calling Remain MPs "traitors". Some are even claiming that MPs like Dominic Grieve are arrogant in thinking they are more intelligent and better informed than the people they represent. An MP is not some sort of brainless mouthpiece for his constituents. He has a duty to act and vote in the best interest of his constituents and the population at large. And yes, I do very much hope that our MPs are intelligent and well informed. Mr Grieve is a QC, was an attorney general, was the shadow Justice and Home Secretaries. Yes, I would say he is very well informed and undoubtedly very intelligent. He is pushing for a second referendum because he genuinely believe rightly or wrongly it is the best option for the country. I respect him a great deal more than someone voting along party lines as an easier way out. 

And if we don't like what our MPs are doing We SACK them in the next general election. That is our system of our democracy. But I do object to calling principled politicians traitors. 

Agreed. Winston Churchill said all MPs have three priorities in the following order:

1. National interest.                    2. Interests of constituents.                     3. Political Party.

I think it's extremely insulting to call MPs traitors  when they are trying their best to avoid what would harm the nation for who knows how many years ahead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Sword said:

Brexit is almost as effective in getting people angry on this forum as TPGs. I will say this before I will try to stay away from this tread.

I do strongly disagree with Brexiteers calling Remain MPs "traitors". Some are even claiming that MPs like Dominic Grieve are arrogant in thinking they are more intelligent and better informed than the people they represent. An MP is not some sort of brainless mouthpiece for his constituents. He has a duty to act and vote in the best interest of his constituents and the population at large. And yes, I do very much hope that our MPs are intelligent and well informed. Mr Grieve is a QC, was an attorney general, was the shadow Justice and Home Secretaries. Yes, I would say he is very well informed and undoubtedly very intelligent. He is pushing for a second referendum because he genuinely believe rightly or wrongly it is the best option for the country. I respect him a great deal more than someone voting along party lines as an easier way out. 

And if we don't like what our MPs are doing, we SACK them in the next general election. That is our system of our democracy. But I do object to calling principled politicians traitors. 

I ask people in favour of Brexit this question: If Remain won that referendum narrowly and there are MPs pushing for Brexit. Would you call those MPs traitors? Probably not.

 

The dictionary definition of 'traitor' is 'a person who betrays someone or something, such as a friend, cause, or principle.' Given that MPs voted for the referendum, voted to trigger A50 and stood on a manifesto of leaving the EU, I regard the definition as entirely appropriate when applied to somebody like Dominic Grieve, since he IS betraying everything he and his party has stood on. As are many of his colleagues in the Tory party. As for the next election, I'm entirely in favour of deselection and/or voting them out, but that is too little too late when they have betrayed the country regarding Brexit.

If remain had won the referendum, then no, those still advocating 'leave' would not be traitors, since the decision to remain would have been immediately communicated to the EU i.e the referendum result would have been respected and from that point forward there is nothing undemocratic in continuing to press for a different outcome. However, since the matter would have been settled such a position would have gained little support even from those who wished to leave, for the simple reason that democracy would have been seen to be upheld and respected. The problem with the current situation is that we haven't left, leavers do not respect the result and are actively seeking to undermine it. If we do manage to leave, remainers are then quite entitled to campaign for us to re-join. There would be nothing traitorous in that. It is the failure to enact what they promised which, in my view, justifies my description of them.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×