Dadge said: "The campaign definitely affected the outcome. Polls from the time show that support for Leave increased during the campaign."
Sorry - I`ll be clearer - the campaign did affect the result, but I don`t think it`s lies did. Where the leave campaign was so succesful was getting its vote out - particular in poor areas, where many voted for the first time in their lives.
I`ve always thought (but cannot prove) that the majority was and is Remain - but turnout was the key. It follows, if I`m right, that we are being taken out of the EU against the country`s wishes.
Of course the lies (or, if you prefer, the optimistic promises) affected the result. The Leave campaign had a big hill to climb on the economic argument, and they climbed it by reassuring swing voters that it would all be OK and they shouldn't listen to 'Project Fear' because we'd leave in an orderly fashion, with no cliff-edge, and that we'd agree a nice cosy free trade agreement with the EU.
The reassurances, whether mendacious or just wishful thinking, worked. It beggars belief that the very same Vote Leave principals who gave those assurances are trying to airbrush them out of history.
Judging by the responses of our Leavers, it's clear that the Vote Leave campaign didn't correctly reflect the arguments for leaving the EU. That seems a pretty incontrovertible argument for scrapping the result and starting again, does it not?
There might be an argument for scrapping the result and starting again if there was a dedicated effort to address the underlying reasons for the huge leave vote, that could be shown to be possible within the confines of the EU.
However, there is no desire, either in Parliament or on these boards, to grapple with these difficult questions. Instead those seeking to overturn the vote prefer to accuse the entire leave voting population as either thick, or racist, or corrupt, which merely widens the divisions, and, I'm afraid, shows those making such accusations to be more narrow minded, bigoted and prejudiced than those they accuse. Which is why these boards have been so depressing to read for so long and why I rarely contribute.
I was a remain voter, and remain enormously receptive to the idea of remaining in a way that does not further fracture our society - that I've heard nothing remotely convincing in over 3 years is genuinely depressing.
I have asked time and again what Remain obsessives would do to address the concerns of the 17.4m (minus the deaths they cheer so heartily) who voted to Leave, were the result to be overturned....
I voted 'Leave'. I didn't vote for 'Official Leave Campaign', and nor did anyone else.
Which is fine. But then any outcome from Norway ++++ to a chaotic no deal exit will deliver what you voted for. But Anyone arguing that Brexit has to mean X can reasonably be refered to the official Leave campaign promises.
This I would agree with entirely
What if we officially leave, but we stay in the "transition period" (during which absolutely nothing changes) forevermore, because a permanent deal can never be reached and MPs keep forcing the government to extend the transition instead?
I woulx have to revidit the detail as it seems a lifetime ago now but as I remember the transition period put us outside the EU structures but inside the Single Market. Which is what I want as an end point anyway.
The transition is much more than just staying in the Single Market. We'd be technically outside the EU structures, but we'd still remain subject to every EU law/rule/regulation that we are currently, as well as full contributions to the EU Budget. Not even fisheries policy changes.
Judging by the responses of our Leavers, it's clear that the Vote Leave campaign didn't correctly reflect the arguments for leaving the EU. That seems a pretty incontrovertible argument for scrapping the result and starting again, does it not?
There might be an argument for scrapping the result and starting again if there was a dedicated effort to address the underlying reasons for the huge leave vote, that could be shown to be possible within the confines of the EU.
However, there is no desire, either in Parliament or on these boards, to grapple with these difficult questions. Instead those seeking to overturn the vote prefer to accuse the entire leave voting population as either thick, or racist, or corrupt, which merely widens the divisions, and, I'm afraid, shows those making such accusations to be more narrow minded, bigoted and prejudiced than those they accuse. Which is why these boards have been so depressing to read for so long and why I rarely contribute.
I was a remain voter, and remain enormously receptive to the idea of remaining in a way that does not further fracture our society - that I've heard nothing remotely convincing in over 3 years is genuinely depressing.
I have asked time and again what Remain obsessives would do to address the concerns of the 17.4m (minus the deaths they cheer so heartily) who voted to Leave, were the result to be overturned....
...
...
Clearly Leave voters were concerned that Cameron's deal didn't go far enough to ensure the sustainability of being outside the Eurozone, so we should address that by joining it.
Alastair, I agree that much of the electorate is anti-immigration. But twas ever thus. I`m not convinced that the leave campaign`s lies affected the result - sorry.
The campaign definitely affected the outcome. Polls from the time show that support for Leave increased during the campaign. In fact the only time that Leavers have ever outnumbered Remainers was from June-December 2016. (I suppose it took a few months for the propaganda to wear off.)
Of course it affected the outcome. But what the Remainieiris are saying is that specific Leave voters on here were influenced by it. As they blatantly obviously weren't it seems only fair to put them right.
I guess the equivalent would be me claiming I voted LD just to keep out Tories and then having lots of people saying that means I support their manifesto. Like, technically I am saying that their manifesto is most acceptable to me if I vote for them, but that isn't my reasoning, it is mostly a tactical vote.
Similarly the Leave campaign is the equivalent of the manifesto. You can say you didn't vote for that "manifesto", only Leave as a concept, but I don't think it is unreasonable to hold people to the official campaign and their promises.
Cameron should have sacked Penny Mordaunt - on the spot - when she refused to clarify that we have a veto on Turkey joining.
Ever since then, there's been no accountability for outright lying and it's just grown and grown to where it hardly matters what the vote was actually won on.
A crucial moment of weakness.
I was going to make a point about outright lying in relation to rights for EU citizens where the reality falls well short of the rhetoric from the Johnson Ministry.
How do we make lying something that costs a politician their job?
Ban manifestos and hustings? All of the new Lib Dem recruits would be out of a job (and into another cushy one)
There are three types of things that people lie about.
1. They lie about the reality of the world as it is. Lying about now. 2. They lie about what they have done. Lying about the past. 3. They lie about what they intend to do. Lying about the future.
Manifestos are only lies about the future. We need to tackle all three types of lies.
I voted 'Leave'. I didn't vote for 'Official Leave Campaign', and nor did anyone else.
Which is fine. But then any outcome from Norway ++++ to a chaotic no deal exit will deliver what you voted for. But Anyone arguing that Brexit has to mean X can reasonably be refered to the official Leave campaign promises.
This I would agree with entirely
Yep, me too. I want a deal but to say that I voted the way that I did because someone told me that this would be an easy deal or even the easiest deal in history is frankly insulting what little intelligence I have.
Sorry, who are these people who have been lied to and gas-lighted, so that they now reject a deal?
The ERG, the DUP or the Lib Dems who were elected as Labour MPs on a pledge to respect the result?
The MPs and the voters who were/are against the Withdrawal Agreement becaused according to them it doesn't mean leaving the European Union. The WA absolutely means we leave. But cretins bang on about "BRINO" and other nonsense. There's swathes of them on local Facebook groups. All ranting against local Labour MPs for not delivering Brexit. When I ask if they should have voted for the WA they say NO, because it isn't Brexit.
As Brexit isn't Brexit according to Brexiteers I think calling them cretins is only fair.
Ah, facebook groups. The goto place for representative samples
Judging by the responses of our Leavers, it's clear that the Vote Leave campaign didn't correctly reflect the arguments for leaving the EU. That seems a pretty incontrovertible argument for scrapping the result and starting again, does it not?
That’s a good point Richard. How might we go about achieving that?
I'm mulling over a possible article on that point. I'm not at all optimistic. Just holding another referendum, even if it were possible, wouldn't work.
So is it the considered position of pb's Leavers that campaigns make absolutely no difference to elections?
I'd say that was deliberately misunderstanding what people have said.
Unpack it for me. Because Leavers have been remarkably vociferous in claiming a mandate for some very specific things. Unfortunately, most of those things seem to be buzzing around inside their own heads rather than having any conceivable justification by reference to external events.
There is a misunderstanding here. Parliament's mandate was given to the people for one question only: Remain or Leave. Having decided that, the mandate returns to government and parliament to sort it out; until they have done so it remains with them. We can all make our judgements at General Elections. The respective campaigns were not run by organisations that had the power to implement them. Only government and parliament has that power.
Bollocks. The vote was won with the Leave campaign. Pretending it didn't happen and ignoring the basis on which it was won is a betrayal of democracy.
Suppose a person supported Leave on the basis that they wanted to join EFTA (Richard North for example). How should they have voted in the referendum? And would someone be wrong now to campaign for such an outcome on the basis that a close vote means a compromise? Is compromise always a betrayal of democracy or only in this case?
Sorry, who are these people who have been lied to and gas-lighted, so that they now reject a deal?
The ERG, the DUP or the Lib Dems who were elected as Labour MPs on a pledge to respect the result?
The MPs and the voters who were/are against the Withdrawal Agreement becaused according to them it doesn't mean leaving the European Union. The WA absolutely means we leave. But cretins bang on about "BRINO" and other nonsense. There's swathes of them on local Facebook groups. All ranting against local Labour MPs for not delivering Brexit. When I ask if they should have voted for the WA they say NO, because it isn't Brexit.
As Brexit isn't Brexit according to Brexiteers I think calling them cretins is only fair.
Ah, facebook groups. The goto place for representative samples
Also Tory MPs. Brexit Party MEPs etc etc etc.
I would call you obtuse, but you have a mirror
I would like to call you a lot of things, after you repeatedly associated my name with death threats to children and female MPs, but I get banned just for calling people their name
The leave campaign, as is now well known, brilliantly targeted voter groups to get their turnout up via the effective use of modern methods.
Or did they?
The certainty to vote tables in the ORB that I linked to from Feb 2016 look pretty close to the actual result.
Just because something is commonly held to be true, doesn't mean that it is.
I think we can produce evidence that some campaigns work, such as Lab in GE 2017, but in the referendum, I see little evidence that either side changed any minds.
I voted 'Leave'. I didn't vote for 'Official Leave Campaign', and nor did anyone else.
Which is fine. But then any outcome from Norway ++++ to a chaotic no deal exit will deliver what you voted for. But Anyone arguing that Brexit has to mean X can reasonably be refered to the official Leave campaign promises.
This I would agree with entirely
Yep, me too. I want a deal but to say that I voted the way that I did because someone told me that this would be an easy deal or even the easiest deal in history is frankly insulting what little intelligence I have.
David, may be correct for the few, but many went with what the SUN and others like it said, they had no clue what they were voting on.
Correct. The leave campaign would not have put the NHS lies on the side of the bus if their focus groups hadn't showed that it switched votes.
Richaard_Nabavi said: "I'm mulling over a possible article on that point. I'm not at all optimistic. Just holding another referendum, even if it were possible, wouldn't work."
As I`ve said before - it can only come about by leavers themselves admitting that they got it wrong. Scant evidence of that. We have to leave now I think.
So is it the considered position of pb's Leavers that campaigns make absolutely no difference to elections?
I'd say that was deliberately misunderstanding what people have said.
Unpack it for me. Because Leavers have been remarkably vociferous in claiming a mandate for some very specific things. Unfortunately, most of those things seem to be buzzing around inside their own heads rather than having any conceivable justification by reference to external events.
There is a misunderstanding here. Parliament's mandate was given to the people for one question only: Remain or Leave. Having decided that, the mandate returns to government and parliament to sort it out; until they have done so it remains with them. We can all make our judgements at General Elections. The respective campaigns were not run by organisations that had the power to implement them. Only government and parliament has that power.
Bollocks. The vote was won with the Leave campaign. Pretending it didn't happen and ignoring the basis on which it was won is a betrayal of democracy.
Suppose a person supported Leave on the basis that they wanted to join EFTA (Richard North for example). How should they have voted in the referendum? And would someone be wrong now to campaign for such an outcome on the basis that a close vote means a compromise? Is compromise always a betrayal of democracy or only in this case?
Being honest that's what I hoped would happen. We would leave but due to the closeness of the result a consensus would be reached that had as leaving as softly as possible (heck all we still need to do to resolve immigration is to make our benefits system contribution rather than needs based).
isam said: "I wanted to Leave before a referendum was even put in the Tory manifesto... how have I been influenced by, or fallen for the lies of, the campaign?"
Dadge said: "The campaign definitely affected the outcome. Polls from the time show that support for Leave increased during the campaign."
Sorry - I`ll be clearer - the campaign did affect the result, but I don`t think it`s lies did. Where the leave campaign was so succesful was getting its vote out - particular in poor areas, where many voted for the first time in their lives.
I`ve always thought (but cannot prove) that the majority was and is Remain - but turnout was the key. It follows, if I`m right, that we are being taken out of the EU against the country`s wishes.
Of course the lies (or, if you prefer, the optimistic promises) affected the result. The Leave campaign had a big hill to climb on the economic argument, and they climbed it by reassuring swing voters that it would all be OK and they shouldn't listen to 'Project Fear' because we'd leave in an orderly fashion, with no cliff-edge, and that we'd agree a nice cosy free trade agreement with the EU.
The reassurances, whether mendacious or just wishful thinking, worked. It beggars belief that the very same Vote Leave principals who gave those assurances are trying to airbrush them out of history.
Youre back touting the wallet argument when it was clear the economy was a lesser consideration to Leave voters. It was a values election and remain and leave just had different values as their priorities.
Alastair, I agree that much of the electorate is anti-immigration. But twas ever thus. I`m not convinced that the leave campaign`s lies affected the result - sorry.
The campaign definitely affected the outcome. Polls from the time show that support for Leave increased during the campaign. In fact the only time that Leavers have ever outnumbered Remainers was from June-December 2016. (I suppose it took a few months for the propaganda to wear off.)
I don't think that true, as tabulated here. The polls were diverse at beginning and end, but no trend outside MOE.
I voted 'Leave'. I didn't vote for 'Official Leave Campaign', and nor did anyone else.
Which is fine. But then any outcome from Norway ++++ to a chaotic no deal exit will deliver what you voted for. But Anyone arguing that Brexit has to mean X can reasonably be refered to the official Leave campaign promises.
This I would agree with entirely
What if we officially leave, but we stay in the "transition period" (during which absolutely nothing changes) forevermore, because a permanent deal can never be reached and MPs keep forcing the government to extend the transition instead?
It couldn't continue long term. Eventually the voters would figure out that rules and regulations are being imposed without even a ballot being cast and vote for a party who either no-dealed or rejoined as members.
So is it the considered position of pb's Leavers that campaigns make absolutely no difference to elections?
I'd say that was deliberately misunderstanding what people have said.
Unpack it for me. Because Leavers have been remarkably vociferous in claiming a mandate for some very specific things. Unfortunately, most of those things seem to be buzzing around inside their own heads rather than having any conceivable justification by reference to external events.
There is a misunderstanding here. Parliament's mandate was given to the people for one question only: Remain or Leave. Having decided that, the mandate returns to government and parliament to sort it out; until they have done so it remains with them. We can all make our judgements at General Elections. The respective campaigns were not run by organisations that had the power to implement them. Only government and parliament has that power.
Bollocks. The vote was won with the Leave campaign. Pretending it didn't happen and ignoring the basis on which it was won is a betrayal of democracy.
Suppose a person supported Leave on the basis that they wanted to join EFTA (Richard North for example). How should they have voted in the referendum? And would someone be wrong now to campaign for such an outcome on the basis that a close vote means a compromise? Is compromise always a betrayal of democracy or only in this case?
Well perhaps, just perhaps, such a person should have been vehemently calling out the xenophobic lies before the referendum result to have a debate about how a Leave vote were to be implemented. But such Leavers were conspicuous by their silence on the point. They just cast their vote, obviously content to do so on the basis of the campaign fought.
After the referendum result, they crept out from behind the curtain to announce that they were open to a compromise (mysteriously on exactly the terms they wanted). But by that point, the option of such a way forward had been closed off.
'We'll have a free trade deal with the EU but without being subject to the European Court', so once the EU agreed to remove the backstop and start Free Trade Agreement talks that Vote Leave promise can be delivered
I doubt it! What concessions will the EU require from the UK for that? Easiest trade deal my arse!
Then No Deal it has to be until the EU agree to remove the backstop and European Court jurisdiction over the UK
Honouring the Good Friday Agreement should take priority.
Sinn Fein have already dishonoured it by leaving the Stormont executive
The Good Friday Agreement also said nothing about a backstop, only about avoiding a hard border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland which Boris has committed to do
If he manages the trick of achieving a Hard Brexit (which btw most people didn't vote for) for the whole UK whilst avoiding a hard border in Ireland, he's one of the greatest magicians who's ever lived.
Exactly. I've asked twice recently why it is OK for Mr Johnson to have an open boirder with Ireland (Republic of) but to have a closed border at Dover, Gatwick Airport, etc. etc. Not one brexiteer here can explain this to me.
One thing that did favour leave was the broadcast rules meaning that Tim from Wetherspoons economic forecasts had to be given the same airtime as Mark Carneys...
One thing that did favour leave was the broadcast rules meaning that Tim from Wetherspoons economic forecasts had to be given the same airtime as Mark Carneys...
I do love the idea of an election being prevented because primary schools refuse to call off their nativity plays
As a parent of 3 and 5 year olds I'd say quite right too!
The politicians have had months of humming and haaing about an election. Young children only get a tiny number of years where the magic of Christmas is so real - and even fewer were its both real and they will remember things like nativities. Cancelling them because the politicians can't be arsed to pull their finger out any other time isn't reasonable.
I mean, it does seem that to many the "strength" of the PM at the time the deal was made is going to be more important than the deal itself. That is obviously going to be seen through a gendered lens (although many people did try and portray May as Iron Lady 2.0). I will be interested to see if the deal does cede NI or some other "red line" what the response will be and how it will differ from the reaction to May.
On the importance or otherwise of campaigning, it seems obvious that a party/group could, if it chose, run a bad campaign and hurt its chances of victory.
One thing that did favour leave was the broadcast rules meaning that Tim from Wetherspoons economic forecasts had to be given the same airtime as Mark Carneys...
Can anyone confirm the latest date a VONC would have to be called in order for there to be a GE possibility this year?
By my reckoning this would have to be tabled by the end of next week (assuming GE will not go past 10 December).
Nov 5, I believe (5 weeks).
The VNOC route could involve 7 weeks - which would take us to Christmas. The last realistic Thursday is surely 12th December which would require Dissolution on 7th November . A VNOC might need to be as early as 24th October. If the Government tries again to table its own motion for an election , only 5 weeks are needed - should it succeed.
The last three and a bit years on here have been like entries for a 6th form essay contest titled
"Imagine you are someone with a highly strung temperament who has had the good fortune to have got their own way for most of their life, but just lost an argument with a person less academically able and financially well off than them"
So is it the considered position of pb's Leavers that campaigns make absolutely no difference to elections?
I'd say that was deliberately misunderstanding what people have said.
Unpack it for me. Because Leavers have been remarkably vociferous in claiming a mandate for some very specific things. Unfortunately, most of those things seem to be buzzing around inside their own heads rather than having any conceivable justification by reference to external events.
There is a misunderstanding here. Parliament's mandate was given to the people for one question only: Remain or Leave. Having decided that, the mandate returns to government and parliament to sort it out; until they have done so it remains with them. We can all make our judgements at General Elections. The respective campaigns were not run by organisations that had the power to implement them. Only government and parliament has that power.
Bollocks. The vote was won with the Leave campaign. Pretending it didn't happen and ignoring the basis on which it was won is a betrayal of democracy.
I think the scrutiny should be on the Remain vote not leave as I believe more people were convinced to vote Remain during the campaign including me.
We have ample evidence that people voted UKIP for years before the vote. Let’s assume that both them and also voters similar to them who registered to vote just to vote in that election total 4.5 million. If we then assume half of the conservative voters in 2015 would vote leave then we already have 10 million locked in votes even before the campaign.
Now I am one of those strange Lib Dem voters who now support Brexit - and I was initially going to vote Leave on democratic grounds - I don’t believe that democracy is served well at a distance in Brussels, and I was not happy with ever closer union, but I voted remain in the end because of the cataclysmic economic forecasts in the event of leave. I was convinced by an argument and that prompted me to vote Remain.
In my experience I have not come across anyone who was going to vote Remain but was convinced by the arguments during the campaign to vote Leave. So the argument that leave tricked people doesn’t ring true to me. It seems more plausible that over a number of years a build up of anti-EU sentiment that could not normally be indicated at the ballot box was mobilised.
Dadge said: "The campaign definitely affected the outcome. Polls from the time show that support for Leave increased during the campaign."
Sorry - I`ll be clearer - the campaign did affect the result, but I don`t think it`s lies did. Where the leave campaign was so succesful was getting its vote out - particular in poor areas, where many voted for the first time in their lives.
I`ve always thought (but cannot prove) that the majority was and is Remain - but turnout was the key. It follows, if I`m right, that we are being taken out of the EU against the country`s wishes.
Of course the lies (or, if you prefer, the optimistic promises) affected the result. The Leave campaign had a big hill to climb on the economic argument, and they climbed it by reassuring swing voters that it would all be OK and they shouldn't listen to 'Project Fear' because we'd leave in an orderly fashion, with no cliff-edge, and that we'd agree a nice cosy free trade agreement with the EU.
The reassurances, whether mendacious or just wishful thinking, worked. It beggars belief that the very same Vote Leave principals who gave those assurances are trying to airbrush them out of history.
Youre back touting the wallet argument when it was clear the economy was a lesser consideration to Leave voters. It was a values election and remain and leave just had different values as their priorities.
No, that's wrong. It was a gateway argument: lots of people wanted to vote Leave, because of the 'values' side, but were reluctant to do so because they (rightly) feared the economic cost would be too high. So assuaging that fear was an absolute prerequisite for Leave winning.
To give you an illustration: before the referendum I co-ran an evening session for local Conservative Party members on what Brexit might mean in practice. I did this with someone else who was a staunch Leaver, and before the evening we jointly prepared a paper and presentation on the various options (Norway, Canada, WTO etc), trying to keep it as factual and non-partisan as we could. Bearing in mind that the attendees were by definition politically active, and that most of them were potential Leave supporters, two things stood out from the reaction we got. The first was that several people told me that our presentation was the first clear information that they had ever been given on what Brexit could mean n practice. The second was that, at the end of the evening, we asked for a show of hands on how people would vote. This split almost evenly three ways, between Leave, Remain, and Don't Know - amongst Tory activists in a rural Leave-voting area! And of course, the concerns amongst the Don't Knows were largely economic; the Leave campaign had to neutralise those concerns to win.
The big point to note here is not to confuse your Dominic Raabs and Jacob Rees-Moggs with your Steve Bakers and Owen Patersons. There is a false belief among some commentators that plenty of the final 28 holdouts are in government. They aren't: Priti Patel, Theresa Villiers, Julian Lewis (who I previously overlooked) and James Duddridge are the only ones who are. Some of the people touted as hardliners are not.
That was in response to a disgraceful interview by Amber Rudd on R5 where she said the reason the ERG would support Boris not May is that they are all sexist.
The last three and a bit years on here have been like entries for a 6th form essay contest titled
"Imagine you are someone with a highly strung temperament who has had the good fortune to have got their own way for most of their life, but just lost an argument with a person less academically able and financially well off than them"
Alastair, I agree that much of the electorate is anti-immigration. But twas ever thus. I`m not convinced that the leave campaign`s lies affected the result - sorry.
The campaign definitely affected the outcome. Polls from the time show that support for Leave increased during the campaign. In fact the only time that Leavers have ever outnumbered Remainers was from June-December 2016. (I suppose it took a few months for the propaganda to wear off.)
Of course it affected the outcome. But what the Remainieiris are saying is that specific Leave voters on here were influenced by it. As they blatantly obviously weren't it seems only fair to put them right.
I'd say 95% of voters here weren't.
How many people here switched sides or were genuinely undecided during the referendum campaign?
I did - but I think I was the exception to the rule.
Judging by the responses of our Leavers, it's clear that the Vote Leave campaign didn't correctly reflect the arguments for leaving the EU. That seems a pretty incontrovertible argument for scrapping the result and starting again, does it not?
There might be an argument for scrapping the result and starting again if there was a dedicated effort to address the underlying reasons for the huge leave vote, that could be shown to be possible within the confines of the EU.
However, there is no desire, either in Parliament or on these boards, to grapple with these difficult questions. Instead those seeking to overturn the vote prefer to accuse the entire leave voting population as either thick, or racist, or corrupt, which merely widens the divisions, and, I'm afraid, shows those making such accusations to be more narrow minded, bigoted and prejudiced than those they accuse. Which is why these boards have been so depressing to read for so long and why I rarely contribute.
I was a remain voter, and remain enormously receptive to the idea of remaining in a way that does not further fracture our society - that I've heard nothing remotely convincing in over 3 years is genuinely depressing.
I have asked time and again what Remain obsessives would do to address the concerns of the 17.4m (minus the deaths they cheer so heartily) who voted to Leave, were the result to be overturned....
...
...
They'd do what all good beaurocrats do when a vote goes the 'wrong' way. Either ignore them, or ask to vote again.
Hardcore remainers (quite a few on this site) really do not care about the referendum result. It's: Invalid because Leave lied - Okay then, every vote since 1832 is probably invalid on that basis. We've got a LOT of rerunning to get through, and a lot of corpses to dig up and ask how they would've voted if only they'd known. Too difficult to implement due to Belfast agreement - Not really. EEA+CU WILL work. EEA + comprehensive FTA will probably work too. Will make you poorer - Yes. It probably will short term. Long term, who knows. Crack on. Should've been a 66% supermajority - Why? Why THIS one, and not the earlier ones? Was too close to call - Wales 1997. NEXT! Breaches the Belfast agreement - This is probably the 'best' argument I've seen, as the only way around this is to renege on a Treaty (or take EEA+CU). But then, if this is the only way, why the hell did Cameron offer the referendum in the first place? (Hint - to become largest party in a hung parliament and a way to Coalition Mark 2 - shame he didn't get that one right).
We've got to leave the EU, and the sooner Dominic Grieve and his nutters realise this, and work towards an EEA solution the better.
But that ship has sailed. So we're fucked. Truly, truly fucked.
Judging by the responses of our Leavers, it's clear that the Vote Leave campaign didn't correctly reflect the arguments for leaving the EU. That seems a pretty incontrovertible argument for scrapping the result and starting again, does it not?
There might be an argument for scrapping the result and starting again if there was a dedicated effort to address the underlying reasons for the huge leave vote, that could be shown to be possible within the confines of the EU.
However, there is no desire, either in Parliament or on these boards, to grapple with these difficult questions. Instead those seeking to overturn the vote prefer to accuse the entire leave voting population as either thick, or racist, or corrupt, which merely widens the divisions, and, I'm afraid, shows those making such accusations to be more narrow minded, bigoted and prejudiced than those they accuse. Which is why these boards have been so depressing to read for so long and why I rarely contribute.
I was a remain voter, and remain enormously receptive to the idea of remaining in a way that does not further fracture our society - that I've heard nothing remotely convincing in over 3 years is genuinely depressing.
I have asked time and again what Remain obsessives would do to address the concerns of the 17.4m (minus the deaths they cheer so heartily) who voted to Leave, were the result to be overturned....
...
...
Some of their concerns can be ignored, since they have little to do with EU membership. eg. the young chap who told me he was voting Leave to "get the Pakis out".
But, as I've said many times, though you obviously weren't listening, an EU-member UK must have a much more serious attitude towards immigration than shown by the Blair/Brown/Cameron governments, all of which were much more interested in the economic benefits of so-called social dumping than the social consequences. The arrival of millions of people has been very good for us in many ways, but the negatives were swept under the carpet. And most of those negatives could've been alleviated by taking a much more pedantic approach to the EU free-movement rules, and having more policies and money directed to those areas most affected by immigration.
That was in response to a disgraceful interview by Amber Rudd on R5 where she said the reason the ERG would support Boris not May is that they are all sexist.
Considering Rudd supposedly wanted a deal and to prevent no deal this seems a bizarre way to convince people to vote for a deal.
Seems there's a few people who were willing to vote for a deal so long as they knew it would lose.
I see folk that say 'How dare you suggest all Leavers are racist/stupid/selfish etc!' (invariably when the person they're responding to has said nothing of the sort) are now suggesting all Leavers knew what they were voting for regardless of campaigns. Context is a wonderful thing.
Judging by the responses of our Leavers, it's clear that the Vote Leave campaign didn't correctly reflect the arguments for leaving the EU. That seems a pretty incontrovertible argument for scrapping the result and starting again, does it not?
No. Sadly not. They have to suck up whatever the hell the government decides just as the rest of us do. If it's Norway or No Deal that is the mandate that the referendum gave us. That the details weren't fleshed out is immaterial.
From memory, Vote Leave said we would be part of a free trade zone from somewhere to somewhere else which suggests but only suggests they wanted a free trade agreement with the EU. But that's all. It could as easily mean membership of the EEA. And as for No Deal looking again at the Vote Leave manifesto, it is possible to derive no deal from that also.
The last three and a bit years on here have been like entries for a 6th form essay contest titled
"Imagine you are someone with a highly strung temperament who has had the good fortune to have got their own way for most of their life, but just lost an argument with a person less academically able and financially well off than them"
Yes. But it wasn't an argument. It was a set of promises which those less academically able believed and which those more academically able were highly suspicious of.
Dadge said: "The campaign definitely affected the outcome. Polls from the time show that support for Leave increased during the campaign."
Sorry - I`ll be clearer - the campaign did affect the res in their lives.
I`ve always tho country`s wishes.
Of course the lies (or, if you pre cosy free trade agreement with the EU.
The reassurances, whether menda them out of history.
Youre back touting the wallet argu priorities.
No, that's wrong. It was a gateway argument: lots of people wanted to vote Leave, because of the 'values' side, but were reluctant to do so because they (rightly) feared the economic cost would be too high. So assuaging that fear was an absolute prerequisite for Leave winning.
To give you an illustration: before the referendum I co-ran an evening session for local Conservative Party members on what Brexit might mean in practice. I did this with someone else who was a staunch Leaver, and before the evening we jointly prepared a paper and presentation on the various options (Norway, Canada, WTO etc), trying to keep it as factual and non-partisan as we could. Bearing in mind that the attendees were by definition politically active, and that most of them were potential Leave supporters, two things stood out from the reaction we got. The first was that several people told me that our presentation was the first clear information that they had ever been given on what Brexit could mean n practice. The second was that, at the end of the evening, we asked for a show of hands on how people would vote. This split almost evenly three ways, between Leave, Remain, and Don't Know - amongst Tory activists in a rural Leave-voting area! And of course, the concerns amongst the Don't Knows were largely economic; the Leave campaign had to neutralise those concerns to win.
youre simply seeking to discount the probability that "lots of people" undertood the consequences but still voted on values irrespective of economics.Remainers just cannot comprehend why leavers voted on values not money and vice versa of course.
No doubt economics swung some voters from leave to remain, but when the final tally was done there werent enoigh of them.
Your illustration simply says remain and Osborne ran a crap campaign by treating people with scare stories.Remain has and still has valid economic points but currently they are all lost in the mire of shroud waving and calamity spin.
If we had a second referendum remain would still lose the economic argument because you cant communicate reasonably.
'We'll have a free trade deal with the EU but without being subject to the European Court', so once the EU agreed to remove the backstop and start Free Trade Agreement talks that Vote Leave promise can be delivered
I doubt it! What concessions will the EU require from the UK for that? Easiest trade deal my arse!
Then No Deal it has to be until the EU agree to remove the backstop and European Court jurisdiction over the UK
Honouring the Good Friday Agreement should take priority.
Sinn Fein have already dishonoured it by leaving the Stormont executive
Because of potentially dubious behavior from Foster and unwillingness to hold an inquiry into it
youre simply seeking to discount the probability that "lots of people" undertood the consequences but still voted on values irrespective of economics.Remainers just cannot comprehend why leavers voted on values not money and vice versa of course.
No doubt economics swung some voters from leave to remain, but when the final tally was done there werent enoigh of them.
Your illustration simply says remain and Osborne ran a crap campaign by treating people with scare stories.Remain has and still has valid economic points but currently they are all lost in the mire of shroud waving and calamity spin.
If we had a second referendum remain would still lose the economic argument because you cant communicate reasonably.
You haven't addressed my point, except indirectly to confirm it in your second paragraph.
I think realistically Thursday 5th December is the last possible date for an election until late February/early March.
When would the election have to be called by for 5th December?
Via a vote of no confidence? Thursday.
Via a 2/3rds vote? Halloween.
Thanks. So basically if an election isn't agreed by 1st November that's it until the end of Febaury/early March.
It's not at all obvious to me that we're on the brink of an election, nor that Christmas is the only logistical impediment to having one this year.
+1 if Boris is forced to extend he will want an election far less than anyone else does. Boris's window of opportunity will have completely disappeared until we have actually left.
Dadge said: "The campaign definitely affected the outcome. Polls from the time show that support for Leave increased during the campaign."
Sorry - I`ll be clearer - the campaign did affect the res in their lives.
I`ve always tho country`s wishes.
Of course the lies (or, if you pre cosy free trade agreement with the EU.
The reassurances, whether menda them out of history.
Youre back touting the wallet argu priorities.
No, that's wrong. It was a gateway argument: lots of people wanted to vote Leave, because of the 'values' side, but were reluctant to do so because they (rightly) feared the economic cost would be too high. So assuaging that fear was an absolute prerequisite for Leave winning.
To give you an illustration: befand Don't Know - amongst Tory activists in a rural Leave-voting area! And of course, the concerns amongst the Don't Knows were largely economic; the Leave campaign had to neutralise those concerns to win.
youre simply seeking to discount the probability that "lots of people" undertood the consequences but still voted on values irrespective of economics.Remainers just cannot comprehend why leavers voted on values not money and vice versa of course.
No doubt economics swung some voters from leave to remain, but when the final tally was done there werent enoigh of them.
Your illustration simply says remain and Osborne ran a crap campaign by treating people with scare stories.Remain has and still has valid economic points but currently they are all lost in the mire of shroud waving and calamity spin.
If we had a second referendum remain would still lose the economic argument because you cant communicate reasonably.
Nah Alan. Many Leavers voted according to their heart and/or acted analogously to coming home from work after a bollocking from their boss and then kicking the dog. It was a god-given opportunity to stick it to the man and they didn't need asking twice. Paint the EU as some huge all-seeing director of their lives which, by voting leave, they could stick it to? Tick. And that's what they did. Speaking to the Aldi shop workers in Grantham, the most common response is "oh, I dunno" when asked why they voted leave and they said they had done.
I think realistically Thursday 5th December is the last possible date for an election until late February/early March.
When would the election have to be called by for 5th December?
Via a vote of no confidence? Thursday.
Via a 2/3rds vote? Halloween.
Thanks. So basically if an election isn't agreed by 1st November that's it until the end of Febaury/early March.
It's not at all obvious to me that we're on the brink of an election, nor that Christmas is the only logistical impediment to having one this year.
+1 if Boris is forced to extend he will want an election far less than anyone else does. Boris's window of opportunity will have completely disappeared until we have actually left.
On the other hand, if the Panelbase polls become typical, Labour might be keen to move a VNOC.
youre simply seeking to discount the probability that "lots of people" undertood the consequences but still voted on values irrespective of economics.Remainers just cannot comprehend why leavers voted on values not money and vice versa of course.
No doubt economics swung some voters from leave to remain, but when the final tally was done there werent enoigh of them.
Your illustration simply says remain and Osborne ran a crap campaign by treating people with scare stories.Remain has and still has valid economic points but currently they are all lost in the mire of shroud waving and calamity spin.
If we had a second referendum remain would still lose the economic argument because you cant communicate reasonably.
You haven't addressed my point, except indirectly to confirm it in your second paragraph.
the second pont is simply pure mathematics. Economic arguments swung some voters but not enough whys that difficult to come to terms with ?
Judging by the responses of our Leavers, it's clear that the Vote Leave campaign didn't correctly reflect the arguments for leaving the EU. That seems a pretty incontrovertible argument for scrapping the result and starting again, does it not?
No because the question didn't ask us to endorse any particular campaign. It just asked us if we want to Leave or Remain.
The last three and a bit years on here have been like entries for a 6th form essay contest titled
"Imagine you are someone with a highly strung temperament who has had the good fortune to have got their own way for most of their life, but just lost an argument with a person less academically able and financially well off than them"
Yes. But it wasn't an argument. It was a set of promises which those less academically able believed and which those more academically able were highly suspicious of.
and yet the less academically gifted managed to find a polling station in greater numbers than the gifted
I think realistically Thursday 5th December is the last possible date for an election until late February/early March.
When would the election have to be called by for 5th December?
Via a vote of no confidence? Thursday.
Via a 2/3rds vote? Halloween.
Thanks. So basically if an election isn't agreed by 1st November that's it until the end of Febaury/early March.
It's not at all obvious to me that we're on the brink of an election, nor that Christmas is the only logistical impediment to having one this year.
+1 if Boris is forced to extend he will want an election far less than anyone else does. Boris's window of opportunity will have completely disappeared until we have actually left.
On the other hand, if the Panelbase polls become typical, Labour might be keen to move a VNOC.
See the thread I've just posted - Labour really don't want an election - they need a new leader first
youre simply seeking to discount the probability that "lots of people" undertood the consequences but still voted on values irrespective of economics.Remainers just cannot comprehend why leavers voted on values not money and vice versa of course.
No doubt economics swung some voters from leave to remain, but when the final tally was done there werent enoigh of them.
Your illustration simply says remain and Osborne ran a crap campaign by treating people with scare stories.Remain has and still has valid economic points but currently they are all lost in the mire of shroud waving and calamity spin.
If we had a second referendum remain would still lose the economic argument because you cant communicate reasonably.
You haven't addressed my point, except indirectly to confirm it in your second paragraph.
the second pont is simply pure mathematics. Economic arguments swung some voters but not enough whys that difficult to come to terms with ?
Exactly. That is exactly what I am saying. And no doubt, if Vote Leave hadn't reassured people that it would all be smooth sailing, with no cliff-edge and no disruption to supply chains and no tariffs, then they would have got fewer votes. Why is this so hard to understand? It was an absolutely crucial point for them to neutralise.
Is Bolton renowned for being particularly corrupt ? A massive @rsehole, certainly, but for other reasons. And he has definitely fallen out with Trump.
Bolton, Tillerson could do serious damage to Trump. It seems Giuliani was not only acting as a rogue lawyer but was conducting private business as well.
The last three and a bit years on here have been like entries for a 6th form essay contest titled
"Imagine you are someone with a highly strung temperament who has had the good fortune to have got their own way for most of their life, but just lost an argument with a person less academically able and financially well off than them"
Yes. But it wasn't an argument. It was a set of promises which those less academically able believed and which those more academically able were highly suspicious of.
and yet the less academically gifted managed to find a polling station in greater numbers than the gifted
Devil's advocate - They had 15 hours to find the time to do so, the more academically gifted had a day job that ate into the time available.
I think realistically Thursday 5th December is the last possible date for an election until late February/early March.
When would the election have to be called by for 5th December?
Via a vote of no confidence? Thursday.
Via a 2/3rds vote? Halloween.
Thanks. So basically if an election isn't agreed by 1st November that's it until the end of Febaury/early March.
It's not at all obvious to me that we're on the brink of an election, nor that Christmas is the only logistical impediment to having one this year.
+1 if Boris is forced to extend he will want an election far less than anyone else does. Boris's window of opportunity will have completely disappeared until we have actually left.
On the other hand, if the Panelbase polls become typical, Labour might be keen to move a VNOC.
I'm sure some clever folks at Labour HQ have analysed the reasons for the divergence in the polls and made a judgement on which pollsters are getting it right. Of course 2017 will give them hope, but they know that some pollsters changed their methodology after they underestimated Labour.
Topping said: "Nah Alan. Many Leavers voted according to their heart and/or acted analogously to coming home from work after a bollocking from their boss and then kicking the dog. It was a god-given opportunity to stick it to the man and they didn't need asking twice. Paint the EU as some huge all-seeing director of their lives which, by voting leave, they could stick it to? Tick. And that's what they did. Speaking to the Aldi shop workers in Grantham, the most common response is "oh, I dunno" when asked why they voted leave and they said they had done."
Yep - the referndum may as well said: "Do you like the government? Tick Yes or No".
Dadge said: "The campaign definitely affected the outcome. Polls from the time show that support for Leave increased during the campaign."
Sorry - I`ll be clearer - the campaign did affect the res in their lives.
I`ve always tho country`s wishes.
Of course the lies (or, if you pre cosy free trade agreement with the EU.
The reassurances, whether menda them out of history.
Youre back touting the wallet argu priorities.
No, that's wrong. It was a gateway argument: lots of people wanted to vote Leave, because of the 'values' side, but were reluctant to do so because they (rightly) feared the economic cost would be too high. So assuaging that fear was an absolute prerequisite for Leave winning.
To give you an illustration: befand Don't Know - amongst Tory activists in a rural Leave-voting area! And of course, the concerns amongst the Don't Knows were largely economic; the Leave campaign had to neutralise those concerns to win.
youre simply seeking tll lost in the mire of shroud waving and calamity spin.
If we had a second referendum remain would still lose the economic argument because you cant communicate reasonably.
Nah Alan. Many Leavers voted according to their heart and/or acted analogously to coming home from work after a bollocking from their boss and then kicking the dog. It was a god-given opportunity to stick it to the man and they didn't need asking twice. Paint the EU as some huge all-seeing director of their lives which, by voting leave, they could stick it to? Tick. And that's what they did. Speaking to the Aldi shop workers in Grantham, the most common response is "oh, I dunno" when asked why they voted leave and they said they had done.
and what of it ? If the system doesnt work for them why wouldnt they kick it ?
Hardcore remainers (quite a few on this site) really do not care about the referendum result. It's: Invalid because Leave lied - Okay then, every vote since 1832 is probably invalid on that basis. We've got a LOT of rerunning to get through, and a lot of corpses to dig up and ask how they would've voted if only they'd known. Too difficult to implement due to Belfast agreement - Not really. EEA+CU WILL work. EEA + comprehensive FTA will probably work too. Will make you poorer - Yes. It probably will short term. Long term, who knows. Crack on. Should've been a 66% supermajority - Why? Why THIS one, and not the earlier ones? Was too close to call - Wales 1997. NEXT! Breaches the Belfast agreement - This is probably the 'best' argument I've seen, as the only way around this is to renege on a Treaty (or take EEA+CU). But then, if this is the only way, why the hell did Cameron offer the referendum in the first place? (Hint - to become largest party in a hung parliament and a way to Coalition Mark 2 - shame he didn't get that one right).
We've got to leave the EU, and the sooner Dominic Grieve and his nutters realise this, and work towards an EEA solution the better.
But that ship has sailed. So we're fucked. Truly, truly fucked.
Dadge said: "The campaign definitely affected the outcome. Polls from the time show that support for Leave increased during the campaign."
Sorry - I`ll be clearer - the campaign did affect the res in their lives.
I`ve always tho country`s wishes.
Of course the lies (or, if you pre cosy free trade agreement with the EU.
The reassurances, whether menda them out of history.
Youre back touting the wallet argu priorities.
No, that's wrong. It was a gateway argument: lots of people wanted to vote Leave, because of the 'values' side, but were reluctant to do so because they (rightly) feared the economic cost would be too high. So assuaging that fear was an absolute prerequisite for Leave winning.
To give you an illustration: before the referendum I co-ran an evening session for local Conservative Party members on what Brexit might mean in practice. I did this ctivists in a rural Leave-voting area! And of course, the concerns amongst the Don't Knows were largely economic; the Leave campaign had to neutralise those concerns to win.
youre simply seeking to discount the probability that "lots of people" undertood the consequences but still voted on values irrespective of economics.Remainers just cannot comprehend why leavers voted on values not money and vice versa of course.
No doubt economics swung some voters from leave to remain, but when the final tally was done there werent enoigh of them.
Your illustration simply says remain and Osborne ran a crap campaign by treating people with scare stories.Remain has and still has valid economic points but currently they are all lost in the mire of shroud waving and calamity spin.
If we had a second referendum remain would still lose the economic argument because you cant communicate reasonably.
Wealthy people had the luxury to vote on values, it is undoubtedly true - and that applies to both the Leave and Remain votes. But what is objecting to large scale EU immigration because it drives down salaries and makes housing less affordable if it is not an economic argument?
The last three and a bit years on here have been like entries for a 6th form essay contest titled
"Imagine you are someone with a highly strung temperament who has had the good fortune to have got their own way for most of their life, but just lost an argument with a person less academically able and financially well off than them"
Yes. But it wasn't an argument. It was a set of promises which those less academically able believed and which those more academically able were highly suspicious of.
and yet the less academically gifted managed to find a polling station in greater numbers than the gifted
If you are less academically gifted and get an opportunity to a) kick the dog; and b) stick it to the man then who wouldn't motivate themselves to get down the road to the library to do so.
It was of course a huge failing of the Remain campaign not to allow for and address the fact that morons will act moronically.
2017 is a good example of the election campaign changing opinions.
In general the efforts of the political parties will cancel each other out. So any impact is likely to be at the margin (which may still be important).
This suggests that a mistake in a campaign (eg social care taxes) is more costly.
This suggests that a low risk strategy should be adopted by the main parties.
Minor parties probably need a high risk strategy to try and get increased awareness (eg LD revoke message).
Judging by the responses of our Leavers, it's clear that the Vote Leave campaign didn't correctly reflect the arguments for leaving the EU. That seems a pretty incontrovertible argument for scrapping the result and starting again, does it not?
No because the question didn't ask us to endorse any particular campaign. It just asked us if we want to Leave or Remain.
Absobloodylutely. EEA has as much of a mandate as no deal.
Is Bolton renowned for being particularly corrupt ? A massive @rsehole, certainly, but for other reasons. And he has definitely fallen out with Trump.
Bolton, Tillerson could do serious damage to Trump. It seems Giuliani was not only acting as a rogue lawyer but was conducting private business as well.
I see Trump is trying to distance himself from Guilisni. "I'm not sure if he's my lawyer."
youre simply seeking to discount the probability that "lots of people" undertood the consequences but still voted on values irrespective of economics.Remainers just cannot comprehend why leavers voted on values not money and vice versa of course.
No doubt economics swung some voters from leave to remain, but when the final tally was done there werent enoigh of them.
Your illustration simply says remain and Osborne ran a crap campaign by treating people with scare stories.Remain has and still has valid economic points but currently they are all lost in the mire of shroud waving and calamity spin.
If we had a second referendum remain would still lose the economic argument because you cant communicate reasonably.
You haven't addressed my point, except indirectly to confirm it in your second paragraph.
the second pont is simply pure mathematics. Economic arguments swung some voters but not enough whys that difficult to come to terms with ?
Exactly. That is exactly what I am saying. And no doubt, if Vote Leave hadn't reassured people that it would all be smooth sailing, with no cliff-edge and no disruption to supply chains and no tariffs, then they would have got fewer votes. Why is this so hard to understand? It was an absolutely crucial point for them to neutralise.
Its not hard to understand, its simply you want to ignore that the economy was the big big message from Remain, practically its only message and it didnt convince enough people because it wasnt switched on to what they were thinking. Nor, crucially did it come from people who could convince.
2017 is a good example of the election campaign changing opinions.
In general the efforts of the political parties will cancel each other out. So any impact is likely to be at the margin (which may still be important).
This suggests that a mistake in a campaign (eg social care taxes) is more costly.
This suggests that a low risk strategy should be adopted by the main parties.
Minor parties probably need a high risk strategy to try and get increased awareness (eg LD revoke message).
The counterpoint to this is if another party makes a mistake during the campaign you need to turn it to your advantage.
Re: Corbyn: as we know he only became leader due to influx of members voting for him. Reports recently state that the Labour Party has lost a lot of members. Does anyone know whether these recent leavers are Corbyn supporters or disullusioned Blairites?
If the latter, surely Corbyn is in a stronger position that ever - at least with regard to the menbership?
The last three and a bit years on here have been like entries for a 6th form essay contest titled
"Imagine you are someone with a highly strung temperament who has had the good fortune to have got their own way for most of their life, but just lost an argument with a person less academically able and financially well off than them"
Yes. But it wasn't an argument. It was a set of promises which those less academically able believed and which those more academically able were highly suspicious of.
and yet the less academically gifted managed to find a polling station in greater numbers than the gifted
Devil's advocate - They had 15 hours to find the time to do so, the more academically gifted had a day job that ate into the time available.
Comments
The reassurances, whether mendacious or just wishful thinking, worked. It beggars belief that the very same Vote Leave principals who gave those assurances are trying to airbrush them out of history.
...
...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO_Fg6R0i5w
Again, I'd be fine with that carrying on indefinitely, but I'm surprised you would be.
The leave campaign, as is now well known, brilliantly targeted voter groups to get their turnout up via the effective use of modern methods.
https://twitter.com/labourwhips/status/1184095347402035202
Similarly the Leave campaign is the equivalent of the manifesto. You can say you didn't vote for that "manifesto", only Leave as a concept, but I don't think it is unreasonable to hold people to the official campaign and their promises.
1. They lie about the reality of the world as it is. Lying about now.
2. They lie about what they have done. Lying about the past.
3. They lie about what they intend to do. Lying about the future.
Manifestos are only lies about the future. We need to tackle all three types of lies.
Very large numbers of voters were clearly less certain about which way they might vote than most of us on here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum#/media/File:UK_EU_referendum_polling.svg
I would call you obtuse, but you have a mirror
And once the extension is granted why does the summit need to be this month.
The certainty to vote tables in the ORB that I linked to from Feb 2016 look pretty close to the actual result.
Just because something is commonly held to be true, doesn't mean that it is.
I think we can produce evidence that some campaigns work, such as Lab in GE 2017, but in the referendum, I see little evidence that either side changed any minds.
As I`ve said before - it can only come about by leavers themselves admitting that they got it wrong. Scant evidence of that. We have to leave now I think.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_United_Kingdom_European_Union_membership_referendum
After the referendum result, they crept out from behind the curtain to announce that they were open to a compromise (mysteriously on exactly the terms they wanted). But by that point, the option of such a way forward had been closed off.
Simples.
Would save me a few quid.
The politicians have had months of humming and haaing about an election. Young children only get a tiny number of years where the magic of Christmas is so real - and even fewer were its both real and they will remember things like nativities. Cancelling them because the politicians can't be arsed to pull their finger out any other time isn't reasonable.
If the Government tries again to table its own motion for an election , only 5 weeks are needed - should it succeed.
"Imagine you are someone with a highly strung temperament who has had the good fortune to have got their own way for most of their life, but just lost an argument with a person less academically able and financially well off than them"
We have ample evidence that people voted UKIP for years before the vote. Let’s assume that both them and also voters similar to them who registered to vote just to vote in that election total 4.5 million. If we then assume half of the conservative voters in 2015 would vote leave then we already have 10 million locked in votes even before the campaign.
Now I am one of those strange Lib Dem voters who now support Brexit - and I was initially going to vote Leave on democratic grounds - I don’t believe that democracy is served well at a distance in Brussels, and I was not happy with ever closer union, but I voted remain in the end because of the cataclysmic economic forecasts in the event of leave. I was convinced by an argument and that prompted me to vote Remain.
In my experience I have not come across anyone who was going to vote Remain but was convinced by the arguments during the campaign to vote Leave. So the argument that leave tricked people doesn’t ring true to me. It seems more plausible that over a number of years a build up of anti-EU sentiment that could not normally be indicated at the ballot box was mobilised.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUDntpV_HdQ
To give you an illustration: before the referendum I co-ran an evening session for local Conservative Party members on what Brexit might mean in practice. I did this with someone else who was a staunch Leaver, and before the evening we jointly prepared a paper and presentation on the various options (Norway, Canada, WTO etc), trying to keep it as factual and non-partisan as we could. Bearing in mind that the attendees were by definition politically active, and that most of them were potential Leave supporters, two things stood out from the reaction we got. The first was that several people told me that our presentation was the first clear information that they had ever been given on what Brexit could mean n practice. The second was that, at the end of the evening, we asked for a show of hands on how people would vote. This split almost evenly three ways, between Leave, Remain, and Don't Know - amongst Tory activists in a rural Leave-voting area! And of course, the concerns amongst the Don't Knows were largely economic; the Leave campaign had to neutralise those concerns to win.
When would the election have to be called by for 5th December?
How many people here switched sides or were genuinely undecided during the referendum campaign?
I did - but I think I was the exception to the rule.
Via a 2/3rds vote? Halloween.
Either ignore them, or ask to vote again.
Hardcore remainers (quite a few on this site) really do not care about the referendum result.
It's:
Invalid because Leave lied - Okay then, every vote since 1832 is probably invalid on that basis. We've got a LOT of rerunning to get through, and a lot of corpses to dig up and ask how they would've voted if only they'd known.
Too difficult to implement due to Belfast agreement - Not really. EEA+CU WILL work. EEA + comprehensive FTA will probably work too.
Will make you poorer - Yes. It probably will short term. Long term, who knows. Crack on.
Should've been a 66% supermajority - Why? Why THIS one, and not the earlier ones?
Was too close to call - Wales 1997. NEXT!
Breaches the Belfast agreement - This is probably the 'best' argument I've seen, as the only way around this is to renege on a Treaty (or take EEA+CU). But then, if this is the only way, why the hell did Cameron offer the referendum in the first place? (Hint - to become largest party in a hung parliament and a way to Coalition Mark 2 - shame he didn't get that one right).
We've got to leave the EU, and the sooner Dominic Grieve and his nutters realise this, and work towards an EEA solution the better.
But that ship has sailed. So we're fucked. Truly, truly fucked.
But, as I've said many times, though you obviously weren't listening, an EU-member UK must have a much more serious attitude towards immigration than shown by the Blair/Brown/Cameron governments, all of which were much more interested in the economic benefits of so-called social dumping than the social consequences. The arrival of millions of people has been very good for us in many ways, but the negatives were swept under the carpet. And most of those negatives could've been alleviated by taking a much more pedantic approach to the EU free-movement rules, and having more policies and money directed to those areas most affected by immigration.
Seems there's a few people who were willing to vote for a deal so long as they knew it would lose.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1184104292795502593
Realistically if a deal goes through I can't see any election until the Spring.
From memory, Vote Leave said we would be part of a free trade zone from somewhere to somewhere else which suggests but only suggests they wanted a free trade agreement with the EU. But that's all. It could as easily mean membership of the EEA. And as for No Deal looking again at the Vote Leave manifesto, it is possible to derive no deal from that also.
No doubt economics swung some voters from leave to remain, but when the final tally was done there werent enoigh of them.
Your illustration simply says remain and Osborne ran a crap campaign by treating people with scare stories.Remain has and still has valid economic points but currently they are all lost in the mire of shroud waving and calamity spin.
If we had a second referendum remain would still lose the economic argument because you cant communicate reasonably.
Why can`t it be January?
https://twitter.com/james_bowley/status/1184089439305392134
Yep - the referndum may as well said: "Do you like the government? Tick Yes or No".
It was of course a huge failing of the Remain campaign not to allow for and address the fact that morons will act moronically.
In general the efforts of the political parties will cancel each other out. So any impact is likely to be at the margin (which may still be important).
This suggests that a mistake in a campaign (eg social care taxes) is more costly.
This suggests that a low risk strategy should be adopted by the main parties.
Minor parties probably need a high risk strategy to try and get increased awareness (eg LD revoke message).
Nor, crucially did it come from people who could convince.
Ah, cults. A handy little association into which cretins self-select.
If the latter, surely Corbyn is in a stronger position that ever - at least with regard to the menbership?
but youre still meant to be smarter.
ever heard of postal votes