24hrs later, It strikes me that ...

Heartfeltdawn

thomasross20 said:

Did remain ever have a plan? Just playing devil's advocate... I don't think any side has any plan!

I find whatever one side says about the other... the same can be said in reverse lol.

If you want a crude analogy, then think about the amount of paperwork it takes to get married versus the amount of paperwork and legal stuff it takes to get divorced. 

Remain = status quo. 

Leave = redrawing of a great deal. Takes time and money. Helps to have a plan, yes? 

quarky

As I said on another thread, it isn't about leave having a plan, or remain.

The Government called the referendum, and they should have had a plan for either result. It seems like the plan was "resign" which is pretty irresponsible.

thomasross20

That's my point though, status quo... just drifting and continuing what went before. Remain never did have any plan, just like leave. Yeah, there'll be a shedload of stuff to sort out but I don't think either side made any sort of plan. And there were barely any facts to act upon at the vote, it was an opinion poll, I believe, as mentioned elsewhere.

I agree thatnot having both plans and then just quitting was irresponsible.

ICBM

You're missing the point. Remain didn't need a 'plan' in case of winning, because nothing would change - they already had a 'plan', it was the daily business of government.

Calling Cameron irresponsible is a colossal understatement, but if anything Boris and Gove are worse. I suspect that's why they've been so quiet and don't want to invoke Article 50 yet.

thomasross20

ICBM said:

You're missing the point. Remain didn't need a 'plan' in case of winning, because nothing would change - they already had a 'plan', it was the daily business of government.

Calling Cameron irresponsible is a colossal understatement, but if anything Boris and Gove are worse. I suspect that's why they've been so quiet and don't want to invoke Article 50 yet.

Hey man, I know... My point was, we dream-walked into the whole EU thing without any plan either. I think some folk are saying that remain had these big plans when what they really mean is, no side had any "plan" advantage, it's just the easy path to continue on as we were. 

FYI I agree we've lost a lot of benefits - there were many advantages to being in the EU. For one, at a personal level, I wanted to work in Europe at some point - I'm sure that can still be arranged but that's one example of something that will be more difficult to do. I said in another thread, I'm not a leave voter... and I'm not remain. There wasn't enough info to go on from either side. The whole thing is a mess. 

They do look like bully boys right now, forcing us out quickly etc!

Chalky

Don't be silly. There is a lot to do and it wiĺl take time. You NEVER start negotiations on your opponents timetable.

The steps to be followed will be something like:
A) Select the new PM. Could be Boris but he needs to check he has the backing in the Tory party.
Select the new Cabinet. New leader needs ministers he can trust, and a mix of Euroscepticism and ministerial experience.
C) Build the negotiating team. Civil servants and external consultants with the right experience.
D) Develop the negotiation strategy. How are you going to approach it, what is your target outcome, what do you want the other side to THINK is your target outcome, assess the other side's likely stance on all the different items up for negotiation, what tactics are you going to use, how do you manage the message to parliament and public, plan your actions and timescales, evaluate support among EU states and any leverage via EU states, decide where and when negotiations will begin and the timetable you will push for.
E) Declare Article50 and begin negotiations.

This will take a while to do...

TTony

thomasross20 said:

Hey man, I know... My point was, we dream-walked into the whole EU thing without any plan either. 

Not strictly true.

In the previous European referendum, we voted to join, albeit that we voted to join a European Economic Community rather than a Eurocrat-driven homogenised Europe.

It has gradually morphed into something quite different which, it is becoming apparent, a large number of people in other European countries are similarly uncomfortable about.

thomasross20

@TTony, I agree... it's not the same thing we joined in the first place. That's where my dream-walking comes in

ThePrettyDamned

Why did 28 percent not vote? That's quite a sizeable amount. Regardless of the result, I'd be interested to know.

72 percent seems good compared to general election but in such a monumental decision, it's poor I think. Not to mention that we're not the right people to ask.

I'd be interested to know why 28 percent didn't vote. Is that protest? Not knowing enough? Laziness? Not caring? What does that 28 percent think now?

In any statistical test, a result of yes/no/fail that ends as close as 37/35/28 would be deemed unfit for purpose.

guitarfishbay

My complete guess? Top 4 reasons in no particular order:

Didn't care enough to fit it into the day
Didn't understand enough to feel legitimate/confident in their choice
Didn't think it would change anything
Didn't want to

Sure it is more complex than that for some, but those are often common reasons for not voting.

At the end of the day not voting is a choice. We don't have compulsory voting in the UK.

cacophony

i didn't vote because i just didn't know what was going to happen if we left. it was all guesswork, it still is. but my not voting has just been made easier for me to justify having sat here watching the 'andrew marr show'

he just interviewed the business secretary, whose name i think was saheed jarvez (my apologies if that's incorrect) who was on the `remain` side during the run up. marr asked him  when the 'punishment budget' was scheduled to take place, to increase taxes, put up vat, and slash spending. also when would the ten percent fall in our property values begin. and once the massive recession predicted kicks in, when would we see the first of the half a million job losses that the remain camp forecast.

seeing him squirm and try to weasel his way out of what his colleagues had previously forecast was sooo sweet. when marr asked him if it was all just made up to scare a gullible populace, there was no way he was going to use the words 'yes' or 'no'.

liars, the whole fucking lot of them, using the word "robust" about ten times in an interview does not lend the lies they peddled any more legitimacy.i think millions who voted, for both camps, have been conned. a truly shameful campaign from both sides.

ICBM

thomasross20 said:

They do look like bully boys right now, forcing us out quickly etc!

Not all of them. There is now a power struggle going on between Junker and Merkel.

If the result is the diminuition of the power of the Eurocrats in favour of the national governments - as I think it will be, since she who holds the purse-strings calls the tune in the end - then at least something good will have come out of this mess.

mgaw

Merkel will hold sway i think, i do think that the vast unravelling that will have to take place now will be viewed by some as an unparralled opportunity to "rewrite" the rule book to their advantage...

TTony

cacophony said:

he just interviewed the business secretary, whose name i think was saheed jarvez (my apologies if that's incorrect) who was on the `remain` side during the run up. marr asked him  when the 'punishment budget' was scheduled to take place, to increase taxes, put up vat, and slash spending. also when would the ten percent fall in our property values begin. and once the massive recession predicted kicks in, when would we see the first of the half a million job losses that the remain camp forecast.

I watched that too.

I thought Marr's "this is my own analysis" piece at the beginning of the show was excellent.

The interview of Sajid Javid was painful to watch, if you're Sajid Javid.  As Marr said, the punishment budget now appears to have been lost somewhere along the way.  It was pure BS.  Part of the scare stories that were fantasy.

Now, the leave camp are just as guilty of making promises that they'll not be able to deliver.

The whole lot of them have lost all credibility and any right to be making government-status decisions on our behalf.  The thought that any of them will be directing negotiations on our behalf is terrifying.  I'd not trust them to negotiate with a plant and come out ahead.

ICBM said:

thomasross20 said:

They do look like bully boys right now, forcing us out quickly etc!

Not all of them. There is now a power struggle going on between Junker and Merkel.

There's only one way that struggle is going to end.

"Herr Junker, who pays your bills?"

"Err, you do Frau Merkel"

"Then kindly shut up and do as you're told"

Heartfeltdawn

ThePrettyDamned said:

Why did 28 percent not vote? That's quite a sizeable amount. Regardless of the result, I'd be interested to know.

72 percent seems good compared to general election but in such a monumental decision, it's poor I think. Not to mention that we're not the right people to ask.

I'd be interested to know why 28 percent didn't vote. Is that protest? Not knowing enough? Laziness? Not caring? What does that 28 percent think now?

In any statistical test, a result of yes/no/fail that ends as close as 37/35/28 would be deemed unfit for purpose.

What do you mean by "We're not the right people to ask"?

There are loads of reasons why people didn't vote. Laziness/can't be bothered is the main one. Incorrect registrations, people moving address without informing Electoral Services, changes in work without gaining a proxy or postal ballot, all these will come into play but are pretty small statistically. 

There are a lot of people who didn't vote because they were medically or mentally incapacitated. On my voter list last Thursday, the ward covered three different care homes. Roughly 850 people on my list including postal and proxy ballots. In total about 50 names on my listing had a care home address: less than 5 actually came to vote. This was the same for the May 2016 elections. 50 doesn't sound like much but if this was replicated across the 210+ wards of Bristol, 50*210 = 10,000 voters out of a 300,000 electorate. 

There will be people in hospital who don't vote. The NHS sees 1 million people every 36 hours. Conceivably you could say that half a million voters each day might be sidetracked on voting day by illness or injury. 500,000 people die each year, 1369 per year: that death will affect dependents and family who then may not vote because of grief or being busy attending to the situation. 

Heartfeltdawn

quarky said:

As I said on another thread, it isn't about leave having a plan, or remain.

The Government called the referendum, and they should have had a plan for either result. It seems like the plan was "resign" which is pretty irresponsible.

Yes, they should. There's a lack of planning on all sides. "Resign" might seem pretty irresponsible: the blame for that falls on the backbenchers. These are the people like Nadine Dorries who said that she'd call for Cameron to go if he didn't win by 60-40. Even a 52-48 win for remain would have seen people calling for Cameron to be cut free. As much as the Reverend Blair makes me hurl, his piece in the NYT about the Brexit coup contains a lot of truth.  

Cameron quitting was the right thing and the Brexiters didn't think he'd do it. That letter a few days ago asking for him to stay was truly odious.

Roland

TTony said:

The whole lot of them have lost all credibility and any right to be making government-status decisions on our behalf.  The thought that any of them will be directing negotiations on our behalf is terrifying.  I'd not trust them to negotiate with a plant and come out ahead.

ICBM said:

 There is now a power struggle going on between Junker and Merkel.

There's only one way that struggle is going to end.

"Herr Junker, who pays your bills?"

"Err, you do Frau Merkel"

"Then kindly shut up and do as you're told"

The school playground behaviour, which we've seen more and more of over the years, was very apparent in the referendum campaign. It would be nice if those in the political arena realised that pissing off the electorate is as much of a crime as misleading parliament. That would be a win at the UK level.

The demise of Junker and the Eurocrats would be a fitting outcome at a European level.

Chalky

Heartfeltdawn;1126507" said:

quarky said:

As I said on another thread, it isn't about leave having a plan, or remain.

The Government called the referendum, and they should have had a plan for either result. It seems like the plan was "resign" which is pretty irresponsible.





Yes, they should. There's a lack of planning on all sides. "Resign" might seem pretty irresponsible: the blame for that falls on the backbenchers. These are the people like Nadine Dorries who said that she'd call for Cameron to go if he didn't win by 60-40. Even a 52-48 win for remain would have seen people calling for Cameron to be cut free. As much as the Reverend Blair makes me hurl, his piece in the NYT about the Brexit coup contains a lot of truth.  

Cameron quitting was the right thing and the Brexiters didn't think he'd do it. That letter a few days ago asking for him to stay was truly odious.

Cameron's record on negotiations with the EU demonstrated he was useless so he had to go after a Leave vote.

marantz1300

I voted remain.

But its Democracy ,so there should be no second referendum.

If things get bad, so be it.

you reap what you sow.

I know the EU is corrupt, so is the UK.

I was just a tiny bit worried about taking the shackles off the privileged elite who run this country.

They think the working class are idiots to be used as they please and have treated us like shit for centuries.

I think the result of the vote proves them right.

ThePrettyDamned

Heartfeltdawn;1126497" said:

ThePrettyDamned said:




Why did 28 percent not vote? That's quite a sizeable amount. Regardless of the result, I'd be interested to know.



72 percent seems good compared to general election but in such a monumental decision, it's poor I think. Not to mention that we're not the right people to ask.



I'd be interested to know why 28 percent didn't vote. Is that protest? Not knowing enough? Laziness? Not caring? What does that 28 percent think now?



In any statistical test, a result of yes/no/fail that ends as close as 37/35/28 would be deemed unfit for purpose.





What do you mean by "We're not the right people to ask"?

There are loads of reasons why people didn't vote. Laziness/can't be bothered is the main one. Incorrect registrations, people moving address without informing Electoral Services, changes in work without gaining a proxy or postal ballot, all these will come into play but are pretty small statistically. 

There are a lot of people who didn't vote because they were medically or mentally incapacitated. On my voter list last Thursday, the ward covered three different care homes. Roughly 850 people on my list including postal and proxy ballots. In total about 50 names on my listing had a care home address: less than 5 actually came to vote. This was the same for the May 2016 elections. 50 doesn't sound like much but if this was replicated across the 210+ wards of Bristol, 50*210 = 10,000 voters out of a 300,000 electorate. 

There will be people in hospital who don't vote. The NHS sees 1 million people every 36 hours. Conceivably you could say that half a million voters each day might be sidetracked on voting day by illness or injury. 500,000 people die each year, 1369 per year: that death will affect dependents and family who then may not vote because of grief or being busy attending to the situation. 

What I meant is that we, as the public, are not equipped to make this sort of tough decision - I think that is what the government is there for.

I have considered your reasons. I still think it would be interesting to find out.

But yes, from the start, I felt these big, tough decisions need a team of well informed experts to reason out.

Perhaps I'm just quite stupid - but I don't feel I know enough about the European Union and it's various influences (positive or negative) on us and Europe as a whole for me to make a fully informed decision. I feel like the referendum reflects that - had the decision gone the other way by the same margin, it would indicate much the same.

Perhaps I should not have used my vote. That may have been a better reflection on my thoughts - a "I don't know because the information supplied to me was really poor" box would have fitted me better than stay or go.

I hope we get some strong, cohesive leadership to guide us through this.