Being upbeat about Brexit.

[Nearly Sane]

An alternative view is that they saw it as a form of capitalism that they were opposed to, we are talking about a generation revolting against the idea of globalisation from a then leftist viewpoint but have moved across the spectrum to the same vote from the right?

[ProfessorDavey]

An alternative view is that they saw it as a form of capitalism that they were opposed to, we are talking about a generation revolting against the idea of globalisation from a then leftist viewpoint but have moved across the spectrum to the same vote from the right?

Except from the Guardian link Jakswan provided they don't seem to make moved across the political spectrum

31% of 30-year olds identified with the tories in the 1979 election - fast forward 31 years to 2010 and 31% of 60 year olds (these are the same people) identified with the tories.

[Nearly Sane]

Except from the Guardian link Jakswan provided they don't seem to make moved across the political spectrum

31% of 30-year olds identified with the tories in the 1979 election - fast forward 31 years to 2010 and 31% of 60 year olds (these are the same people) identified with the tories.

Except 31% isn't enough to give the Brexit vote, though there was a much more obvious Labour anti EEC vote as opposed to apathy

[Gordon]

I must have voted in 1975, since I'd have been 23 back then and I've always considered voting to be an obligation, but I can't remember how I voted then or how the issues were portrayed at the time; maybe this is just me, but I wonder how many others who voted then do clearly remember the details from 1975 and took these into account back in June.

[Sebastian Toe]

I must have voted in 1975, since I'd have been 23 back then and I've always considered voting to be an obligation, but I can't remember how I voted then or how the issues were portrayed at the time; maybe this is just me, but I wonder how many others who voted then do clearly remember the details from 1975 and took these into account back in June.

The trade unions were anti EEC iirc.
I voted yes then.

[jeremyp]

I must have voted in 1975, since I'd have been 23 back then and I've always considered voting to be an obligation, but I can't remember how I voted then or how the issues were portrayed at the time; maybe this is just me, but I wonder how many others who voted then do clearly remember the details from 1975 and took these into account back in June.

My parents do. My Dad falls into the camp of voting for the EEC but against the EU. He's one of the people who thinks integration has gone too far.

[jeremyp]

Except 31% isn't enough to give the Brexit vote, though there was a much more obvious Labour anti EEC vote as opposed to apathy

Nobody has claimed that the Tories were the ones voting against the EEC/EU.

The 31% thing was put forward to refute the claim that people get more Conservative as they get older (the one that your alternative view relies on).

The point is that the group of people who were most anti-EEC in 1975 is the same group that is most anti-EU now. This is evidence against Jakswan's hypothesis that people get more anti-EU as they get older which was put forward to refute the assertion that, everything else being equal, the population will get more pro Brexit as the next few years go by.

[Sriram]

Here is an interesting article with graphs, about trends in some European countries like Italy, Austria, France, Germany, Netherlands......which are going to polls soon.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/12/03/europe/populism-in-europe-visual-guide/index.html

[jakswan]

Which translates to:

'I've lost the argument'
Which translates to:

'I have no evidence to back up my hand waving assertons'
Which translates to:

'Darn it, you are so clearly right, but can't really be seen to properly admit it, hence the 'whatever'-type response'
Ah finally something worth properly commenting on.

'So what' - do you really think it is of no importance that even if no-one actually changes their view the electoral mandate for the most important change we have made in decades will have vanished due to demographic shift by the time we actually realise brexit. I think that is pretty darned important, as it makes the mandate deeply unsafe.

So in future referendums should check in with you to make sure the mandate is safe?

[ProfessorDavey]

So in future referendums should check in with you to make sure the mandate is safe?

So you are comfortable that in, say 2020 we enact a soft brexit without knowing whether there is a majority in support of that action. Or we enact a hard brexit without knowing whether there is a majority in support of that action. I want to be sure that at the point of being abel to enact an actual deal that there is a mandate for that deal at that point in time.

There is no mandate for any particular flavour of brexit, and it will be years before we actually have an agreed deal ready to be enacted - the 2016 vote will not provide a mandate at that point, as it will so far too far in the future to be safe to conclude that the 2016 views remain the same. And besides the 2016 vote doesn't provide a mandate for any specific brexit agreement.

Why are you so scared of democracy Jakswan.

[jakswan]

So you are comfortable that in, say 2020 we enact a soft brexit without knowing whether there is a majority in support of that action. Or we enact a hard brexit without knowing whether there is a majority in support of that action. I want to be sure that at the point of being abel to enact an actual deal that there is a mandate for that deal at that point in time.

Not sure they will have to check in with Dave to make sure its ok, after all it might not be ok in 10 years time.

There is no mandate for any particular flavour of brexit, and it will be years before we actually have an agreed deal ready to be enacted - the 2016 vote will not provide a mandate at that point, as it will so far too far in the future to be safe to conclude that the 2016 views remain the same. And besides the 2016 vote doesn't provide a mandate for any specific brexit agreement.

So if the majority are in favor of remaining but Davey's back of fag packet calcs are against we can just ignore the whole thing.

Why are you so scared of democracy Jakswan.

Not your kind where you decide if there is a mandate to do anything.

[Harrowby Hall]

Democracy is a principle, Jakswan, not a straitjacket. It is also a process which adjusts to circumstances.

Mrs May will be ill-advised to rely on an event in 2016 to determine a decision she may take some years later. Her predecessor already seems fated to be considered the most incompetent prime minister since Eden (the politician or the garden - take your choice). She may well overtake him in this contest if she is not careful.

[ProfessorDavey]

So if the majority are in favor of remaining but Davey's back of fag packet calcs are against we can just ignore the whole thing.

But we have no idea whether there will be a majority in favour of the agreed brexit deal in 2020 because it is in the future and there has never been a referendum on any actual brexit deal.

Not your kind where you decide if there is a mandate to do anything.

Quite the reverse - there should be a mandate from the british people on the actual brexit deal at the point when it can be enacted. Currently there is absolutely no mandate for a hard brexit, a soft brexit or a red, a white and blue brexit or any other possible brext deal. Do you really think we should make the most important decision this country will have taken in decades without a mandate (noting too that in the General Election there was only a mandate for a referendum, and the government which was voted in favoured remaining in the EU).

[ProfessorDavey]

Democracy is a principle, Jakswan, not a straitjacket. It is also a process which adjusts to circumstances.

Quite - Jakswan's view is a bit like saying after 2015 - you voted Tory, get over it and cancelling any further general election because 'the people have spoken' and therefore they have a mandate to govern in perpetuity. We typically accept that a democratic mandate lasts no more than 4 or 5 years (hence why we have regular elections) and given that it will probably be 2020 before we leave (in other words 4 years after the 2016 vote, then that mandate under normal circumstances would already be seen to be out of date. And that is in circumstance where we actually voted in 2016 on a real deal, not a hypothetical, all things to all people, brexit. So actually there isn't a mandate for any actual deal, whether a bit long in the tooth or otherwise.

[jakswan]

But we have no idea whether there will be a majority in favour of the agreed brexit deal in 2020 because it is in the future and there has never been a referendum on any actual brexit deal.
Quite the reverse - there should be a mandate from the british people on the actual brexit deal at the point when it can be enacted. Currently there is absolutely no mandate for a hard brexit, a soft brexit or a red, a white and blue brexit or any other possible brext deal. Do you really think we should make the most important decision this country will have taken in decades without a mandate (noting too that in the General Election there was only a mandate for a referendum, and the government which was voted in favoured remaining in the EU).

oic this is about another vote on the exit deal. Blimey just argue for that then, jeez no wonder you lost!

Joined libdems yet?

[jakswan]

Quite - Jakswan's view is a bit like saying after 2015 - you voted Tory, get over it and cancelling any further general election because 'the people have spoken' and therefore they have a mandate to govern in perpetuity. We typically accept that a democratic mandate lasts no more than 4 or 5 years (hence why we have regular elections) and given that it will probably be 2020 before we leave (in other words 4 years after the 2016 vote, then that mandate under normal circumstances would already be seen to be out of date. And that is in circumstance where we actually voted in 2016 on a real deal, not a hypothetical, all things to all people, brexit. So actually there isn't a mandate for any actual deal, whether a bit long in the tooth or otherwise.

No strawman, the mandate to leave comes from act of parliament, if you want a vote on the deal then comfortable with the democratic process that will get you one.

If the libdems start gaining traction then the government will be unable to ignore them. Actually think we will see a GE before then.

[ProfessorDavey]

No strawman, the mandate to leave comes from act of parliament, if you want a vote on the deal then comfortable with the democratic process that will get you one.

You brexiters do seem to be a tad confused - I could have sworn that the brexit brigade and the government were fighting tooth and nail, all the way to the Supreme Court, to prevent Parliament triggering brexit via an act of parliament. Now you seem to be saying they should.

And if there is an act of parliament, and parliament is of course sovereign, MPs and peers cannot be forced to vote in a particular manner - their discretion cannot be fettered and certainly not by an advisory referendum. So you need to consider where those MPs gain their mandate - well from the vote in 2015 based on the manifesto of the parties they stood for. And in virtually ever case those elected MPs were elected on the basis of a party manifesto based on staying in the EU - indeed I think of the 650 MPs only the one UKIP MP, and perhaps the handful of NI unionists campaigned on a platform of leaving the EU.

[jakswan]

You brexiters do seem to be a tad confused - I could have sworn that the brexit brigade and the government were fighting tooth and nail, all the way to the Supreme Court, to prevent Parliament triggering brexit via an act of parliament. Now you seem to be saying they should.

The divisive nature of this debate is wearing, labeling people as the "other" is not going to help. So I'm not going to consider anyone who voted differently as having a label and all think and act the same way, instead I'll ask what someones thoughts are.

So with regard to article 50 I'm no legal expert but glad is going through the courts for clarity, from a political POV my opinion is that when Parliament voted 6 to 1 for the referendum act the Parliament gave that decision to the electorate. I would think this allows the government to invoke article 50.
 

And if there is an act of parliament, and parliament is of course sovereign, MPs and peers cannot be forced to vote in a particular manner - their discretion cannot be fettered and certainly not by an advisory referendum. So you need to consider where those MPs gain their mandate - well from the vote in 2015 based on the manifesto of the parties they stood for. And in virtually ever case those elected MPs were elected on the basis of a party manifesto based on staying in the EU - indeed I think of the 650 MPs only the one UKIP MP, and perhaps the handful of NI unionists campaigned on a platform of leaving the EU.

Where did I suggest that MPs should be forced to do anything? I think the vast majority of MPs will vote for Article 50, apart from the SNP and LibDems, maybe Green MP.

If you can convince a lot more people to support the LibDems we may well see another vote on the Brexit deal, I'm quite open to that idea. What is Labours position on this the most important political topic in a generation?

Would strongly suggest you give yourself a talking to, tell yourself that poor arguments, hysteria, strawmen, name-calling, demonisation of those that have a different opinion will ultimately end with the same result, a loss for you.

[ProfessorDavey]

The divisive nature of this debate is wearing, labeling people as the "other" is not going to help. So I'm not going to consider anyone who voted differently as having a label and all think and act the same way, instead I'll ask what someones thoughts are.

Agreed - which is, of course one of the major arguments in favour of a second referendum - that the 52% only agreed on what they were against, not what they were for. They are a massively broad church from the out and out xenophobes, through to those who favour much more free market 'freedom', including of course freedom for companies to recruit who they want from wherever.

And if we leave the EU we need to be clear that there is a mandate as to what we are for (i.e. the actual brexit deal).

So with regard to article 50 I'm no legal expert but glad is going through the courts for clarity, from a political POV my opinion is that when Parliament voted 6 to 1 for the referendum act the Parliament gave that decision to the electorate. I would think this allows the government to invoke article 50.

I can't see how this is a tenable argument when Parliament agreed to an advisory referendum. If they believed they had fettered their own discretion after the referendum they would have enacted a binding referendum - they didn't.

All parliament voted for was for a referendum to take place, nothing more, nothing less - the remit of the bill and act have been finalised - a referendum has taken place. Note the following form the official research brief for the bill:

'This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the UK’s continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented.'

That's what MPs voted for.

Would strongly suggest you give yourself a talking to, tell yourself that poor arguments, hysteria, strawmen, name-calling, demonisation of those that have a different opinion will ultimately end with the same result, a loss for you.

I think you are confusing me for some other poster - perhaps you are putting all remainers in the same box (see above).

I have engaged in argument - I'm not in the business of throwing insults around, I'll let the arguments do the talking. Rather than accusing me of 'name calling' (I haven't) of 'demonisation' (I haven't), of 'hysteria' (eh - have you read my posts), you might be better trying to address the actual points I am raising.

[jakswan]

Agreed - which is, of course one of the major arguments in favour of a second referendum - that the 52% only agreed on what they were against, not what they were for. They are a massively broad church from the out and out xenophobes, through to those who favour much more free market 'freedom', including of course freedom for companies to recruit who they want from wherever.

And other reasons as well, still glad to see you take advice.

And if we leave the EU we need to be clear that there is a mandate as to what we are for (i.e. the actual brexit deal).

Sure you can argue for another vote if you like, not convinced personally, but that will be upto politicians to decide. The only political party that agrees with you on this it seems are the LibDems, joined them yet?

I can't see how this is a tenable argument when Parliament agreed to an advisory referendum. If they believed they had fettered their own discretion after the referendum they would have enacted a binding referendum - they didn't.

All parliament voted for was for a referendum to take place, nothing more, nothing less - the remit of the bill and act have been finalised - a referendum has taken place. Note the following form the official research brief for the bill:

'This Bill requires a referendum to be held on the question of the UK’s continued membership of the European Union (EU) before the end of 2017. It does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented.'

It is tenable to me and many others, democracy gotta love it! Although I'm actually quite open to a vote on the deal, I'd be quite happy with Norway type deal personally.

As to the Act I don't think it would have been possible to have made it binding since it was pre-legislative.

From Wiki
"pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions."

I think any political party would have to change their policy given the electorate voted that way.

That's what MPs voted for.

Think it depends on the MP, clearly Tories, as a party voted to change policy in accordance with the electorate. 

I think you are confusing me for some other poster - perhaps you are putting all remainers in the same box (see above).

You are effectively saying 'I know you are but what am I' dear me, grow-up.

I have engaged in argument - I'm not in the business of throwing insults around, I'll let the arguments do the talking. Rather than accusing me of 'name calling' (I haven't) of 'demonisation' (I haven't), of 'hysteria' (eh - have you read my posts), you might be better trying to address the actual points I am raising.

I always address your points, we simply don't agree on some issues.

[ProfessorDavey]

Sure you can argue for another vote if you like, not convinced personally, but that will be upto politicians to decide. The only political party that agrees with you on this it seems are the LibDems, joined them yet?

Nope.

We are in a phoney war phase, where brexit still means all things to all men (and women) - but that won't last - over the next 18 months or so brexit will be nailed down as soft, or hard, or red, white and blue, or sky blue pink etc with the other options no longer available. That will drive divisions in the brexit camp.

So for example if it becomes clear that the direction of travel is for super-soft Norway style brexit, do you really think the hard core UKIPers will shrug their shoulders and mutter, 'sure, fine, whatever'. Nope, as we have already seen with at least one poster here, they will be fuming, claiming that the deal isn't what they voted for and that there is no mandate - quite possible they'll see a second referendum as necessary.

On the contrary, from the Dan Hannon wing (which includes many pro-ish EU tories) if brexit is careering down a hard non-single market route, with massive restrictions on migration (that those people think are essential for economic prosperity), don't you think they will be claiming 'this isn't what I voted for and it isn't in britain's interests - we have no mandate for this (easy to argue given that 48% wanted no brexit at all), we must have a mandate so a second referendum is essential.

It is tenable to me and many others, democracy gotta love it! Although I'm actually quite open to a vote on the deal, I'd be quite happy with Norway type deal personally.

And you have demonstrated my point ably - the settlement you'd be quite 'happy with' is completely unacceptable to another brexit poster here, with initials JK.

As to the Act I don't think it would have been possible to have made it binding since it was pre-legislative.

From Wiki
"pre-legislative or consultative, which enables the electorate to voice an opinion which then influences the Government in its policy decisions."

Nope it was perfectly possible, parliament chose not to. In the previous UK-wide referendum (on AV vs FPTP) parliament enacted a binding referendum - in this case they didn't.

I think any political party would have to change their policy given the electorate voted that way.

Why? By inference your line of argument means that when a government wins an election (on a manifesto) the opposition would have to change their policy to align with that of the new government, because they had lost the vote. That is non-sense - an opposition is quite within its rights to continue to consider that a policy is wrong even when it has lost a vote, and to continue to oppose that policy. Remember that MPs (and by inference their parties) aren't delegates (i.e. expected to align their position to reflect that of their electorate) - no they are representatives, voted in to represent all their constituents in parliament, but under no obligation to follow a popular opinion. And of course if constituents don't like the line their MP has taken, they can throw them our at the next election.

[jakswan]

Nope.

We are in a phoney war phase, where brexit still means all things to all men (and women) - but that won't last - over the next 18 months or so brexit will be nailed down as soft, or hard, or red, white and blue, or sky blue pink etc with the other options no longer available. That will drive divisions in the brexit camp.

So for example if it becomes clear that the direction of travel is for super-soft Norway style brexit, do you really think the hard core UKIPers will shrug their shoulders and mutter, 'sure, fine, whatever'. Nope, as we have already seen with at least one poster here, they will be fuming, claiming that the deal isn't what they voted for and that there is no mandate - quite possible they'll see a second referendum as necessary.

On the contrary, from the Dan Hannon wing (which includes many pro-ish EU tories) if brexit is careering down a hard non-single market route, with massive restrictions on migration (that those people think are essential for economic prosperity), don't you think they will be claiming 'this isn't what I voted for and it isn't in britain's interests - we have no mandate for this (easy to argue given that 48% wanted no brexit at all), we must have a mandate so a second referendum is essential.

A 2nd referendum would need to get through parliament, quite clear there is going to be support for more softer Brexit and doubt it will go any further.   

And you have demonstrated my point ably - the settlement you'd be quite 'happy with' is completely unacceptable to another brexit poster here, with initials JK.

I have demonstrated nothing, in a democracy the majority prevails.

Nope it was perfectly possible, parliament chose not to. In the previous UK-wide referendum (on AV vs FPTP) parliament enacted a binding referendum - in this case they didn't.

Not sure that is correct but its a moot point.

Why? By inference your line of argument means that when a government wins an election (on a manifesto) the opposition would have to change their policy to align with that of the new government, because they had lost the vote. That is non-sense - an opposition is quite within its rights to continue to consider that a policy is wrong even when it has lost a vote, and to continue to oppose that policy. Remember that MPs (and by inference their parties) aren't delegates (i.e. expected to align their position to reflect that of their electorate) - no they are representatives, voted in to represent all their constituents in parliament, but under no obligation to follow a popular opinion. And of course if constituents don't like the line their MP has taken, they can throw them our at the next election.

An election and an advisory referendum are not the same thing. Perhaps poorly worded on my part, I enter into evidence:-

MPs back government's Brexit timetable 448 v 75
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38243500

I'll edit most political parties will switch

[Harrowby Hall]

I have demonstrated nothing, in a democracy the majority prevails.

Think carefully: how do you define majority?

[Sassy]

No we won't. We'll be kicking ourselves that we didn't stay and help save it.

The EU can't collapse without causing major problems for the UK.

There is no major problems with the UK, just the people who were running it.

[ProfessorDavey]

I have demonstrated nothing, in a democracy the majority prevails.

So can you tell me please which type of brexit (e.g. hard, soft, red white blue) has a majority in favour of it.