post brexit

[RaceTheSweeper]

This seems pertinent

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politic...endum-36642662

I pointed this out to a remain voter to which her respons was "well, they are all idiots"

Treating people like idiots doesn't get them on board!

That says it all really. It is views like this remain voter that was one of the main reasons I and many others voted "Leave". Before the vote it was widely view by remain that those over 50 should not have a vote as it is not their future. That those unemployed and uneducated should not have a vote as they are not informed enough to make that decision. My vote for "Leave" was mainly on my belief of democracy and that every person of voting age should retain their right to Vote. I did not want to wake up on that Friday morning to find I now belonged in a Country of bigots. Not just racism makes you a bigot. I am not saying every "remain" voter is a bigot but that is the message that was getting through before the vote and even more so since.
My voice is as important as yours. We may not agree but i have a right to a say without being attacked and dismissed for it. There was no balanced debate during the campaign and there is still no balanced debate. I personally think that David Cameron is a coward and has walked away from his duties like a spoiled brat that has lost the game so gone home with his bat and ball. The news is still being censored by the EU to show the "leave" campaign as the ones jumping ship after causing all the chaos. There was a speech by Juncker here - https://www.facebook.com/Channel4New...type=2&theater
This has been censored. I watched this speech live on BBC news 24 and his most scathing attack is on David Cameron for his cowardice in not leading his country through to the conclusion that we have come to. His attack on Cameron was far more scathing than the attack on anyone else mentioned. It was obviously decided that that message was not in the interests of the EU. I am unable to find this speech as a whole and if you watch it you will see where it has been cut.
If you want to point blame look at all the children in this country that are not getting the education they deserve. Look at children in poverty. Look at our struggling health system, our fire service, our police service. So many things that are already wrong with our country has happened while within the watch of the EU. We did not vote for dictatorship so why are we settling for it within the EU.
I have a voice and if that makes me an idiot then so blooming be it!

[Graham Breeze]

This seems pertinent

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politic...endum-36642662

I pointed this out to a remain voter to which her respons was "well, they are all idiots"

Treating people like idiots doesn't get them on board!

Indeed; but presumably I, along with rest of the electorate, was also treated like an "idiot" but because I am not then I just laughed it off and voted in what I decided was the intelligent way and in the best interest of the country.

The logic of King's argument is that if you treat people like "idiots" some of them will deliberately and perversely vote like "idiots"; which presumably is indeed idiotic?

I suspect that privately "snake-oil salesman" Johnson et al do view many of the electorate as "idiots" (relative to Old Etonians/Oxbridge) but realised that sound-bites like "Let's Make Thursday Independence Day" is a more seductive way to garner votes than Osborne's hyperbolic warnings of draconian budgets.

And so they are: especially in the land of dreams that is Hollywood.

[Muddy Retriever]

Here is some positive action.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36744736

We need to see much more of it.

[shaunaneto]

"However, they do tend to accept the result"

I'd suggest the majority of remain voters accept the result tbh. Don't assume the shouty ones speak for the majority. And listen even less to pissy opinion pieces in the news. Im not seeing (after the immediate result) any genuine credible attempt by the electorate to overturn the vote. Agreeing with it being a good idea is another matter.

Has there been any genuine research in opinions on wanting to subvert the vote. Listening to Guardian readers rant on the Internet just after they've spat out there Prosecco might not give a balanced view.

The key word in there is credible, a petition with 4 million signatures isn't that, not by a long shot. Over 17.411 million shots might be getting there.

Your biggest threat is our own political establishment.

[Mike T]

As in elections, in referenda we unfortunately cannot expect the MPs to tell us the truth. The result of course still stands, but that does not mean we have to like it - after an election if we lose do we shut up for 5 years?
What is amazing is how little planning there was for brexit - compare how much planning the SNP had done in the Scottish referendum.
A different issue is the future PM - May or Leadsom - surely any system that results in choosing between these two is by definition not fit for purpose.

[mr brightside]

Bit harsh to describe Nigel Farage as having a poisonous and narcissistic mindset
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politic...endum-36306681



For what it's worth I don't have a problem with people continuing to agitate for the political result they want, that's how democracy works, everyone has a right to an opinion and has a vote* to further that. One side losing doesn't justify censorship of opinion. Even if it was two thirds remain I'd consider it right and proper for those that wanted to leave to retain their right to want that.

As stated before, if you want stability and decisiveness. Go and convince people, don't sit there bashing out insults whilst trying to justify political censorship. Opinion is split enough, sneering will not help.

*unless you own a chain of media outlets, when you effectively have lots of votes

For what it's worth at this late hour, i'm not referring to anyone on here.

[shaunaneto]

As in elections, in referenda we unfortunately cannot expect the MPs to tell us the truth. The result of course still stands, but that does not mean we have to like it - after an election if we lose do we shut up for 5 years?
What is amazing is how little planning there was for brexit - compare how much planning the SNP had done in the Scottish referendum.
A different issue is the future PM - May or Leadsom - surely any system that results in choosing between these two is by definition not fit for purpose.

Straight through the next set of traffic lights then take your third RIGHT, keep an eye our for signs to the M666, take the slip on the LEFT (right if your SWP), stay on until Junction 43 at which point you'll understand the meaning of it all, there's a couple of roundabouts to negotiate and parkings a bit tricky but that's the way to Skegness alright. To be honest, ask someone else and you'll get different directions.

[shaunaneto]

For what it's worth at this late hour, i'm not referring to anyone on here.

Christ, I hope your not taking seriously what on that OTHER forum. Bunch of geriatric gum flappers barely step outside since the old and bold days.

[Witton Park]

As in elections, in referenda we unfortunately cannot expect the MPs to tell us the truth. The result of course still stands, but that does not mean we have to like it - after an election if we lose do we shut up for 5 years?
What is amazing is how little planning there was for brexit - compare how much planning the SNP had done in the Scottish referendum.
A different issue is the future PM - May or Leadsom - surely any system that results in choosing between these two is by definition not fit for purpose.

The quality of debate has been poor as long as I can remember which goes back to Thatcher. The election campaigns and confrontational debates do nothing and for some reason the media always has to put a spin on it.
Even the so called Independent is anything but.

However, there are a few things to pull you up on. The SNP had to plan and could plan as they were one party. They were always likely to win as well and so they could put forward a plan with a degree off certainty. They aren't so keen now though with the advanced powers they have.
The ability to end austerity by tax raising, but they chose not to. Not so easy after all.

It is astounding that Cameron and the Government didn't pan more for Brexit. I don't know if it was complacency. But they were the only ones who could plan as they were the only ones in a position to act.

Now when it comes to May or Leadsom, I think it's harsh to judge either in the way you have. Parties always pick leaders and not the public. They might be OK. Only time will tell.
They cannot be any worse than the recent incumbents.

[shaunaneto]

However, there are a few things to pull you up on. The SNP had to plan and could plan as they were one party. They were always likely to win as well and so they could put forward a plan with a degree off certainty. They aren't so keen now though with the advanced powers they have.
The ability to end austerity by tax raising, but they chose not to. Not so easy after all.

UKIP have had 23 years to concoct something resembling an exit plan, it was there reason to exist after all! Where is it? The SNP concocted the white paper to win the argument first and foremost.

UKIP appear to have just gone...
image.jpg

It is astounding that Cameron and the Government didn't pan more for Brexit. I don't know if it was complacency. But they were the only ones who could plan as they were the only ones in a position to act.

Both parties in this should have had something better than what's transpired. Although the murky world of the upper echelons of the civil service could easily be better organised than were being told. Carney seemed to pull a few quid out of his arse fairly quickly.

But that might be admitting to high levels of influence of the unelected over the way the UK is run.