I like Richard Herring's take; that everyone who didn't vote should be counted as remain, because not being bothered is essentially saying "things are fine as they are".
Ive heard (I havn't checked this however) that in many countries, any referendum on large scale change, needs a large majority to stop changes being made wiley niley..... I seem to remember the phrase " two thirds majority", but I'll need to Google it! Edit, yep it's this Supermajority - Wikipedia
But equally it could mean 'I didn't vote because I don't care what happens'. My daughter (9) is becoming aware of brexit (she'll be 10 on brexit day so it's a meaningful date for her). I tried to explain what it was, what it meant, how it happened, what it will mean for her future (working, travelling, etc). She said 'can kids vote?... because I would have voted to stay in the eu and stay part of Europe'. Sadly not I said. People like her grandad voted to leave and yet it is mine and her generation that will be mopping up the mess long after he's gone. Quite simply the referendum and brexit is one of the most profoundly ill thought out and politically stupid situations I think I'll ever see.
I couldn't vote. I've been out of the country too long, so not allowed to vote on something that could have a huge impact on my life. Apparently that's democracy!
The worrying thing is...it shows just how dumb people are. Not just the people that voted leave on a wave of xenophobia, propaganda, lies and a wish to a return some sort of plucky British empire (I'll admit some brexit voters had a more nuanced view than that but I'm pretty sure that applies to a large majority of them...something like 51% maybe at least). But the whole set up and lack of planning on the part of the politicians. It was a real eye opener for me...the realisation...no one intelligent or switched on is actually steering this ship. The adults are not in charge. No one is. Maybe I've been overly naive all these years but that's one of the biggest takeaways from all this. All the layers of legislation, civil servants, experts, advisors, think tanks, lobby groups, etc. And no one made sure that we could actually have a say over the final result of this tortuous process. We have decided to eat in the worst restuarant in town and made no other plans to eat elsewhere or just head back home when we're served up a poo sandwich.
Absolutely bonkers. Yet all the people whose lives will only be affected by having to pay a few quid for a holiday visa to Spain get to decide for you!
It was maddening but I do get it in a way...but I know Brits working here for British companies who have been sent here to deal with the Finnish side of things and weren't able to vote. I also know an Irish guy who constantly moves between Northern Ireland and Finland for work, but he has residency here...no voting for him either. The whole thing has been a bit of a joke really....and not a funny one either.
I voted to leave, not because of immigration, it was because I am from a generation that has seen an experiment from 1972 errod British business, rights, and give politicians an escape from actually doing something rather than blame the EU.there has been many good things that have come from the EU, but come on the French cannot fish their own waters but the British can, it needs reform, the current MEPS are not willing to reform, our politics are like social media you either agree or disagree, and there is no debate, are we really that useless we cannot possibly make it work on our own, we are the EUSs biggest customer, are they really going to cut off their own nose to spite their face, mercedes, vw audi, porsche, citreon, Peugeot, fiat, not a lot of people know in my sector horticulture, over 20 million plants or cut flower's are imported a day, yes a day, from Holland, Italy France, Spain, Denmark and Germany. That's before we get to wine beer, food. I would rather we all worked together and reformed the EU, but it ain't happening
I agree with this, but a factor I hadn't thought of was brought up by one of my lecturers this week. He said one of the things that has come back to bite the government is because the EU has had competency in trade for so long, there just aren't people in the higher echelons who understand it, and woefully underestimated it. Not for 'bad' reasons, just because we haven't needed people well versed in international trade for quite some time. I think a lot of the problems are for reasons that are more stupid, but its one I hadn't thought of. I mean, we also sent David Davis to negotiate when the EU sent an experienced lawyer, but that's because meritocracy is something the EU does quite well.
Fair points, but the EU also want to make sure we are both the first and the last nation to leave the union, so they can't make it too sweet. I can't remember who said it, I think it must have been on Radio 4's The News Quiz, but it was summed up well by comparing it to being a paying member of a club with benefits. It doesn't work to cancel your membership and then demand you keep the benefits.
Yeah, I remember the leave campaign talking about the "super Canada" model. Then people pointing out just how much investment and experience Canadian civil servants who deal with international trade have.
I don't think a hard Brexit will be as bad as people are making out, nor do I think it'll be as rosey as others are saying. It'll probably end up somewhere in the middle with a repeat of events during the 2008 recession (that was bad enough in my opinion). I voted to remain so now I'm keeping my head down and piling my money into getting as many credentials as I can, to earn enough "screw you money" as Gary Vaynerchuk calls it - so that no matter what happens I'm financially stable. Way I see it, if the no deal Brexit apocalypse comes then Scotland will seccede from the UK and I'll just emigrate there. Or wait a few decades when the next generation of politicians will get us back into the EU.
I've read through this a few times now, and I still can't actually see why you voted to leave. As far as I can tell, nothing you mention will be fixed in the least by leaving (some points will arguably get much worse), and on top of that it pretty much wrecks any chance we had of working together to reform the EU because we won't have a voice any more; we'll just be told what we must do in order to comply with their rules.
What's this entire "the French can't fish their own waters but the British can" thing? A quick Google only showed this: French fishermen attack British boats 'with smoke bombs' in scallops row Which is a French rule not a EU law? Or was it something else you meant?
It read to me like he doesn't believe reform is possible, and that 45 years is long enough to keep trying.
Just to be clear I never said french law, read up on the EU fishing policies, there are times British vessel's cannot fish certain parts of our teritorial waters because of the above policies, but the French or Dutch or Norway can
I agree, but with the amount of time left (which does not include an extention without eu approval), we do not have time to reverse the decision without invoking article 49. Article 49 states we return to the EU fully, no more £, our armed forces go to war when the EU says so, and why at the moment are the EU preparing to give every EU citizen a EU income tax number.
Just as a quick answer, using armed forces in the EU, and any introduction of tax changes, are two areas where the Council (the heads of state of member countries) retain veto powers. So if the UK doesn't like those, it just says no, and it doesn't happen. Further, the UK is the EU's main military power, and wields a not inconsiderable amount of influence over defence policy. That 'EU army' people keep badgering on about was accepted as never going to happen so long as the UK remained opposed to it for the same reasons. And as a further point, just to add, in issues that use majority voting, not unanimity, the Council uses something called Qualified Majority Voting, where a majority of countries have to agree, and those countries have to represent a majority of EU citizens. The UK has the 3rd largest population, so has/had quite a significant amount of power and it's quite difficult to get the support to pass if the UK says no. That's just numerically. The way the EU works if you had a major member state say no, it usually means other states won't force through a change since the EU's political culture is largely built on negotiation and compromise.
Subscribe to read | Financial Times I think you are referring to tax identification number, not income tax number? This is for trading between member states and preventing fraud, not a federal level income tax.
Thanks to both of you for your replies, so why can't the government make these things as clear as you 2 have?
