It's not just about Brexit

[clarethomer]

I was merely pointing out that both sets of leaders were being driven by the decisive sets of individuals who were influential.

Rather than listen to their constituents and their core voters, the leaders and their leadership teams chose their radical elements of their respective parties and pandered to their wants and desires.

I don't need to argue/debate your points, as I have quoted already, there is analysis of why labour did so poorly at the last election - at least they recognise labours failings and to anyone who is able to look at that with half an open mind will admit that these findings appear to be well evidenced and with merit.

There has been 3 years for labour to articulate the lies and evidence the truths and tell the voters what they wanted to do to move forward when it came to brexit. To explain the social and political imbalance etc. Rather than answer those questions, it was all about the finger pointing at the tories and what they were doing rather than what labour could do differently if confidence was given.

Brexit was an important topic - before we had even got into a gentle pace, red lines from labour were issued and promise of support only if these were met. Hands tied from day one more or less.

After 3 years of discussion and many questions of how labour would handle Brexit if they were given the chance... not a coherent response. It took Emily Thornberry on QT to let the cat out of the bag and to highlight the failure of labour to be honest with their voters/constituents.

Yes there have been things that have happened where you can point the finger at the tories for how they campaigned and I accept politics has just become a joke to a degree but its nothing new, just more amplified. Keep on doing that and we will never see another labour government whilst they have the far left, anti semetic socialist agenda.

[NewClaret]

Thanks. very reasonable responses, which you don't often get on here when someone expresses a contrary view.
In terms of promised the earth, both parties were offering what seemed at the time to be unrealistic spending plans, (though I'm sure you agree that in retrospect they pale into insignificance compared to what Sunak has been spending recently -(no criticism implied).
By the earth, I was more referring to Johnson's simplistic promises over Brexit, social care and other major issues, which are complex in the extreme, but he claimed he had simple and easy solutions that could be implemented pretty much overnight.

Entirely agree that Sunaks spending on the covid response makes Labours manifesto spending promises appear somewhat prudent. The jury’s out whether he’s made the right calls there - so far I’d say he’s getting the balance just about right but predict a slew of criticism as the job cuts bite.

Agree also that he simplifies things. It’s arguably an important leadership strength when seeking to be able to de-mystify and untangle knotty issues, but sets himself up for a fall when the execution is more difficult.

Overall, despite being a Tory, I see their faults. Take covid, reasonable to say there were big mistakes over how quickly we locked down, care home protection and, increasingly (in my opinion) foreign travel, which all seems a bit of a mess to me. And that’s not an exclusive list.

I don’t really like Boris either - in fact, I’d say we’ve had progressively worse leaders since Cameron (albeit Boris has some charisma and personality that Theresa was lacking).

What annoys me is how Labour supporters a) fail to acknowledge any Tory successes, b) any Labour failings. Instead they say the people have been conned by the corrupt media or told lies by the nasty Tories, showing utter contempt for the electorates ability to form an opinion and see past any spin. It’s exactly this inability to accept responsibility for their failings and self-reflect that costs Labour at the ballot box; it’s no coincidence they had to rebrand to New Labour to become electable. Sadly (genuinely), they reverted to type at the earliest opportunity.

As a Tory, long may it continue, but it doesn’t do the country any good.

[NewClaret]

Had May conferred with other parties, and the wider public, and gained a consensus for what Brexit was to look like, then she would have got a deal through Parliament. That’s more reasonable than expecting opposition parties to vote for something they see as deeply flawed.

Did I imagine her cross-party talks for 3 weeks of which John McDonnell led for Labour?

[aggi]

Because moderates had to accept (or should have accepted) that Leave won and staying in both the CU and SM, accepting all the rules that go with it, isn’t leaving the EU.

It's a while since we've had "Leave means leave" (unless we're leaving in a way I don't fully agree with). Glad to see its return.

[aggi]

Did I imagine her cross-party talks for 3 weeks of which John McDonnell led for Labour?

The useless ones where the government refused to compromise on their plan or were there other ones?

[Devils_Advocate]

Did I imagine her cross-party talks for 3 weeks of which John McDonnell led for Labour?

You didnt imagine it, May finally got round to it 3 years after the referendum vote

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Prior to the referendum Cameron stated leave meant leave, even if it meant without a deal, there's a clip of it kicking about somewhere.

Not sure why it was down to just May to decide what Brexit would look like when that idiot didn't bother prior to the referendum.

In fact no one in politics was bothered about what Brexit could look like because they never expected to lose.

They've also failed to accept that it was going to happen, Boris spotted an opportunity and took it by making it the main part of his manifesto.

[Devils_Advocate]

Id like to think you'll get little argument on the role Cameron played. Used the referendum as a tactical game (you rightly say) he was certain he'd win to try and strengthen his position at the top of his party against the Euro skeptics

At least May had the balls to stick around, face up to the music and try and make it work

[aggi]

Id like to think you'll get little argument on the role Cameron played. Used the referendum as a tactical game (you rightly say) he was certain he'd win to try and strengthen his position at the top of his party against the Euro skeptics

At least May had the balls to stick around, face up to the music and try and make it work

May, the Brian Laws of PMs.

[Burnley Ace]

May and the Tories ruined any chance of a unified and sensible Brexit and forced the country down a path of tribalism and hate.

There is no such thing as a unified and sensible Brexit!

[Devils_Advocate]

There is no such thing as a unified and sensible Brexit!

Thats a decent point to be fair but we could have got somewhere pretty close to it rather than running in the opposite direction.

Makes you wonder why all these informed people chose this Brexit path when all it seems to have done is make this country a weaker, poorer and uglier place to live

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Thats a decent point to be fair but we could have got somewhere pretty close to it rather than running in the opposite direction.

Makes you wonder why all these informed people chose this Brexit path when all it seems to have done is make this country a weaker, poorer and uglier place to live

There wouldn't be a unified Brexit though.

Remainers want us to stay in fully, or partially.

Leavers want us out with no EU control.

There is no middle ground there.

[martin_p]

There wouldn't be a unified Brexit though.

Remainers want us to stay in fully, or partially.

Leavers want us out with no EU control.

There is no middle ground there.

There were plenty of Leavers talking about staying in various aspects of the EU. This ‘cut all ties’ narrative is one entirely driven post referendum. Remember hard Brexit v soft Brexit?

[GodIsADeeJay81]

There were plenty of Leavers talking about staying in various aspects of the EU. This ‘cut all ties’ narrative is one entirely driven post referendum. Remember hard Brexit v soft Brexit?

I remember hard, soft, a border in the Irish sea and lots of other stuff.

We can still partner the EU in various things, but we don't need to keep a foot in the door that they can dictate to us about.

[Devils_Advocate]

I remember hard, soft, a border in the Irish sea and lots of other stuff.

We can still partner the EU in various things, but we don't need to keep a foot in the door that they can dictate to us about.

Sounds like you need to go and do a bit of research on what is legally considered as leaving the EU (i.e. what we voted on) and not just what your interpretation happens to be.

Once you understand this there is plenty of scope for discussion and disagreement but you cannot just make up your own definition and expect that to be the accepted base position that people agree to debate from

[tiger76]

There were plenty of Leavers talking about staying in various aspects of the EU. This ‘cut all ties’ narrative is one entirely driven post referendum. Remember hard Brexit v soft Brexit?
[/q

We can ‘cut all ties’ at the end of the transition period, but it still won't solve the everyday practicalities of how we trade with our European neighbours, and if we do choose to sever all ties, then we can expect tariffs on our exports, we can't expect to leave the block and still enjoy a FTA, that's pie in the sky, if we want to enjoy the benefits of single market access, we will have to sign up to all or some of the regulations, and possibly pay a financial contribution into the EU.

I thought this was one of the reasons people like Daniel Hannan and others stated that we weren't planning to leave the CU/SM in the event of a leave vote, when did this change?

There's no such thing as a free lunch, as the UK is now finding out, and if those who voted to leave thought net migration would decline post-EU they're going to get a rude awakening, if they haven't already.

[NewClaret]

The useless ones where the government refused to compromise on their plan or were there other ones?

Not according to May. She said:

"There have been areas where we have been able to find common ground, but other issues have proved to be more difficult.

"In particular, we haven't been able to overcome the fact that there isn't a common position in Labour about whether they want to deliver Brexit or hold a second referendum to reverse it."

She said the government would consider what had come out of the meetings with Labour and "consider whether we have some votes to see if the ideas that have come through command a majority in the House of Commons".

Hardly the words of some belligerent leader unwilling to engage.

D_A said: “A democratic govt respecting a 52-48 vote would have worked cross party in Parliament but May just shut out everyone else and looked to appease the extreme view of a hard brexit rather than the moderate view that would have reflected democracy.”

AndrewJB said: “Had May conferred with other parties, and the wider public, and gained a consensus for what Brexit was to look like, then she would have got a deal through Parliament.“

I then point out that she did, albeit unsuccessfully - according to her because Labour couldn’t work out their position on Brexit, which I’m inclined to believe given their fence sitting at the GE.

It’s just one false accusation after another being levelled at the Tories.

Bottom line: Labour could have passed May’s deal that AndrewJB says is much better than Boris’, which they were engaged about. They had a chance to broker a deal with a moderate remainer Tory MP. But didn’t. Instead they played directly in to the hands of the ERG and we got Boris’ deal, possibly a hard Brexit. They and their supporters may not like to admit it, but their political incompetence played its part in “where we are”, in that regard.

[NewClaret]

Prior to the referendum Cameron stated leave meant leave, even if it meant without a deal, there's a clip of it kicking about somewhere.

Not sure why it was down to just May to decide what Brexit would look like when that idiot didn't bother prior to the referendum.

In fact no one in politics was bothered about what Brexit could look like because they never expected to lose.

They've also failed to accept that it was going to happen, Boris spotted an opportunity and took it by making it the main part of his manifesto.

Exactly - it couldn’t have been clearer what you were voting for. To be In or out of the EU whatever the consequences. That’s why I voted remain.

Also agree that Cameron was wrong/weak resigning and not sticking around to face in to it, but absolutely right to give the people a vote on whether to be part of a Europe, which had grown to be an economic agreement to a state.

[aggi]

Sounds like you need to go and do a bit of research on what is legally considered as leaving the EU (i.e. what we voted on) and not just what your interpretation happens to be.

Once you understand this there is plenty of scope for discussion and disagreement but you cannot just make up your own definition and expect that to be the accepted base position that people agree to debate from

You really haven't been following this debate have you?

[CombatClaret]

Also agree that Cameron was wrong/weak resigning and not sticking around to face in to it, but absolutely right to give the people a vote on whether to be part of a Europe, which had grown to be an economic agreement to a state.

Why was it right to give the people a vote when the people didn't care, about 5% at the time saw it as a major issue. Nation altering referendum should not be held on fringe issues that small in the public consciousness.
It was about appeasing some Tory MP and shoring up the party, then once it became a thing media money threw their weight behind it when they saw how their interests could be served and used dislike of johnny foreigner as the vehicle to the win.

20170408_woc316.png (38 KiB) Viewed 1925 times

https___d1e00ek4ebabms.cloudfront.net_production_971de8b9-67f5-43fa-a44c-570977847b5f_FINAL.png (192.08 KiB) Viewed 1925 times

[AndrewJB]

Not according to May. She said:

"There have been areas where we have been able to find common ground, but other issues have proved to be more difficult.

"In particular, we haven't been able to overcome the fact that there isn't a common position in Labour about whether they want to deliver Brexit or hold a second referendum to reverse it."

She said the government would consider what had come out of the meetings with Labour and "consider whether we have some votes to see if the ideas that have come through command a majority in the House of Commons".

Hardly the words of some belligerent leader unwilling to engage.

D_A said: “A democratic govt respecting a 52-48 vote would have worked cross party in Parliament but May just shut out everyone else and looked to appease the extreme view of a hard brexit rather than the moderate view that would have reflected democracy.”

AndrewJB said: “Had May conferred with other parties, and the wider public, and gained a consensus for what Brexit was to look like, then she would have got a deal through Parliament.“

I then point out that she did, albeit unsuccessfully - according to her because Labour couldn’t work out their position on Brexit, which I’m inclined to believe given their fence sitting at the GE.

It’s just one false accusation after another being levelled at the Tories.

Bottom line: Labour could have passed May’s deal that AndrewJB says is much better than Boris’, which they were engaged about. They had a chance to broker a deal with a moderate remainer Tory MP. But didn’t. Instead they played directly in to the hands of the ERG and we got Boris’ deal, possibly a hard Brexit. They and their supporters may not like to admit it, but their political incompetence played its part in “where we are”, in that regard.

The time for May to confer was at the beginning of the process. Before negotiations with the EU began.

[KateR]

well I am glad to see we can all agree as to what happened and who the major players were and when that got us here through the collective tactics of the main parties and the leaders on this road map

[GodIsADeeJay81]

The time for May to confer was at the beginning of the process. Before negotiations with the EU began.

The time to confer was before the referendum, but remain was never meant to lose so nothing was discussed.

[tiger76]

The time to confer was before the referendum, but remain was never meant to lose so nothing was discussed.

Absolutely! there should have been a detailed plan for what happened in the event of a leave win, however nobody on either side seriously thought leave would win, until the final month or so of the campaign, hence why there was no idea how to proceed post-referendum, and all the problems have snowballed from that point.

[NewClaret]

The time for May to confer was at the beginning of the process. Before negotiations with the EU began.

But you didn’t say that in your post mate.

So now, having concluded she did confer with Labour (and other parties) to get consensus on a deal, as you suggested she should have done, you’ve decided the timing was wrong?

Of course it was. And had it been earlier the people involved would have been wrong. Or the approach wrong. Or some such other excuse. It’s the media, it’s the Russians, etc. Basically they can do no right and Labour can do no wrong.

I value your posts and agree with many things you say, particularly around environmental issues, but on this Labour have to accept some responsibility that Mays deal did not get through.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

They won't accept any responsibility, apparently its all down to leavers to own this mess, remainers have absolved themselves of any responsibility

[NewClaret]

Absolutely! there should have been a detailed plan for what happened in the event of a leave win, however nobody on either side seriously thought leave would win, until the final month or so of the campaign, hence why there was no idea how to proceed post-referendum, and all the problems have snowballed from that point.

So pre-referendum the UK should have entered 2 years of negotiations with the EU so they had a full understanding of the deal we could negotiate with the EU and therefore what the exit plan looked like?

There’s no way the EU would have entertained such a prospect, and rightly so.

[tiger76]

So pre-referendum the UK should have entered 2 years of negotiations with the EU so they had a full understanding of the deal we could negotiate with the EU and therefore what the exit plan looked like?

There’s no way the EU would have entertained such a prospect, and rightly so.

No clearly we couldn't have entered a 2 year negotiation with the EU, although in hindsight perhaps we should have done, we're more than 4 years after the referendum, and we're still no clearer on what our future relationship will look like, what should have been clarified pre-referendum is whether we were going to continue with a form of CU/SM membership or some similar arrangement, all the talk before the vote was that we'd have some commitment along those lines, it was only after the vote that the hardline brexiteers attempted to muddy the waters, and suddenly no deal was advocated as an option.

[NewClaret]

Why was it right to give the people a vote when the people didn't care, about 5% at the time saw it as a major issue. Nation altering referendum should not be held on fringe issues that small in the public consciousness.
It was about appeasing some Tory MP and shoring up the party, then once it became a thing media money threw their weight behind it when they saw how their interests could be served and used dislike of johnny foreigner as the vehicle to the win.
20170408_woc316.png


https___d1e00ek4ebabms.cloudfront.net_production_971de8b9-67f5-43fa-a44c-570977847b5f_FINAL.png

Good post. Some interesting charts there.

Do agree it was likely included in the manifesto to appease the euro sceptics in the Tory party.

In my opinion though, he was right to call a referendum because the EU had changed from an economic community to become a superstate - run from Brussels, mainly influenced by Germany. We no longer had full control of our borders, laws, trading relationships, economic policies, etc, effectively diluting our democracy. There should have been one well beforehand as these powers were conceded by successive Governments.

It was a Tory in Edward Heath that took us in to the EEC so appropriate that a Tory should eventually give the people a vote.

[Devils_Advocate]

Good post. Some interesting charts there.

Do agree it was likely included in the manifesto to appease the euro sceptics in the Tory party.

In my opinion though, he was right to call a referendum because the EU had changed from an economic community to become a superstate - run from Brussels, mainly influenced by Germany. We no longer had full control of our borders, laws, trading relationships, economic policies, etc, effectively diluting our democracy. There should have been one well beforehand as these powers were conceded by successive Governments.

It was a Tory in Edward Heath that took us in to the EEC so appropriate that a Tory should eventually give the people a vote.

This was always the intention and what Ted Heath fought his campaign to join on and what Churchil supported. The position was that joining the common markets was to be the first step and the political union of a European community was far more important than the economic relationship

[NewClaret]

No clearly we couldn't have entered a 2 year negotiation with the EU, although in hindsight perhaps we should have done, we're more than 4 years after the referendum, and we're still no clearer on what our future relationship will look like, what should have been clarified pre-referendum is whether we were going to continue with a form of CU/SM membership or some similar arrangement, all the talk before the vote was that we'd have some commitment along those lines, it was only after the vote that the hardline brexiteers attempted to muddy the waters, and suddenly no deal was advocated as an option.

What I think was clear was that leave meant leave and that any deal would be negotiated by the PM in the years to come. The people voted for that.

Let’s not forget Cameron had tried, unsuccessfully, to renegotiate the EU relationship beforehand. They’re not an easy bunch to negotiate with, so I think it was implausible that we could negotiate any kind of deal up front that might set out a clearer picture of what leave looked like to the electorate.

People voted Tory Govt as the largest party on a manifesto promising a referendum. People voted to leave. 3 years of political ineptness followed (by all parties, which is my main argument in this discussion). People voted In the Tories by a massive majority knowing full well that Boris may push through a hard Brexit.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

No clearly we couldn't have entered a 2 year negotiation with the EU, although in hindsight perhaps we should have done, we're more than 4 years after the referendum, and we're still no clearer on what our future relationship will look like, what should have been clarified pre-referendum is whether we were going to continue with a form of CU/SM membership or some similar arrangement, all the talk before the vote was that we'd have some commitment along those lines, it was only after the vote that the hardline brexiteers attempted to muddy the waters, and suddenly no deal was advocated as an option.

No Deal is the default legal leave option, always has been the case.
Cameron even said before the ref that the UK could leave with No Deal if needs be.

The HoC failed in its duty to discuss the possibility of leave winning and which options the UK should seek in the event of negotiations.

[martin_p]

Let’s not forget Cameron had tried, unsuccessfully, to renegotiate the EU relationship beforehand. They’re not an easy bunch to negotiate with, so I think it was implausible that we could negotiate any kind of deal up front that might set out a clearer picture of what leave looked like to the electorate.

Yes, but some clear objectives would have been nice. We never got that from Leave just pie in the sky slogans that played well with many who’d been hardest hit by austerity. It’s absolutely impossible to claim it’s clear what people were voting for (other than the actuality of the U.K. no longer being in the EU) as it was never defined and still isn’t clear over four years later.

[martin_p]

No Deal is the default legal leave option, always has been the case.
Cameron even said before the ref that the UK could leave with No Deal if needs be.

Which was roundly dismissed as ‘Project Fear’ by Leave. Had anyone on the Leave side said their was a real chance of trading in WTO terms and what the consequences of that might be then I’m not sure they’d have won. Instead we got ‘easiest deal in history’ and ‘they need us more than we need them’.

[NewClaret]

Yes, but some clear objectives would have been nice. We never got that from Leave just pie in the sky slogans that played well with many who’d been hardest hit by austerity. It’s absolutely impossible to claim it’s clear what people were voting for (other than the actuality of the U.K. no longer being in the EU) as it was never defined and still isn’t clear over four years later.

That’s my point really; if it’s not clear 4 years on, how could anyone possibly have made it clear at the time?

It’s an immensely complex issue that Leave knowingly distilled down to some slogans/sound bites to demystify the situation. In doing so they overly simplified it, I accept that.

Nevertheless, hold firm that the electorate knew what they were voting for, if not exactly how it would be achieved, which was effectively confirmed by a thumping GE win fought pretty much on Brexit alone.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

Which was roundly dismissed as ‘Project Fear’ by Leave. Had anyone on the Leave side said their was a real chance of trading in WTO terms and what the consequences of that might be then I’m not sure they’d have won. Instead we got ‘easiest deal in history’ and ‘they need us more than we need them’.

Project fear or not, its still the default option for leaving the EU.
A deal isn't a stipulation and the EU also never expected anyone to leave, which is why there are gaping holes in their regulations about this.

Some of us are actually aware of this and we knew the easiest deal in history lines were guff.

Both sides want a deal and in some ways need a deal but we spent way to long kicking the can down the road in the hope of getting the referendum result over turned etc that many people started to think we'd never leave.

Even now some people want further extensions but that would just make things worse because we'd look hesitant again.

Setting the date in stone was the best thing to do, it focused everyone on the task in hand.

If the EU really weren't bothered about having a deal then Barnier would be sat in mainland EU instead of flying into London for next week's round of talks.

[martin_p]

Project fear or not, its still the default option for leaving the EU.
A deal isn't a stipulation and the EU also never expected anyone to leave, which is why there are gaping holes in their regulations about this.

Some of us are actually aware of this and we knew the easiest deal in history lines were guff.

Both sides want a deal and in some ways need a deal but we spent way to long kicking the can down the road in the hope of getting the referendum result over turned etc that many people started to think we'd never leave.

Even now some people want further extensions but that would just make things worse because we'd look hesitant again.

Setting the date in stone was the best thing to do, it focused everyone on the task in hand.

If the EU really weren't bothered about having a deal then Barnier would be sat in mainland EU instead of flying into London for next week's round of talks.

Who said they weren’t bothered about a deal. They want one but won’t commit to one at any cost.

You may have been aware of no deal being the default, I’m sure many were, but it was painted as such an unlikely outcome as to be an irrelevance.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.the ... eal-brexit

[CombatClaret]

In my opinion though, he was right to call a referendum because the EU had changed from an economic community to become a superstate - run from Brussels, mainly influenced by Germany. We no longer had full control of our borders, laws, trading relationships, economic policies, etc, effectively diluting our democracy. There should have been one well beforehand as these powers were conceded by successive Governments.

That doesn't answer my question, so you were in the 2-5% who though the EU was a key issue facing the UK pre-referendum era. Why should we hold national altering referendums on issues that small in the public conciseness?

It would be like having a referendum tomorrow on the reintroduction of capital punishment because as of now 5% of the population see Law & Order as the most important issue facing the UK.
Brexit was never about what the vast, vast majority of the public wanted at the time.

[AndrewJB]

But you didn’t say that in your post mate.

So now, having concluded she did confer with Labour (and other parties) to get consensus on a deal, as you suggested she should have done, you’ve decided the timing was wrong?

Of course it was. And had it been earlier the people involved would have been wrong. Or the approach wrong. Or some such other excuse. It’s the media, it’s the Russians, etc. Basically they can do no right and Labour can do no wrong.

I value your posts and agree with many things you say, particularly around environmental issues, but on this Labour have to accept some responsibility that Mays deal did not get through.

I apologise for not making myself more clear on the point, but I’ve always maintained that May should have conferred before triggering A50. To me this makes perfect sense, because having openly arrived at a preferred type of Brexit, the negotiations with the EU would have gone more smoothly. One of our major problems during negotiations was our position shifted.

If I come across as overly critical of the government, that’s because they’re the government. If you could read my posts on the other board from when Blair and Brown were in power, you’d find me heaping criticism on them.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

That doesn't answer my question, so you were in the 2-5% who though the EU was a key issue facing the UK pre-referendum era. Why should we hold national altering referendums on issues that small in the public conciseness?

It would be like having a referendum tomorrow on the reintroduction of capital punishment because as of now 5% of the population see Law & Order as the most important issue facing the UK.
Brexit was never about what the vast, vast majority of the public wanted at the time.

If Brexit wasn't what the majority wanted at the time then why did Remain lose and the usual 30% ish of the electorate failed to vote yet again.

If it was true that the majority wanted to remain then why didn't they turn out in force to ensure the UK stayed in the EU?

[CombatClaret]

If Brexit wasn't what the majority wanted at the time then why did Remain lose and the usual 30% ish of the electorate failed to vote yet again.

If it was true that the majority wanted to remain then why didn't they turn out in force to ensure the UK stayed in the EU?

You've missed the point entirely. As the graph show interest was manufactured after the referendum was announced. Prior to that only 5% or less thought it was a key issue facing the UK, so you cannot say the public wanted a referendum.

Should we have referendum on anything that 5% or less of the public think is a key issue?

[aggi]

If Brexit wasn't what the majority wanted at the time then why did Remain lose and the usual 30% ish of the electorate failed to vote yet again.

If it was true that the majority wanted to remain then why didn't they turn out in force to ensure the UK stayed in the EU?

The point is that the majority didn't care whether we stayed or left.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

The point is that the majority didn't care whether we stayed or left.

Care to provide evidence for your assumption?

Also I'm pretty sure you weren't going to converse with me anymore yet here you are.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

You've missed the point entirely. As the graph show interest was manufactured after the referendum was announced. Prior to that only 5% or less thought it was a key issue facing the UK, so you cannot say the public wanted a referendum.

Should we have referendum on anything that 5% or less of the public think is a key issue?

I was surprised we had one, we never bothered over Maastricht or Lisbon treaties

[Tall Paul]

Care to provide evidence for your assumption?

See the graphs in CombatClaret's post from last night.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

See the graphs in CombatClaret's post from last night.

Been looking.
They show a rise from circa 2011 up to around 10% give or take a little bit.
Yes there was an increase afterwards when people knew they were getting an option about it after decades of not getting a choice on the EU and any treaties we were signed up to.
We weren't asked about EU citizenship, we were told we were getting it.

[AndrewJB]

https://zelo-street.blogspot.com/2020/0 ... r.html?m=1

This could have been posted on the XR thread, such is the interrelatedness of these newspapers and the opinions of those who read them.

A poll might be interesting: Are these headlines cringeworthy, or do they make you feel proud to be British?

[RingoMcCartney]

See the graphs in CombatClaret's post from last night.

Lol Tall Paul.

[Devils_Advocate]

Tall Paul: Will you please say hi to eddie whilst you're stuck inside Ringo's head

Lol Ringo

[CombatClaret]

Been looking.
They show a rise from circa 2011 up to around 10% give or take a little bit.
Yes there was an increase afterwards when people knew they were getting an option about it after decades of not getting a choice on the EU and any treaties we were signed up to.
We weren't asked about EU citizenship, we were told we were getting it.

As a key issue for a short time it rose to around 10%
As the most important issue it never reached above 5%
So on that data it's correct to say the vast majority of the people, 90%+ of the population did not see our EU membership as a key issue prior to 2016.

So what is the justification not for Brexit but for holding any potentially huge, nation changing referendums on issues of such minor public interest/concern?