Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
wortley

The new world

Recommended Posts

I've not posted on this topic since the result, partly because have been so busy and partly because as one of the many who voted leave and were proud to do so I figured my contributions would not exactly be welcomed with open arms. I predicted in these forums before the event that the issue would not be settled with the vote and that whoever was on the losing side of a narrow margin would not let the issue die. No surprise that this is exactly what has happened.

 

Just want to comment on two things. Firstly the lies and deceit. I completely agree that the campaigns on both sides were riddled with deception and misinformation. A lot is being said currently about some of the exaggerated claims made by the Leave side, that those who made them are rapidly backtracking from, and it is lamentable that the legitimate arguments in favour of Leave were buried by these high profile banner headlines. But the Remain side was no less guilty. When the Chancellor makes statements like every person in the country will be worse off by £13.87 per week by 2030 (a caricature not a quote), how can he expect us to regard anything he contributes to the debate as being credible? When the Prime Minister makes the sorts of claims he did about the consequence of an exit vote, how can we reconcile those with his decision to call a referendum? The two are not compatible and so we could only see his pronouncements through the eyes of someone making up the next scare story to try to influence the vote. No doubt there were some valid claims made on both sides, but where I am going with this is that both sides so catastrophically mis-managed their case that many of us were left to make up our minds disregarding anything they said. Proper informed debate, with each side acknowledging that the other side had legitimate arguments and that the issue was not black and white and that didn't take the electorate for fools would have given voters much more of substance to go on. As it was, lies, deceit, slandering and smearing the motives of the other side were all that we got and it was profoundly unhelpful. I went into the campaign narrowly on one side of the fence but perfectly prepared to have my mind changed by rational discussion of the issues. Sadly, there was none of that to be found and I therefore had to go on my prior instinct.

 

Secondly, the issue of a second referendum. I actually think that it would have been very sensible to have built into the terms of the referendum that if either side had won by securing less than 60% of the vote on less than a 75% turnout then there would have been provision for a second referendum. I have posted previously that this is such an important and far reaching issue that what matters more than which way the result goes is that it is decisive. So that provision in the terms of the referendum (which is what the petition currently doing the rounds that was set up before the referendum is asking for) would have been a wise and prudent provision to have put into the terms. The problem is, you cannot just go around re-writing the rules of a vote after the event just because you don't like the outcome. That would be a very dangerous precedent to set for our democracy. Why were people not calling for this in large numbers before the event, when it would have been a legitimate call? It's not as if it was a surprise that the margin was so close, the polls were predicting it too close to call for weeks out. So the time for adapting that clause (either way round) was before the vote, not in hindsight.

 

That's enough from me....tin hat time, prepared to be shot down! ;)

 

Edited by Gareth

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've not posted on this topic since the result, partly because have been so busy and partly because as one of the many who voted leave and were proud to do so I figured my contributions would not exactly be welcomed with open arms. I predicted in these forums before the event that the issue would not be settled with the vote and that whoever was on the losing side of a narrow margin would not let the issue die. No surprise that this is exactly what has happened.

 

Just want to comment on two things. Firstly the lies and deceit. I completely agree that the campaigns on both sides were riddled with deception and misinformation. A lot is being said currently about some of the exaggerated claims made by the Leave side, that those who made them are rapidly backtracking from, and it is lamentable that the legitimate arguments in favour of Leave were buried by these high profile banner headlines. But the Remain side was no less guilty. When the Chancellor makes statements like every person in the country will be worse off by £13.87 per week by 2030 (a caricature not a quote), how can he expect us to regard anything he contributes to the debate as being credible? When the Prime Minister makes the sorts of claims he did about the consequence of an exit vote, how can we reconcile those with his decision to call a referendum? The two are not compatible and so we could only see his pronouncements through the eyes of someone making up the next scare story to try to influence the vote. No doubt there were some valid claims made on both sides, but where I am going with this is that both sides so catastrophically mis-managed their case that many of us were left to make up our minds disregarding anything they said. Proper informed debate, with each side acknowledging that the other side had legitimate arguments and that the issue was not black and white and that didn't take the electorate for fools would have given voters much more of substance to go on. As it was, lies, deceit, slandering and smearing the motives of the other side were all that we got and it was profoundly unhelpful. I went into the campaign narrowly on one side of the fence but perfectly prepared to have my mind changed by rational discussion of the issues. Sadly, there was none of that to be found and I therefore had to go on my prior instinct.

 

Secondly, the issue of a second referendum. I actually think that it would have been very sensible to have built into the terms of the referendum that if either side had won by securing less than 60% of the vote on less than a 75% turnout then there would have been provision for a second referendum. I have posted previously that this is such an important and far reaching issue that what matters more than which way the result goes is that it is decisive. So that provision in the terms of the referendum (which is what the petition currently doing the rounds that was set up before the referendum is asking for) would have been a wise and prudent provision to have put into the terms. The problem is, you cannot just go around re-writing the rules of a vote after the event just because you don't like the outcome. That would be a very dangerous precedent to set for our democracy. Why were people not calling for this in large numbers before the event, when it would have been a legitimate call? It's not as if it was a surprise that the margin was so close, the polls were predicting it too close to call for weeks out. So the time for adapting that clause (either way round) was before the vote, not in hindsight.

 

That's enough from me....tin hat time, prepared to be shot down! ;)

 

Why are you expecting to be shot down for making very reasonable comments Gareth? I profoundly disagee with you on a vote to leave but the comments you have just made make perfect sense to me, a devout remainer.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've not posted on this topic since the result, partly because have been so busy and partly because as one of the many who voted leave and were proud to do so I figured my contributions would not exactly be welcomed with open arms. I predicted in these forums before the event that the issue would not be settled with the vote and that whoever was on the losing side of a narrow margin would not let the issue die. No surprise that this is exactly what has happened.

 

Just want to comment on two things. Firstly the lies and deceit. I completely agree that the campaigns on both sides were riddled with deception and misinformation. A lot is being said currently about some of the exaggerated claims made by the Leave side, that those who made them are rapidly backtracking from, and it is lamentable that the legitimate arguments in favour of Leave were buried by these high profile banner headlines. But the Remain side was no less guilty. When the Chancellor makes statements like every person in the country will be worse off by £13.87 per week by 2030 (a caricature not a quote), how can he expect us to regard anything he contributes to the debate as being credible? When the Prime Minister makes the sorts of claims he did about the consequence of an exit vote, how can we reconcile those with his decision to call a referendum? The two are not compatible and so we could only see his pronouncements through the eyes of someone making up the next scare story to try to influence the vote. No doubt there were some valid claims made on both sides, but where I am going with this is that both sides so catastrophically mis-managed their case that many of us were left to make up our minds disregarding anything they said. Proper informed debate, with each side acknowledging that the other side had legitimate arguments and that the issue was not black and white and that didn't take the electorate for fools would have given voters much more of substance to go on. As it was, lies, deceit, slandering and smearing the motives of the other side were all that we got and it was profoundly unhelpful. I went into the campaign narrowly on one side of the fence but perfectly prepared to have my mind changed by rational discussion of the issues. Sadly, there was none of that to be found and I therefore had to go on my prior instinct.

 

Secondly, the issue of a second referendum. I actually think that it would have been very sensible to have built into the terms of the referendum that if either side had won by securing less than 60% of the vote on less than a 75% turnout then there would have been provision for a second referendum. I have posted previously that this is such an important and far reaching issue that what matters more than which way the result goes is that it is decisive. So that provision in the terms of the referendum (which is what the petition currently doing the rounds that was set up before the referendum is asking for) would have been a wise and prudent provision to have put into the terms. The problem is, you cannot just go around re-writing the rules of a vote after the event just because you don't like the outcome. That would be a very dangerous precedent to set for our democracy. Why were people not calling for this in large numbers before the event, when it would have been a legitimate call? It's not as if it was a surprise that the margin was so close, the polls were predicting it too close to call for weeks out. So the time for adapting that clause (either way round) was before the vote, not in hindsight.

 

That's enough from me....tin hat time, prepared to be shot down! ;)

 

Why are you expecting to be shot down for making very reasonable comments Gareth? I profoundly disagee with you on a vote to leave but the comments you have just made make perfect sense to me, a devout remainer.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've not posted on this topic since the result, partly because have been so busy and partly because as one of the many who voted leave and were proud to do so I figured my contributions would not exactly be welcomed with open arms. I predicted in these forums before the event that the issue would not be settled with the vote and that whoever was on the losing side of a narrow margin would not let the issue die. No surprise that this is exactly what has happened.

 

Just want to comment on two things. Firstly the lies and deceit. I completely agree that the campaigns on both sides were riddled with deception and misinformation. A lot is being said currently about some of the exaggerated claims made by the Leave side, that those who made them are rapidly backtracking from, and it is lamentable that the legitimate arguments in favour of Leave were buried by these high profile banner headlines. But the Remain side was no less guilty. When the Chancellor makes statements like every person in the country will be worse off by £13.87 per week by 2030 (a caricature not a quote), how can he expect us to regard anything he contributes to the debate as being credible? When the Prime Minister makes the sorts of claims he did about the consequence of an exit vote, how can we reconcile those with his decision to call a referendum? The two are not compatible and so we could only see his pronouncements through the eyes of someone making up the next scare story to try to influence the vote. No doubt there were some valid claims made on both sides, but where I am going with this is that both sides so catastrophically mis-managed their case that many of us were left to make up our minds disregarding anything they said. Proper informed debate, with each side acknowledging that the other side had legitimate arguments and that the issue was not black and white and that didn't take the electorate for fools would have given voters much more of substance to go on. As it was, lies, deceit, slandering and smearing the motives of the other side were all that we got and it was profoundly unhelpful. I went into the campaign narrowly on one side of the fence but perfectly prepared to have my mind changed by rational discussion of the issues. Sadly, there was none of that to be found and I therefore had to go on my prior instinct.

 

Secondly, the issue of a second referendum. I actually think that it would have been very sensible to have built into the terms of the referendum that if either side had won by securing less than 60% of the vote on less than a 75% turnout then there would have been provision for a second referendum. I have posted previously that this is such an important and far reaching issue that what matters more than which way the result goes is that it is decisive. So that provision in the terms of the referendum (which is what the petition currently doing the rounds that was set up before the referendum is asking for) would have been a wise and prudent provision to have put into the terms. The problem is, you cannot just go around re-writing the rules of a vote after the event just because you don't like the outcome. That would be a very dangerous precedent to set for our democracy. Why were people not calling for this in large numbers before the event, when it would have been a legitimate call? It's not as if it was a surprise that the margin was so close, the polls were predicting it too close to call for weeks out. So the time for adapting that clause (either way round) was before the vote, not in hindsight.

 

That's enough from me....tin hat time, prepared to be shot down! ;)

No I'm going to try to shoot you down because I respect,even if I don't agree with your opinion.

To have a project of this nature you have to have a leader.Who is this leader and would you want to have one of the three leading Britexiters to be your PM?

Britain has really voted to go into the unknown.

I am so sad!

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I've not posted on this topic since the result, partly because have been so busy and partly because as one of the many who voted leave and were proud to do so I figured my contributions would not exactly be welcomed with open arms. I predicted in these forums before the event that the issue would not be settled with the vote and that whoever was on the losing side of a narrow margin would not let the issue die. No surprise that this is exactly what has happened.

 

Just want to comment on two things. Firstly the lies and deceit. I completely agree that the campaigns on both sides were riddled with deception and misinformation. A lot is being said currently about some of the exaggerated claims made by the Leave side, that those who made them are rapidly backtracking from, and it is lamentable that the legitimate arguments in favour of Leave were buried by these high profile banner headlines. But the Remain side was no less guilty. When the Chancellor makes statements like every person in the country will be worse off by £13.87 per week by 2030 (a caricature not a quote), how can he expect us to regard anything he contributes to the debate as being credible? When the Prime Minister makes the sorts of claims he did about the consequence of an exit vote, how can we reconcile those with his decision to call a referendum? The two are not compatible and so we could only see his pronouncements through the eyes of someone making up the next scare story to try to influence the vote. No doubt there were some valid claims made on both sides, but where I am going with this is that both sides so catastrophically mis-managed their case that many of us were left to make up our minds disregarding anything they said. Proper informed debate, with each side acknowledging that the other side had legitimate arguments and that the issue was not black and white and that didn't take the electorate for fools would have given voters much more of substance to go on. As it was, lies, deceit, slandering and smearing the motives of the other side were all that we got and it was profoundly unhelpful. I went into the campaign narrowly on one side of the fence but perfectly prepared to have my mind changed by rational discussion of the issues. Sadly, there was none of that to be found and I therefore had to go on my prior instinct.

 

Secondly, the issue of a second referendum. I actually think that it would have been very sensible to have built into the terms of the referendum that if either side had won by securing less than 60% of the vote on less than a 75% turnout then there would have been provision for a second referendum. I have posted previously that this is such an important and far reaching issue that what matters more than which way the result goes is that it is decisive. So that provision in the terms of the referendum (which is what the petition currently doing the rounds that was set up before the referendum is asking for) would have been a wise and prudent provision to have put into the terms. The problem is, you cannot just go around re-writing the rules of a vote after the event just because you don't like the outcome. That would be a very dangerous precedent to set for our democracy. Why were people not calling for this in large numbers before the event, when it would have been a legitimate call? It's not as if it was a surprise that the margin was so close, the polls were predicting it too close to call for weeks out. So the time for adapting that clause (either way round) was before the vote, not in hindsight.

 

That's enough from me....tin hat time, prepared to be shot down! ;)

No I'm going to try to shoot you down because I respect,even if I don't agree with your opinion.

To have a project of this nature you have to have a leader.Who is this leader and would you want to have one of the three leading Britexiters to be your PM?

Britain has really voted to go into the unknown.

I am so sad!

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

To have a project of this nature you have to have a leader.Who is this leader and would you want to have one of the three leading Britexiters to be your PM?

 

 

imprimerie who would you want from the Brexiters as PM? None but with their silence today, the stock market reaction, the decline in the value of the pound and this evenings loss of the UK AAA credit rating perhaps rather than who would you want as PM from the Brexiters I am beginning to wonder if a better question might be are any of the Brexiters stupid enough to take the job on? The answer to that question could well be no.

Edited by G4rth
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

To have a project of this nature you have to have a leader.Who is this leader and would you want to have one of the three leading Britexiters to be your PM?

 

 

imprimerie who would you want from the Brexiters as PM? None but with their silence today, the stock market reaction, the decline in the value of the pound and this evenings loss of the UK AAA credit rating perhaps rather than who would you want as PM from the Brexiters I am beginning to wonder if a better question might be are any of the Brexiters stupid enough to take the job on? The answer to that question could well be no.

Edited by G4rth
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Good idea, considerably better than what we were saddled with.

 

 

 

I'm sure the remaining 27 wouldn't be at all happy. However with such a momentus decision being made that has ramifications for all member states I'm sure they would have understood and been prepared to wait.

 

 

I don't agree the other EU countries would be willing to wait.... member states worry about the domino effect ... and already putting pressure on UK to enact Article 50 now....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Good idea, considerably better than what we were saddled with.

 

 

 

I'm sure the remaining 27 wouldn't be at all happy. However with such a momentus decision being made that has ramifications for all member states I'm sure they would have understood and been prepared to wait.

 

 

I don't agree the other EU countries would be willing to wait.... member states worry about the domino effect ... and already putting pressure on UK to enact Article 50 now....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you apply to put your name on the electoral role you are indicating your willingness to participate in the democratic process. Then the moment you cast your vote either way you are effectively signing a contact which ties you to accepting the outcome. The problem is that there is no cooling off period, no right to cancel and assuming it was conducted without fraudulent activity no right to challenge the final result. The onus is on you to check the terms and conditions (the promises given by the various camps) before casting your vote. I accept it is not a perfect system but it's all we have got. If they ever organise another referendum on any subject the calls for clarity are going to be much louder. People won't want to get burned twice. As for who can realistically be expected to stand as a candidate for the job of PM I suspect egos and the guarantee of a place in the history books are to tempting for some to pass up. Ed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you apply to put your name on the electoral role you are indicating your willingness to participate in the democratic process. Then the moment you cast your vote either way you are effectively signing a contact which ties you to accepting the outcome. The problem is that there is no cooling off period, no right to cancel and assuming it was conducted without fraudulent activity no right to challenge the final result. The onus is on you to check the terms and conditions (the promises given by the various camps) before casting your vote. I accept it is not a perfect system but it's all we have got. If they ever organise another referendum on any subject the calls for clarity are going to be much louder. People won't want to get burned twice. As for who can realistically be expected to stand as a candidate for the job of PM I suspect egos and the guarantee of a place in the history books are to tempting for some to pass up. Ed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest the whole idea of Cameron giving the country a EU referendum was like giving a load of kids a box of matches to play with. What will Cameron do once he leaves office? Probably chillax as he does, only this time, and I hope so, his habit of shutting himself off from everything problematic in Government won't feel quite the same - Good.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be honest the whole idea of Cameron giving the country a EU referendum was like giving a load of kids a box of matches to play with. What will Cameron do once he leaves office? Probably chillax as he does, only this time, and I hope so, his habit of shutting himself off from everything problematic in Government won't feel quite the same - Good.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How I voted on this referendum. I personly voted to stay in. Because true at times there were somethings the EU did many of us including those who are in the Eurozone disagree on . But it was better the devil we all know then the devil we don't. As the UK now had jumped from the frying pan into the fire.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How I voted on this referendum. I personly voted to stay in. Because true at times there were somethings the EU did many of us including those who are in the Eurozone disagree on . But it was better the devil we all know then the devil we don't. As the UK now had jumped from the frying pan into the fire.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When you apply to put your name on the electoral role you are indicating your willingness to participate in the democratic process.

 

Yes indeed you are but it's not one sided. You are also have a right to expect that democratic process to be conducted in a fair and honest way. In addition you are also entitled to expect those seeking to gain your support are, at the very least, honest and truthful. It's no use saying "The onus is on you to check the terms and conditions (the promises given by the various camps) before casting your vote". The very nature of the referendum was that there were no facts that on the leave side that you could check perhaps with the exception of the bogus £350/week to the EU claim. Similarly the only remain side claims one could check were all historical. What happened yesterday will not necessarily happen tomorrow. You may say that politicans by nature are dishonest and voters should know that but how can you identify the exception, the honest politician? Sorry but if you as a voter are systematically lied to you should have some redress.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
When you apply to put your name on the electoral role you are indicating your willingness to participate in the democratic process.

 

Yes indeed you are but it's not one sided. You are also have a right to expect that democratic process to be conducted in a fair and honest way. In addition you are also entitled to expect those seeking to gain your support are, at the very least, honest and truthful. It's no use saying "The onus is on you to check the terms and conditions (the promises given by the various camps) before casting your vote". The very nature of the referendum was that there were no facts that on the leave side that you could check perhaps with the exception of the bogus £350/week to the EU claim. Similarly the only remain side claims one could check were all historical. What happened yesterday will not necessarily happen tomorrow. You may say that politicans by nature are dishonest and voters should know that but how can you identify the exception, the honest politician? Sorry but if you as a voter are systematically lied to you should have some redress.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How I voted on this referendum. I personly voted to stay in. Because true at times there were somethings the EU did many of us including those who are in the Eurozone disagree on . But it was better the devil we all know then the devil we don't. As the UK now had jumped from the frying pan into the fire.

Definately and I'm so sad that the country that I had so much faith in has gone backwards.

It seems that extreme views and opportunists have taken over the debate which will give you after the vote absolutely nothing.

What is the UK going to do now.With over 45per cent of our exports going to European countries I hope for for the UK that things work out.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How I voted on this referendum. I personly voted to stay in. Because true at times there were somethings the EU did many of us including those who are in the Eurozone disagree on . But it was better the devil we all know then the devil we don't. As the UK now had jumped from the frying pan into the fire.

Definately and I'm so sad that the country that I had so much faith in has gone backwards.

It seems that extreme views and opportunists have taken over the debate which will give you after the vote absolutely nothing.

What is the UK going to do now.With over 45per cent of our exports going to European countries I hope for for the UK that things work out.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hunt is callng for a second referendum - he's just thrown his hat in for the leadership. What is the point of a second referendum, the original isn't legally binding and all that is needed is to refuse to invoke Article 50. They say it would be political suicide to refuse to honour the result, but if a second vote has the intention of a win, or, negotiations with the EU after a leave vote to end up with basically the status quo, thrn just not invoke Article 50!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hunt is callng for a second referendum - he's just thrown his hat in for the leadership. What is the point of a second referendum, the original isn't legally binding and all that is needed is to refuse to invoke Article 50. They say it would be political suicide to refuse to honour the result, but if a second vote has the intention of a win, or, negotiations with the EU after a leave vote to end up with basically the status quo, thrn just not invoke Article 50!!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On a personal note my free company shares were worth £4700 on Thursday today they were worth £3200, just saying!

 

That is only actually a problem if you sell them today, so long as the company is paying a dividend you just hang on to them. Your shares might be in the wrong sector but over all the FTSE was lower than this at times last winter, over the last few months shares have gone up, we have now lost most, not all yet, of that gain.

 

As usual the dealers are making money, cause a panic, wait for prices to go down and then buy at a lower rate.

Edited by Solo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On a personal note my free company shares were worth £4700 on Thursday today they were worth £3200, just saying!

 

That is only actually a problem if you sell them today, so long as the company is paying a dividend you just hang on to them. Your shares might be in the wrong sector but over all the FTSE was lower than this at times last winter, over the last few months shares have gone up, we have now lost most, not all yet, of that gain.

 

As usual the dealers are making money, cause a panic, wait for prices to go down and then buy at a lower rate.

Edited by Solo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...