UKC

I despair at the outcome of the referendum but what do I actually do about it?

I can't easily emigrate, a much loved aging mother prevents that.

At the end of the day Out won, but the country was to all intents and purposes split 50:50. Until that changes nothing is sorted out.

The way I see it, this is a struggle between conservatism (small c deliberate) and liberalism, reminiscent of the wars of the 19th Century. Both ideologically valid stand points, yet this is the first time that liberalism has had a significant set back in my nearly 60 years and maybe since the reformation. Hence the sense of shock for some and jubilation for others.

No campaign in the referendum vouched the cause of liberalism , which is where the labour party let us down the most.

I could join the Liberals but is that going to do anything useful?

How is the cause of liberalism championed? Free speech, equality of opportunity, openness, religious tolerance, civil rights, secular government, free press, international cooperation. This is what is at stake and what is taken for granted.

In reply to ian caton:

Join Labour and vote against Corbyn.
Then hope that the new Prime Minister can be the shortest timed one for a while.Then vote in the general election. Yet I believe that the conservatives will hang on in there for as long as possible. The new Prime Minister will want to please all the right wingers who forced this on us, and so will keep on with the process of getting out, rather than seeing that the win for out was not by that great a margin and therefore we should just press the EU for a better deal without getting out. Will the EU ever see that to be a sensible move on their part?

In reply to veteye:

I have thought about joining labour for that reason, and do believe that political engagement is part of the answer, but in what form I don't know.

I am not sure it is in the EU interest to give us a good deal.

In reply to ian caton:

Organise. Got a union branch meeting today. Plenty on the agenda..........

In reply to ian caton:

Ian this is such a tough question and I’m sure one many of us (probably many millions of us) are currently wrestling with. As the whole horrifying spectacle unfolds I find myself torn in several directions.

200,000 grassroots Labour supporters voted Jeremy Corbyn into that job, and he is one of the most decent and principled people I’ve ever seen take a high level position in politics. I suspect that for reasons like this:

http://www.thecanary.co/2016/06/28/truth-behind-labour-coup-really-began-ma...

many of those would turn their back on Labour if the PLP succeed in their current attempted coup, especially if they replace him with someone on the Labour right. I think Leave was at least in part an anti-establishment vote and winning back those votes is going to be hard if a Blairite group are known to be manipulating the party (and the press). HOWEVER, Corbyn is talking about respecting the outcome of the referendum so for those of us who explicitly want to remain in the EU, supporting him is a big ask.

So much is still up in the air but there is a very real prospect of Labour dividing up or crumbling altogether as a party. I feel on balance that the clearest way to support Remain and a liberal agenda is to get behind Tim Farron and the Lib Dems. Well that’s how I feel this morning anyway. The worry is, as it has always been, that those supporting a broadly liberal agenda are split between different parties which is what gave the Conservatives victory in the last general election.

I’d love to hear other peoples’ thoughts.

In reply to Alyson:

I think I'm coming to the same conclusion, despite my reservations about Tim Farron.

I've thought about joining the Labour party to get Corbyn out and, I guess, voting for Benn. That's still an option.

In reply to Dave Garnett:
As one of our local MPs he seems pretty energetic as a constituency MP. As the leader of a party I hope he grows as I'm inclined to trust his motives but I agree that he is unproven. I'm giving him my support.

In reply to wercat:

Yep, I'm from Westmorland and my family all live there. As an MP he's always been great - very energetic as you say, and making every effort to represent his constituents well.

In reply to Alyson:

I am amazed that we have heard so little from the Lib Dems given that this is likely to be the only opportunity they will have to recover in decades.

If there ever was a time for a party to stand up and say we were conned, we need to stand back and think this through before it goes totally out of hand, it is now.

Labour is intent on group hari kari so good night and good bye and the Conservatives are totally focused on what is best for each of them personally. A plague on both of them.

In reply to m0unt41n:


Haha! I'm not! With monumental headline-grabbing political knifing following monumental headline-grabbing political f*ck-up I'm not surprised they aren't getting many column inches this week.

Tim Farron was quick to state an explicity pro-EU position and attended an anti-Brexit rally in London. As the dust settles and the blood is mopped from the halls of Westminster I'm hopeful we'll see more of him.

In reply to ian caton:

It's a nightmare. Personally I don't see Corbyn as any sort of nice guy, despite the angsty persona he exudes; I believe that consciously or subconsciously sabotaged the Remain campaign with his lukewarm support and comments about immigration, and has to bear significant responsibility for the mess we now find ourselves in.

So, the best I can think of at the moment is to stay in the LP until a leadership vote, then resign and give the LibDems a chance.

Not much of an option really.

In reply to Alyson:

The Labour party is to me an important voice, essential to our democracy, yet it doesn't represent me. It represents the union's. I don't have a problem with that, they pay for it. Though it does gall me somewhat, that Corbin can't lift his head up to realise that he needs to think about representing the views of 10's of millions of people, not just a few labour party activists.

I think Cameron and Osbourne are the last of the Blairites, that is at least in their view trying to reach out to the centre. Tribalism is back.

Yes the Liberals, perhaps they are my tribe, I probably will join them, £12 isn't a lot. But I can't help but feel that something bigger needs to happen to take on conservatism which I find perhaps even more abhorrent than Conservatism, at least to date.

I'd prefer to see Labour stay to the left with Corbyn, otherwise they don't have anything unique to offer.

Also considering joining the Lib Dems. An upside of the referendum is that it might spur those on the "losing" side to get out and vote.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

Yes I have been down that line of thought as well, but it just doesn't seem right.

In reply to beh:

I' m just not sure that Labour is clear about its purpose any more. I see them as having played a large part in the establishment of liberalism , through providing the basic building blocks of what we consider a normal life. But that narrow focus is now in large part done. Free health care, reasonable pay and working hours etc. I'm obviously talking relative to the time it was set up.

Unfortunately a lot of their supporters are uber conservative and it is that they now need to tackle.

The welfare state, the labour movements crowning achievement, and accepted as the status quo in western Europe is under threat. Unfortunately it was Gordon Brown who kicked it off with his division of the poor into worthy and unworthy. I guess I believe that a lot of brexiteers are un aware of the bigger narrative they are buying into.

Thus I see politics globally reverting to the old conservatism liberal rivalry. As exemplified by Putin and Trump/Cruz.

Sorry for going on, I just feel so bloody helpless in the face of it all.

In reply to Alyson:
"200,000 grassroots Labour supporters voted Jeremy Corbyn into that job,"

Guardian reporting Labour has 60,000 new members sign up this week. I wonder how many are anti Corbyn as he is clearly pro BREXIT?

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Perhaps I will join labour that would be constructive. Vote in a pro Europe leader. I hadn't realised there was any movement in that direction.

In reply to ian caton:

Maybe it's the "tory" in me, but if I was Corbyn, I would have put up the membership fee to a tenner

In reply to ian caton:


The worst thing any of us can do who feel this way is keep quiet. Don't apologise! These last few days have made me realise how much I take for granted and how much more politically active/engaged I'll need to be if I want my views to be heard.

In reply to beh:


Me too. Some concise cutting through the anti-Corbyn BS here:

http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2016/06/jeremy-corbyn-3-main-myths....

In reply to ian caton:

I think before you join Labour you need to see who is in the line up. I struggle to believe there will be an avowedly pro EU Candidate.

In reply to ian caton:

There are just as many conservatives who are mortified at the brexit vote.

The votes have in effect created two new "parties" in the country - in or out- simple as that.

Its just looking back you see it in the eyes of labour or conservative.

In reply to ian caton:

This is, to an extent, the Peter Hitchen's view. The Conservative and Labour parties represent mid 20th C interests and philosophies which are scarcely relevant in 2016. Thus both parties and split down the middle and largely dysfunctional, and vast numbers of people feel unrepresented.

In the sense of adherence to "traditional values" and national interests there is no conservative (small c) party. Both major parties are basically "liberal".
In terms of adherence to a State centred "Old Labour" economy there is no such party.

So the small c conservatives whether from an old Labour or an old Tory back ground will just vote fort the so called "extremists" or not vote at all, except in referendums.

What the Corbynites don't get is that their social liberalism (which embraces migration, amongst many other things) is at odds with the social values of the old labour working classes.

Incidentally, the whole constitution is also a hangover from the 19thC and largely dysfunctional in the 21st C.

In reply to Alyson:

Good link. But I don't know where this 63% of the Labour supporters voted for remain figure comes from. My understanding is that the out vote was strongest in the Labour heartlands.

A lot of the piece I agree with but not on Europe.

The vote was a step change in UK politics, unfortunately Corbyn seems to see it as business as usual. It is not.

In reply to neilh:

Perhaps we need a petition for a general election, to be held prior to the p50 going in.

We are to have the two main parties with new leaders, neither with a mandate from the public. I couldn't believe my ears listening to the Today programme this
morning, at least two Tory ministers saying policy was on hold pending new leadership. Manifesto irrelevant then?

In reply to Postmanpat:

I agree with a lot of your post, however I find both major parties to be essentially conservative. Not in terms of economics or state ownership, but in basic liberal values.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I think they do get that, actually. All I've spoken to do.

Tribalism becomes a rising problem when people have scarce resources, and 6 years of austerity has hit the working classes hard. If we could redress social inequality, the anti-immigration rhetoric would begin to lose its teeth.

In reply to Alyson

I would like to agree, but the anti immigration vote seems almost strongest in those parts least affected. Rural Wales for example and Cumbria.

In reply to Alyson:

I am clinging desperately to the, doubtless false, hope that 1. The tories trigger a quick election 2. the liberals make a single-platform issue that they will reverse the referendum outcome and then hold a further election

I know, I know, it's impossible. But the result was so close and so many people are now saying they "regrexit". Plus a little reality about a) EU say the four freedoms are a set - so no reduction on immigration if we want to trade b) no £350m a week for NHS (in fact we have been told to expect allocation skimming) c) pound at 35 year low so prices going up d) first jobs being lost

Part of what is upsetting me is that I'm clearly massively out of touch - more than half the prople that voted thought it was a good idea to leave, and I simply can't see a single argument for it. Mind you, the reasons they gave left a bit to be desired.

In reply to Alyson:


He has no choice really, given his stance on his leadership.

He says his leadership is based on the mandate of Labour Party voters, which cannot be overturned by the members of the PLP, even if they think they know better.

Since the referendum is the mandate of the people of the UK, he cannot suggest that members of parliament can overturn that decision, even if they think they know better.

At least not without being very inconsistent.

There is an argument that the Labour Party members' mandate might be outweighed by the much larger mandate of Labour voters, expressed through their Labour MPs...

In reply to JJL:

I think there needs to be a campaign for a general election. No party can claim a mandate now.

I have had a look on the petitions for parliament web site, unfortunateley they do not consider petitions for general electons, however I can't see how it could be completely ignored with sufficient signatories.

In reply to JJL:


Indeed; that narrow margin seems to have been predicated on a set of provable lies.

In reply to ian caton:



My first boyfriend was Cumbrian, working class. He would never have racially abused anyone but his stance was that "they should all go back to their own countries". I think part of this was a typical small-town mentality and fear of the unknown. He left school before finishing his A-levels to get a job and help support his mum and two younger brothers, so his social mobility was very low and he didn't get to mix with people from varied backgrounds. He was very pro-Tory though, as the rest of Cumbria was until Tim Farron.

Cumbria is still relatively low in non-EU immigrants but there are high levels of Eastern EU (Polish especially) workers there now in the hospitality industry. (I once heard someone from Ambleside call someone from Grasmere an "offcomer" so localism is rather rife there!)

In reply to Alyson:



As your later post reflects, the insularity of conservatism of the working class is hardly new in the past six years.
I accept that better material circumstances would go some way to alleviating it (but don't believe Corbyn's policies will do that). Corbyn's real failure is to get across to these people the very argument that you are making. I don't really buy the argument that he has no media platform. John McDonald is on the TV and radio all the time and very articulate. Corbyn just doesn't seem to have the will or ability to do that.

In reply to ian caton:

In the interests of trying to do something instead of crying about it. I have looked at this petition creation business.

I think a general election is required, it is the only way, I can see, to legitimately overturn the outcome of the referendum and to finally settle the matter one way or the other.

If a petition for a general election got enough signatories I cannot see how it could be ignored.

I would need five email addresses to support the idea. I could ask friends and family but that is a cop out. If I can't get 5 supporters off UKC the idea won't fly in any case.

The wording I propose is:

"With new leaders pending for both major parties and the country split by the referendum, no one can claim to have a mandate to govern this Country . A general election would clear the air and settle a devided nation. "

Thoughts Anybody?

Anybody up for that?

PM if so.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:


Independent has it as 13,000 (quite a difference to your figure?!) of which 60% cited supporting Corbyn as their reason for joining.

In reply to Alyson: here's the link to my number...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/30/labour-mps-divided-over-how...

In reply to ian caton:



How do you have a general election with no party leaders and therefore no policies?

In reply to Postmanpat:

Well I think that by the time a petition gets going leaders will be in place.

Re policies. To me that is the point. New leaders means new policies, but no mandate.

I can't envisage an election without either. But I would hope one party would stand on a single issue, overturning the referendum.

In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Cheers! Mine's from here

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-labour-leadersh...

In reply to Postmanpat:


Labour have a leader! Just. And so do the Lib Dems

In reply to Alyson:

Labour has Jeremy, but no leader I would say.

In reply to ian caton:

You might like this

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/corbyn-denies-rum...

Seriously though, I'm amazed he's done as much as he has with so many knives in his back. Leader of the opposition wasn't a job he wanted - he only campaigned in the hope of getting some of his policies onto the agenda. I understand his plan was to make way for a younger face from the Labour left with a couple of years to go before the next general election, but of course that timetable has been rather derailed of late.

In reply to Alyson:
Agreed. However I just don't think he is pro Europe.
Enjoyed the link, thank you.

In reply to ian caton:

Yup, that's a big sticking point for me too

In reply to Alyson:


Ah yes, I forgot about both

In reply to JJL:


I keep seeing this, but think it’s an oversimplification. I think the Scottish result was close and the final result wasn’t. Just looking at the numbers, yes it seems evenly divided, but the exit camp had far more to do than the remain camp.
Here is my thinking. When any change is proposed there will always be those who just want to stick with the status quo. As a result the remain camp had a significant advantage, they could count on those people to support their cause without question, whilst the exit camp had to gain sufficient support to overcome that block. I don’t have any actual figures but at a guess I would say somewhere between 10-25% would be a reasonable estimate.
So if we remove those supporting the status quo simply because they don’t want change, then we get a different view of the proportion who voted because they believed the arguments/lies of one side or the other.

In reply to ian caton:

.....

I thought the Conservatives already went to the people with a manifesto that included the promise to hold an in out referendum on the EU question, and were voted in.

I would like to see May stand on the UK NOT coming out of the EU and not enacting Article 50, and if she is then voted in by the Party they could then go on to call for a new election to ratify that result. She is a remainer after all ( is she not?)

In reply to Mark Edwards:

You may be right, but it is pure speculation.

You can similarly argue that if you look at the vote on a constituency basis, as per a general election the out vote won by a landslide.

To me in it is an unmitigated disaster on many levels and I wish it overturned.

In reply to Jim C:

I agree. But I think the rest of their manifesto is toast. The fiscal targets went today, were they not elected on a platform of fiscal probety?

Re: May; I agree but you are dreaming.

In reply to ian caton:




I'm not over chuffed with the result, but what do you suggest? A liberal dictatorship where the 'wrong' result in a referendum/election/court is overturned?

In reply to ian caton:
I can offer no specific solution, but I think that it is now the job of us all to carefully change the minds of others. No amount of finger-wagging will cause minds to be changed immediately; we have to be subtle, clever and, effectively, sell the idea that freedom in the true sense is a step forward. I had thought that it was the fault of the current administration that left swathes of the U.K. disenfranchised and disengaged, but in reality the buck stops with me. And you. And them. It is our responsibility to listen to views, nod, agree and then plant seeds; seeds to recognise political behaviour when we see it, seeds to stay true to improvement.

In reply to Ridge:

My Mother said it should be best of three, but I thought that was going too far.

For sure I unashamedly would like to overturn the result, and the only way I can see that happening democratically is via a general election. I also would hope that in such a case the level of debate and engagement would be greater and the result more acceptable to the loser.

As Farage said 48/52 is unfinished business.

In reply to pencilled in:

It will be a long road. I am really unsure that I can stomach living in a country led by Gove.

In reply to Jim C:

My (insanely optimistic) hope is that May keeps her counsel, making the right noises to Eurosceptic MPs and, if she becomes PM, fudges Article 50, invoking national interest or changed public opinion - which might have changed significantly by then as the job losses start mounting up. Going ahead with leaving the EU is quite clearly economic and constitutional suicide - the City would up sticks enmasse and at a stroke remove 40% of the UK's tax income - by the end of the negotiation period the nation would be effectively bankrupt. Gibraltar would be lost and the Union and the NI peace process would be looking distinctly shaky. A PM who pushed through Article 50 against Parliament (the Lords would vote 6-1 against) would not only have to do so illegally but would leave a legacy of economic ruin and undoubtedly lose the next election.

The country might be in such a state by the end of this year that that even pro-Leave MPs would be glad of a face-saving get out. The PM could pledge to slash non-EU immigration in order to appease the xenophobes.

In reply to Ridge:


When it was based on lies? Why not?

It's ignoring not over turning. It was only advisory.

Even May has said single market access is the priority. This is just going to be a very very expensive way for nothing to change.. A huge constitutional and legislative nightmare to still pay in, to still have open borders and to still have EU regulations.

Absolutely pointless

In reply to pencilled in:


But the Brexiters already have your number , you can be as 'clever' as you want, but you assume others are stupid and will not see through your evil plan

In reply to Peter Metcalfe:



And so we just have EU immigrants , that would do it!

Maybe you need to look up the meaning of xenophobia.

In reply to Peter Metcalfe:


I don't think it's going to go wrong nearly that fast. Very little is going to change by the end of the year (except the pound getting weaker and weaker, and the economy stagnating). People will only start to take notice once food prices and commodities start becoming sharply more expensive. Big firms pulling out, with huge numbers being thrown out of work, isn't going to happen for a while yet. Not until Brexit is in motion ... but, as you say, the Brexiters could start to see reason before then, and chicken out.

In reply to ian caton:

Hey Ian, I've just seen this...

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/133548

In reply to m0unt41n:



I think you will find that is exactly what Tim Farron and the Lib Dems have been saying very clearly. But the media are simply not reporting it.

http://www.libdems.org.uk/speech_following_referendum

Martin

In reply to Alyson:

That is cool, it wasn't there this afternoon.

In reply to ian caton:


420 signatures so far , only another 17 million or so (of eligible UK voters ) to give it overwhelming credibility .

In reply to Jim C:

Wrong petition; this one is calling for a general election.

jcm

In reply to ian caton:


I have thought for several days that this is a good idea,but I do feel that the Tories will hang on as long as possible without an election, as the new leader will feel that they have to be pro-exit.That leader will not dare to say that the referendum was not a decisive poll(not even a 5% difference in result), and that a good number of people who voted to go out have seemingly since changed their mind. The tories will not want to be in a general election which is mainly based on an in or out basis still.
At the same time, if the Conservatives campaigned on a basis of coming out of Europe, and the Labour party campaigned on a remain manifesto, would we want to have to vote for remain and then risk losing more economic instability if Labour topped the vote?

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:



So what would be the overwhelming number of signatories to signal that the British electorate wanted another General Election?

In reply to Alyson:

Tim Farron is my local MP and he lost all favour with me when he voted for air strikes in Syria. I wrote to him several times asking him to vote against them to prevent loss of civilian life to British military intervention and also the knock on effect of further radicalisation.

An extract from his reply: I decided to fulfil my commitment to international responsibility and humanitarian concern rather than to take the advice from friends and supporters in the hundreds of letters that I have received to vote against the Government.

In reply to ian caton:


Interestingly, the majority of Britons (two thirds) are in favour of renationalizing the railways and royal mail, 7 in 10 would like energy renationalized, and most want the government to be able to set private sector rents. Corbyn isn't out of touch with the public opinion, the rest of Westminster is. It's why they're so desperate to get rid of him.

In reply to Alyson:


While I'd love that really to be the case I do wonder what percentage would still opt for nationalisation when told how much taxes would need to rise to pay for it.

In reply to john arran:

Corporation tax and the highest rate of income tax were both eroded under new labour. I'd support increased taxation if it was done equitably. At the moment everything favours the rich.

In reply to Jim C:

17 million should do it, agreed .

In reply to veteye:

It's arguable which of your options is inherently the most unstable.

In reply to Baron Weasel:

I very much sympathise, but none of them are perfect.

In reply to Alyson:


I don't really want to get side tracked by Corbyn. For what it's worth l have a lot of time for him but John McDonnell or tom Watson are far more capable.

In reply to ian caton:

Yuck morning here.

Musing in the night, I was pondering how these huge long term binary questions can be settled in a democracy.

If there is another vote and it goes just the other way, it doesn't settle the matter. As an Israeli general once said "victory is psychological".meaning it is the accepted way of things.

The referendum way relies on one side just accepting that is the way it is.

So I can see only two ways this can be settled.

1. Gove becomes PM and realises exit is impossible. The Outs could be persuaded by him.

2. Economic collapse.

Unfortunately the first is highly unlikely and the second would be scapegoated on Europe by the ideologues.

So I don't see much hope.

In reply to Alyson:


I am not sure that is correct. The top rate of income tax was 40% throughout the early 90s, although the threshold for that top rate increased year on year. The first change to that was introduced by the outgoing labour govt (the 50% additional rate). The changes in 97 saw the middle rate drop, and then a few years later the basic rate dropped to 10% from 20%. The effect of these changes would have been widespread but would have included a lower tax burden on the poor.

As to everything favouring the rich, as far as the tax system goes that isn't correct (although the tory govt is changing some key points that benefit the rich, such as the IHT thresholds). We do have a relatively progressive tax system, and actually a lot of steps have been taken to prevent avoidance.

I should add, I agree that tax increases may be necessary / a good idea - I just think it isn't right to buy into the idea that it is the tax system that benefits richer people. It isn't - it's the capitalist system more generally.

In reply to andyfallsoff and Alyson:

I was going to reply in much the same vein but Andy has given an excellent response.

As in all things, the grass is not as green on the other side as people imagine. My tax burden, as a business owner, is 54% of income. And that's taking advantage of non controversial tax planning (dividends), otherwise it would be just shy of 60%!!

Even from that standpoint I don't think taxes are high enough to pay for the services we need but please don't imagine the economically fortunate aren't paying their way.

In reply to BnB:



And there's the rub; What kind and level of public services do we want and how are we going to pay for it?

In reply to Removed UserDeleted bagger:


By prioritising access to the single market would be an important start.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

The pound is higher against the Euro than it was 5 years ago, FTSE 100 is higher than it was 3 months ago. There will be a negative impact on the economy, (which is why I voted remain), but it's too early to judge the end result. Everyone is simply defaulting to absolute worst case scenario.

Ask a Ukipper what the effect of immigration is and he'll tell you it's all mass benefit and welfare fraud, the collapse of the NHS, Islamist terrorism and gang rapes on every street corner. The reality, (although such incidents happen), is nothing like the worst case scenario.

On here Brexit is the total collapse of the economy, famine, pestilence and half the population heading down to Hugo Boss for a nattly black outfit and matching jackboots. I have no idea what the next few years hold. It certaintly won't be as bad as the above, but will almost certainly be a rough ride. Beyond that I don't think anyone knows.

In reply to Ridge:

"It certainly won't be as bad as the above".

We will see.

In reply to Ridge:
That really depends. If we leave the single market I think it will be atrocious.

Everyone keeps saying it wont change much. How?

Say we invoke article 15 in dec. By december 2017 we are out of the EU markets..

Trade deals typically take 3-5 years, 5-10 is possible.

We have a huge trade gap looming.

To avoid that we will access the single market, accept open borders, pay in to the EU, be obligated to follow EU regs... so in that case no, it wont be that bad. Because nothing will have changed apart from the UKs status in europe, we will be an absolute joke. Literally the turkeys who voted for xmas..

In reply to ian caton: I would be very wary of forcing a general election on the back of staying in Europe. It looks a surefire way to give UKIP 17 m voters and Westminsters credibility for democracy takes a hit.

Labour will not benefit

In reply to wbo:

I am beginning to agree.

In reply to wbo:


The difference is that in a few months it won't be Remain vs Leave but Remain vs one particular variety of leave. Whichever way Theresa May goes (EEA and freedom of movement or not EEA and financial services is screwed) as soon as she is specific about what leave means there's no longer a majority for it.

What the UK needs is for Labour to appoint a pro-Europe leader from the right of the party so they can get back into government or at least force the Tories to move towards the centre if they want to stay in government. I don't see it happening in which case the UK is screwed and it is time for Scotland to leave.

In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:

Agreed, good point.

In reply to wbo:


Do you really think they are credible in the first place? Doesn’t the fact that we are where we are indicate they aren’t? i.e. lies, scare tactics and exaggerations on both sides on the lead up to the referendum.
In theory we elect politicians to represent us in Parliament, but what happens is we elect them and then they get told how to vote by their political party, which is why free votes are so unusual.
The consensus here seems to be that referendums are a bad thing and that a Representative Democracy is the best option.
I would like to see a system of Direct Democracy along the lines of the Swiss model where people can be more engaged with the day to day political decision making. Perhaps that way more people would become engaged in the political process and have more experience of weighing up the various repercussions of the decisions that are made.
The way I see it, we have a model of democracy that may have been fine in the 19th century but needs a significant overhaul to make it relevant to people in the 21st. With any luck, the shock to the political system from the referendum will start a process to a more relevant and accountable system than the one we have now.

http://direct-democracy.geschichte-schweiz.ch/

In reply to Mark Edwards:

Except one adult one vote throughout the UK only dates from 1968 or for the majority 1928 I think, so no democracy in the 19th Century to my eyes anyway.

Democracy is very recent and therefore still at the experimental stage.

I' m not sure the credibility of the politicians is a function of the system. No system is ideal, and I sometimes think the only real advantage of democracy is governments change without shots being fired.

Perhaps the biggest problem is what I think of as the Putinisation of politics, or 1984 doublespeak, when you know they mean the exact opposite of the words they use. It leads to total distrust.

I agree with you re free votes and don't fully understand it. I was struck watching a documentary on Obama how all the senators and congressmen owed their primary allegiances to their local electorates and couldn't just vote the way Obama wanted. They would hold town hall meetings to gauge the local view. I wonder if it is to do with funding. Ours from central office and locally in the states.

In reply to ian caton:

I'm signing off my thread, thanks for everyone's input, you have really helped.


Climbing tomorrow.