To not have moved on from the referendum result?

[Niamer]

Hi. I am a remoaner. I have bored myself with talking about it online and with a couple of likeminded friends.
I was have never been political, was pretty disengaged before the referendum but a 100% gut-feeling kind of a remainer and really expected the vote to go our way.

Felt devastated at the result; I am a believer in working closely with our neighbours, have lived in other Eu countries, have friends here from other EU countries who feel unwelcome etc etc. AND all the attachment to Europe stuff aside, it just seemed a far safer economic option to stay put. Why go for a bumpy ride when you don't even like where you're going? Also felt really cheated when people's reasons for leaving became clear.
I am amazed that some Remainers have just gone quiet and got weary of it all. As far as Leave voters, there has been plenty of "suck it up" comments and total quiet from others. It hasn't been long but time is not healing for me. In fact the Tory conference seemed to take the grimness up a notch. Still so upset and wanting to protest (and have done in every way that I can think of)

I am currently in groups with staunch Remainers like myself, so I know how they are feeling. Outside of that, it isn't an easy topic to discuss. Remainers, Leavers, non-voters, please could you tell me where you're at? TIA

I wonder just how long it will be before they tell the UK to take a running jump. Or who will do so first. What is there to stop the French from rounding up all the children in the camp in Calais who have family in the UK and banging them on a train to the UK, and saying right - you deal with it at your end.
Presumably nothing - just as there would be nothing stopping us from sending said train straight back.

France is just as guilty as we are in not dealing with the issues -arguably more so.

Rather than offer these people proper official help they are burying the issue, like they did with Bovine Spongiform Encapalopathy.

There are some things they (the French) don't want to deal with - ideally the French would love to send all the people in Calais to us, but they can't in the terms of international agreements so they allow the camps to exist and hope everyone makes it to the UK illegally so they don't have to deal with the issue. If the people in Calais weren't so obviously waiting for a chance to get the UK, they would have been detained by the French Border force.

Nick Donovan ‏@nickpdonovan
If this Brexit deal we're going to get from Davis is so amazing, why would you worry about Parliamentary approval?

All that needs to be said.

That's a great oversimplification. Most MPs were against leaving - presumably a significant number would just vote against any Brexit "deal" that wasn't so close to remaining as to make leaving pointless.

Since we can't have a deal that is like remaining and still leave - or there would be no point, the risk is that brexit would be delayed or thwarted - which is exactly the outcome some MPs - notably Lib dems are actively in favour of - but that would create a row about the referendum result.

Given that we had the referendum, which was a manifesto policy, the government has a mandate to implement the result.

I didn't vote for the Tories (or UKIP before anyone starts).

Given that the outcome of the referendum was advisory, it needs to be debated in parliament. It was also by no meas overwhelming.

The only reason why leavers are claiming this needs to be a be all and end all result is because even with the massive fibs they told, the support of 20 years worth of negative media reports (which were ramped up in the last 6 months) and a massive turnout they still only managed to win by 3%. Even then they couldn't garner the support of Northern Ireland, Scotland or London. They'd be unikely to win another vote.

So this one has to be the be all and end all.

Rather like dictators used to use referendums.

Funny that seeing as it was all about democracy and sovereignty and we're getting neither.

Dismissing people's genuine fears is not helpful. But neither is validating fears that are based on perception and propaganda rather than fact.

If your child was scared of the bogeyman they believe lives in the cupboard, would you move house based on their fear? Or would you try to get them to understand that the bogeyman doesn't exist?

Often - not always, of course, but often, the hordes of immigrants simultaneously taking our low paid jobs and claiming our benefits has been a bogeyman rather than a reality.

Oops, there was a whole other page after the post I was responding to!

It's a good point.

wason if said MP were to try and direct Brexit toward a soft Brexit, who is sayting that it would not be reflecting the wish of the people who voted?
People didnt say when voted the be OUT whether the wanted a hard or a soft Brexit.
People who voted Leave did so for numerous reasons but it has never been said that it HAD to be a hard Brexit because that's what was in the question. It wasn't.

Besides, MPs are the only people who have been voted by the public directly. They are the ones who represent the population the best and they are also usually quite good at listening to their constituenecy. So why not involving them?

Otherwise it's one person, TM, who has NOT been elected at all (If the MPs are said the not represent what people ant the the PM is even less so) who will decide.
Who is telling me, you, us that she is doiung what people want? Bar the fact that other politicians have been going on about hard Brexit and immigration, I havent heard anything that is tellking me/you/us what people want. Not even a small opinion poll.

Its IMO strange and very sad when this is one of the ost important thing for the country to be decided in a very very long time.

Btw, can you tell me WHERE in the referendum question, was the manifesto?

I just wish Corbin would go, Labour would sort themselves out, a GW would be held and we'd start over with a libdem / labour coalition.

Given that the outcome of the referendum was advisory, it needs to be debated in parliament.

No it doesn't. The time to set this out was before the referendum. Cameron was so sure he'd win he actually promised to trigger article 50 immediately if we voted to leave - so he obviously didn't think it needed any further debate.

All of this is because the "wrong" side won - and the losers want us to vote/debate until they get the answer they wanted. It's understandable given the strength of feeling and the divisive nature of the issue, but it is unwise.

Wason, Farrage said that there would be unfinished business if there was a small majority vote to remain.

The leave side have spent 41 years demanding another referendum but you've won one and now the other side have to shut up and get on with it?

The vote was advisory, it doesn't matter what Cameron said, its right there in the act that brought the vote into being. So it does need debating in Parliament.

wason lease can you tell me what people have been voting for? What was in the manifesto that we should all be following?

I haven't seen ANY manifesto in the question. People who voted Leave have done so for many reasons. So is it not allowed for people who voted Leave at least to discuss WHAT they want from Brexit and HOW it's going to be managed? (And seen that many many politicians have changed sides after the vote, saying that most MPs are Reaminers is a bit of an assumption anyway)

It sounds like you are scared of the debate. Why if you know you have the 'majority' of the population behind you?

ScaredFuture99 We live in a representative democracy which means the party in government gets to do pretty much what it wants as long as it has a parliamentary majority.

Cameron and his mob should have considered that before calling the referendum.

As for a "manifesto" and "details" as you say, there are a thousand reasons why people voted leave - to try to have a manifesto for each one would have been crazy - also the idea we could have (or can) vote for hard or soft brexit is daft - and if you think lies were told (and they were by everyone) then how would that have made any difference?

The choice over hard or soft brexit is largely in the hands of the EU in any case.

I disagreed with 99% of the policies enacted by 18 years of Tory government - then New Labour carried most of those policies forward. I have had a lifetime of governments that I didn't vote for doing things I didn't want - but that's how our system works.

I voted in favour of PR in that referendum, but most people didn't.

Remainers lost the vote and we'll all have to let the elected government govern.

It sounds like you are scared of the debate. Why if you know you have the 'majority' of the population behind you?

I'm not personally scared of debating the issues - but that's different from how our old and creaky democracy works. Reform is overdue, but that's not what were offered a vote on this time.

Regardless of whether you are a leave voter or a remainer it sets an incredibly dangerous precedent to have something as big as leaving not only the EU but the single market based on such a slim majority and by invoking royal prerogative.

Apparently many leavers voted to leave because they wanted to retain sovereignty - anyone who doesn't now fight this is a hypocrite.

OP I am a remoaner too and have not stopped being upset, angry, annoyed, sad at the result.

Wason, Farrage said that there would be unfinished business if there was a small majority vote to remain.

I don't care what Farage said, I don't support him and have never voted for him.

I didn't say remainers have to shut up.

My contributions to this thread have been from the perspective that I voted leave and I haven't "moved on" either because I've been subjected to so much abuse and ridicule for exercising my legitimate democratic right to vote in a referendum.

I didn't vote for this government and I don't support them but I lost that vote, just as remainers lost theirs.

The act which brought the vote into being said it is advisory, it doesn't matter what Cameron said or pledged in the manifesto because other manifesto pledges have been abandoned by May, they aren't binding as they are pretending with this one.

It wasn't an overwhelming mandate and for that reason it needs debating in parliament, otherwise driving it through is undemocratic and takes power away from our sovereign parliament and gives it to the executive, exactly the things complained about in the debate in the run up.

Hypocritical to the max.

The time to set this out was before the referendum.

The fact that it was stupid not to think about this before doesn't make it less stupid not to think about it now.

leaving the EU has been taken to mean, for instance, both that we will stop Chinese imports and that we will do more trade with China; both that we can be a tax haven and that we will no longer pander to the 'rootless elite'.

Apparently it now also means that we can both have more democracy and let Theresa May (not elected by the country) interpret the vote as she wishes and ignore the manifesto that got the Tories elected 18 months ago.

Given that the remain platform included both George Osborne and, apparently, Jeremy Corbyn, to say nothing of Amber Rudd, there is no 'what remainers want' either.

In this country we do democracy in parliament via our elected MPs. It's time we got back to that.

Regardless of whether you are a leave voter or a remainer it sets an incredibly dangerous precedent to have something as big as leaving not only the EU but the single market based on such a slim majority and by invoking royal prerogative.

I disagree - we are a representative democracy with a constitutional monarchy. It's old fashioned and it needs reform, but that can't be done overnight. The elected government held a referendum (agreed it was advisory). They have a mandate (in our current system) to make that happen.

In any case, the EU may not offer any alternative to "hard" brexit.

The referendum was not in leaving the single market.

haven't RTFT but; would you be compassionate to those of us who did not vote conservative to still feel gutted at having a Tory government? The vote happened, it didn't go your way but like everything else in life, you look at ways forward rather than looking back.

There is no certainty over this as no country has ever left before so no one knows the full extent of what will happen whether good or bad, how long for stability to take place etc. As for those of you who are presuming that you will be 'kicked out of the country' as you don't hold a UK passport - again, you are presuming and not waiting for factual information and you treat leavers in contempt....

And although you would have thought that membership of the single market would be central to the concept of being in the EU, very little of the debate was actually about the single market.

Hypocritical to the max I am happy to debate the constitutional issues - and if I said I'd never done or said anything hypocritical in my life I'd be a filthy liar - and unless you're prepared to accept that and drop the mudslinging, I'm not going to bother.

I didn't say you were hypocritical I said it was hypocritical to run a campaign with the sovereignty and democracy of the country used as one of the leading reasons for following a course of action, and then to deny both of these things following a victory.

Also, with such a small victory it doesn't give a mandate to follow the path we are now, it must be debated.