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

you are presuming and not waiting for factual information

Well, yes it would have been better if some policies had been thought up before the referendum.

The bottom line is that there should not have been a referendum, EU membership should have been decided in parliament, and it only got to a referendum to appease UKIP.

merrymouse I think you make a good point - very little debate was about the single market - in fact far more was made of free movement of people. But the EU (and I can see their point to degree) says you can't one without the other.

But we have a parliamentary democracy therefore it's a democracy based on using the Parliament.

What TM wants to do is to decide without the Parliament (and therefore without any discussion).
THAT is a major issue because she isn't following what is normal debate with the Parliamentary democracy we have.

Every single decision, incl to the referendum has been voted/approved by the parliament.
Why not having a debate and then vote on Brexit?

I agree that we will have little room to manoeuvre. But then her recent decisions re immigration, asking companies to listen foreigners etc etc is reducing the chance for a soft Brexit more and more. Her decisions and inflammatory comments are forcing the uk into a hard Brexit. I'm sure she knows it. She is upsetting a lot of eastern countries who will have no issue to use their veto when negociations will start.
And she is doing that wo having any support/approval from the Parliament re immigration, hard/soft Brexit etc...

The only thing that I'm hanging on is the fact that some politicians and journalists seem to finally wake up and start voicing their discontent and how undemocratic her ways are.

Also, with such a small victory it doesn't give a mandate to follow the path we are now Actually it does, because we don't have PR, a written constitution etc.

cricket peole who didn't vote Tories and ended up with a Tory government still would have the opportunity to see their MPs voicing their opposition/concerns, as it always is in a democracy.
They might not get exactely what they wanted but is tending to their PoV would be accepted and considered normal.

So it should be for Brexit too.

But if you are going to weigh the advantages of restricting movement of people against membership of a single market you need to fully understand both.

Actually, May (for all I don't support her or her government) is no more and no less democratic than previous PMs. This is how we do things, and if makes a few people wake up and take notice that alone will be a good thing.

PR?? What does it stand for in this case? Sorry might have missed that earlier on in the thread.

Doesn't because it was ADVISORY, its explicitly there in the act.

Now wouldn't this infer that if there was an overwhelming mandate for one side or the other this didn't need debating, say 10 percent or more, but with such a narrow margin that it does.

Remember that it doesn't matter what Cameron said in his manifesto as May has already abandoned pledges

Really wason, all previous PM have done whatever they wanted without any discussion in Parliament at all?

But if you are going to weigh the advantages of restricting movement of people against membership of a single market you need to fully understand both. I don't disagree - but there are nearly as many versions of "the facts" and "the truth" as there are people voting.

Remember that it doesn't matter what Cameron said in his manifesto as May has already abandoned pledges

So you could equally well argue no need for the debate. All governments do this. They carry out some manifesto pledges, not others. We elect them to govern, not follow a line by line to-do list from their manifesto.

Green yes we have good relations with Europe but also good relations and trading interdependence with China and the U.S. so we should therefore have freedom of movement between these countries and the UK to protect trade? Smallerffox. Yes we might have exemption but if/when the rest of Europe are persuaded into becoming the USE we will be in a much more difficult position as a dissenting state than we are now! Even without this the fundamental "freedoms" entrenched in EU law are used by the ECJ to remit creep into the sovereignty of the member states

Ah but the "it was in the manifesto" point is dragged out here so often I thought I'd preempt it.

We elect them to govern but do so on the basis that they govern by what is best for all the people in it. Taking this approach as they are now disenfranchises not only remainers, but soft leavers etc.

Also they govern through parliament not through edict.

but there are nearly as many versions of "the facts" and "the truth" as there are people voting.

It's just that some of those facts are more accurate than others.

Really wason, all previous PM have done whatever they wanted without any discussion in Parliament at all? Now you're just entering the realms of hyperbole. Very few governments in power have called a debate on a subject where they might lose. If you're saying we give them too much authority, I'd tend to agree, but this isn't that odd.

Green yes we have good relations with Europe but also good relations and trading interdependence with China and the U.S. so we should therefore have freedom of movement between these countries and the UK to protect trade

Who knows with Liam Fox and David Davis in charge? It might come to that!

It's just that some of those facts are more accurate than others.

Well that depends upon your opinion for the most part - there are very few immutable facts.

PR?? What does it stand for in this case? Sorry might have missed that earlier on in the thread.
Proportional Representation - when we had the electoral reform referendum that was part of the Coalition deal.

If we had voted for PR in the electoral reform referendum, we'd probably never have had the EU referendum.

The referendum was on AV not PR as far as I remember.

Well that depends upon your opinion for the most part - there are very few immutable facts.

No. We may live in a post fact world where television channels promote false equivalence in the name of balance and lively argument, but we are not about to get conscripted into an EU army, Turkey is not about to join the EU and we never sent £350 million a year to the EU. These weren't side issues, but pretty much the entire leave leaflet that came through my door a week before the vote.

There are certainly a lot of things that we just don't know, but all opinions aren't equal.

And there might have been a really strong well researched economic argument for leaving the EU with policies and research and evidence. However, if it existed presumably it was thought too boring for a public referendum.

That is why we shouldn't have had a referendum. However, again the point of the referendum was not to have a discussion on Europe, it was to mitigate the UKIP threat. Cameron thought he would win.

However now we have lost, the conservatives have decided they do actually need to adopt UKIP policies and here we are.

The referendum was on AV not PR as far as I remember.

AV is one of many versions of PR, if we're splitting hairs.

BTW from the referendum bill its self:

"Does not contain any requirement for the UK Government to implement the results of the referendum, nor set a time limit by which a vote to leave the EU should be implemented. "

Pretty self explanatory really.